The Gospel of Unbelief

LOki said:
I rejected the definition your theory rested on because it was logically invalid--you could have abandoned that definition, or adjusted it so that it was not logically invalid.

Adjusted it? Abandoned it? Wouldn't that be cheating? I was attempting to argue within the box or the given parameters. Guess they were too narrow to make the logical connection. In any case, I already gave plenty of other reasons why Secularism can be considered a religion.

Anyways, nice argument, as far as it went. You're a handful. :thup:
 
ScreamingEagle said:
Adjusted it? Abandoned it? Wouldn't that be cheating?
Of course not. When the definition of a term is in violation of the rules of logic so that it becomes meaningless, it is certainly appropriate to abandon that definition, or adjust it so that in usage it no longer is subject to the logical fallacy that impairs it's meaningfulness.
ScreamingEagle said:
I was attempting to argue within the box or the given parameters.
I think its apparent that you were attempting to argue outside the parameters of rational logic.
ScreamingEagle said:
In any case, I already gave plenty of other reasons why Secularism can be considered a religion.
Yes, all based upon a logically fatal premise..
ScreamingEagle said:
Anyways, nice argument, as far as it went. You're a handful. :thup:
Yes, and yes--I see no reason why I should be anything less! :D
 
LOki said:
Of course not. When the definition of a term is in violation of the rules of logic so that it becomes meaningless, it is certainly appropriate to abandon that definition, or adjust it so that in usage it no longer is subject to the logical fallacy that impairs it's meaningfulness.
I already approached that idea when I joked Webster was the new "god".

LOki said:
I think its apparent that you were attempting to argue outside the parameters of rational logic.
Yes, I was kicking around all kinds of ideas related to the subject in my frustration, but you would not accept them within the parameters of the logic argument at hand.

LOki said:
Yes, all based upon a logically fatal premise..
Only if we stick to the given parameters.

LOki said:
Yes, and yes--I see no reason why I should be anything less! :D
I especially like the way you chop a statement into a dozen tiring arguments---very effective.
 

Forum List

Back
Top