Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Free Thought and Hugo

[I have moved this conversation here because this is getting rather long at the original comment page, which is HERE]

With Hugo around, teleological inevitability seems to take over: I can’t resist responding. It’s because the things Hugo says are voiced in the calm assurance of their universal truth yet are based in demonstrably anti-rational principles.

Hugo says,
” In my opinion, you cannot be both a God believer and a free thinking who think independently. You have to concede that God either does not care or cannot listen to your thoughts to be a free thinker.”
He proclaims this to be an opinion, but contrary to earlier proclamations of openness, it is perfectly predictable that this will not change for Hugo despite any input. Regardless, here is some input:

The discipline of logic (hence rational thought and empirical science) was consolidated and preserved by legions of theists. One must be historically ignorant not to know that. There is no known logical deduction which violates any theist proposition (if there were, Atheists, including Dawkins, would use it daily). Yet every Atheist pretends that every theist proposition has already been invalidated, purely on the basis of the caricature of theism being presupposed a priori false, a presupposition which Hugo has accepted as valid. Thus the common Atheist position of not requiring a rebuttal from themselves to support their reasons for rejecting theist arguments: blind rejection is sufficient.

Free Thinking is an absurdity for the following reason: free thinking works outside of the discipline and parameters of logical boundaries. If it did not, it would not be “free”, it would be subservient and beholden to outside principles – an abomination to free thinking. Thus “free thinkers” who believe their own conclusions based on stacks of ungrounded and false premises are actually both self-elevating beyond the tethers of logic and subjectively subservient to their own self-revelations of ungrounded (and thus false) “truths”.

Theism is not bound by a fear of thought as Hugo would have it; it is rather tethered to a discipline: logic as the path to rationality and the only valid path to comprehending the universe and our place in it. Science is a subset of that mindset, and is valid only for the restricted intellectual spaces of physical, deterministic processes which submit to empirical analysis. That science is limited is not accepted by free thinkers whose axioms do not include valid definitions of determinism (the boundaries of determinism are vastly plastic or rigidly held depending on application, or otherwise free thinkers would not be free).

The human mind is both non-deterministic and an agent. The agency inherent in the human mind must be rejected irrationally (using personal agency to reject the concept of agency) if the free thinking non-theist is to maintain determinism - Scientism – physicalism as the correct path to understanding absolutely everything. After all, if a mental activity is predetermined under determinism, then it cannot be a “free thought”, can it?

Thus the free thinker constrains himself to the most false aspect of thought: accepting the non-coherence of the Scientism – physicalism ideology over the acceptance of the validity of disciplined logic as a constraint on rational thought. The two, Scientism and logic, are totally incompatible. So the rejection of logic in favor of Scientism - physicalism cannot be a product of logic. It is purely an emotional decision.

Because Scientism – physicalism and Atheism all support the individual’s self-image of personal control over intellect (as opposed to the control of logic over a submissive intellect), the overwhelming trend of those types of individuals is toward the self-image of personal superiority. After all, if a person thinks up “truths” which reject the concepts of those others who are intellectually subservient to logic, then the totally open “truth thinker” is superior to the subservient individual, right?

Again, it is an emotional, personally elevating conclusion, borne of the rejection of subservience to any rational control including disciplined logic. And it is emotionally serviced with out-of-hand rejection of theist positions, but with no counter argument or refutation even being necessary.

For Hugo and free thought, one cannot think clearly if one is subservient; one must reject subservience and be free of the hindrances that constrain thought to specific processes.

Hugo says,
” Determinism is complicated because we don't have all the answers to how we can be thinking human beings based on solely natural processes. Adding a God to the equation does not explain anything however... It does not say how God would have built us to be like that, it does not explain how a non-natural soul would work in synch with the natural body without leaving any trace.”
Here Hugo demonstrates his own subservience to determinism, to Scientism – physicalism. Determinism is complicated? No. Determinism is merely this: every physical effect has a physical cause which can be measured using other physical techniques. It’s not complicated. The complication comes from the actions of humans which are outside of the boundaries of determinism, yet must crammed forcefully into those boundaries due to free thinking. That's where adopting plastic boundaries to the definition of determinism become necessary: purely to defend determinism as still being valid where it clearly is not.

The assertion of a non-physical agent being involved does not involve requiring those explanations which Hugo demands of it. Atheists love to use the analogy of accepting gravity despite the undefined source for gravity to explain their inability to provide any evidence for evolution. Or first life. Or huge semantic information load in first DNA. But they demand all these non-essential “explanatory” issues regarding lack of any obvious material evidence for an outside agent. This sort of Special Pleading to conceal Category Errors permeates free thinking. But it is not an issue to the free thinker, who is not subservient to the rules of logic and rational thinking: they operate in a space where Special Pleading and Category Error are without consequence. Thus that operating space is anti-rational and anti-intellectual.

Hugo says,
”I believe there is always a morally acceptable choice in all situations, just like there is always something true and objective, but we, humans, need to work together to figure out what it is. No one has special access to what's true or moral.”
the assertion that there “is always something true and objective”, yet no one knows what it is, is absurd on the face of it. To combine that with the assertion of no one having “access to what's true or moral”, special or common, contradicts the first assertion, a spectacular non-coherence. What Hugo appears to want us to believe by making these assertions is that all humans need to get together to come up with a human-derivation for morality. The consequence is obvious: that set of moral principles would be relative to the opinions of those most powerful and able to influence the outcome. This produces the following: (a) relative principles, (b) advantageous to the powerful (read some Nietzsche, Hugo), (c) declared to be “true and objective”. So this obviously is a validation of the Leftward flow of Atheist mentalities (see also amygdala differences in Leftists).

Further, the use of the term, “no one”, is a dead give-away that the reference is to a belief that is being projected as a truth. Can Hugo prove his assertion about what applies to absolutely no individual in the history of the universe? This statement is based on the rejectionism which is inherent in free thought, a rejectionism based in the practice of radical skepticism and the premise of personal dominance of all thought regarding all existence.

Hugo says,
” What I was trying to tell Stan is that we are all people who hold values, who have core principles we are fighting for. This has nothing to do with emotions. And you are correct, it has nothing to do with metaphysical naturalism because it does NOT dicatate anything. Again, you clearly did not know that but to me it's a consequence of my worldview; not a source nor a base.”
Of course Hugo holds values; he creates his own. That's necessary for those who live in a world where all other morality is rejected. No one that Hugo knows is privy to universal moral values. So it is necessary to create one's own. His values clearly are of the nature of determinism, physicalism, and Scientism, and he cannot separate the cause from the effect, because they are interdependent in a circular fashion. Physical universe > determinism > Atheism > physical universe. In a circular argument, which is premise and which is conclusion? It's a slippery, slidey worldview, which is convenient to unconstrained free thought. Free Thought always results in free creation of values, for those who actually want values.

Time constraints: I must stop here.

35 comments:

Russell said...

The Hugos of the world remind me of Lewis' men without chests.

And the Free Though crowd always end up with 'You can think anything you want, as long as you agree with my thoughts.'

Phoenix said...

the assertion that there “is always something true and objective”, yet no one knows what it is, is absurd on the face of it. To combine that with the assertion of no one having “access to what's true or moral”, special or common, contradicts the first assertion, a spectacular non-coherence.

I missed that contradiction.On the one hand Atheists will resort to ignorance because they believe it's the best stance in the face of no evidence.On the other hand they are make claims of certitude in the face of no evidence.It seems the former approach is a desperate move when pressed for answers.

Hugo said...

Hi Stan,

You said: "I can’t resist responding. " and I have the same feeling, but for different reasons. As I said, I don't want to get sucked into pointless internet conversation where we just talk passed each other, but you did call the thread a "conversation" so I am wondering if you actually care about a "conversation" or you just merely want to point out what you "think" I am thinking about? Because the biggest problem is this: you have no freaking clue what, how, why I think what I am thinking. You infer way more than you should from what I write and quite often simply flat out lie about my thoughts and beliefs.

Again, since you claim that you "analyze" atheism, why do you do this? You say that "the things Hugo says are voiced in the calm assurance of their universal truth yet are based in demonstrably anti-rational principles" yet you don't address what I actually say, or what I actually mean, at all. If you don't care, you have been running a blog for years without any good rationale behind it; since you don't really care to analyze Atheism, or Atheists, you analyze what you 'think' Atheists think about. In other words, I need to ask the question again: what is your goal exactly? You certainly do not address what Atheists actually think; perhaps some random examples here and there yes, and I would agree with you, but how can you write a post with my name 18 times in it without caring for 1 second about what I actually think.

For instance, I wrote 5 very clear statements on the other thread, and none were addressed. And I predicted that by writing my response in advance, since I know you, I know your style and what you choose to ignore. Remember: you are the one with the public blog, with years of writings available. It's much easier for people from the outside to know how you think, what you believe and why. So even if you call it a "conversation", that's not what I see. All I see is you expressing your opinions and misconceptions about what you think my opinions are. The examples I listed were:
1) You think I would like you to change.
2) You think I am contradicting myself regarding the vaccines issue.
3) You think I would like to guide your life, tell you how to live.
4) You did not get my point regarding Christianity.
5) You thought I wanted to hide the comments.

None of them were addressed, not even the 5th one which was completely benign. If there is a better demonstration of how unwilling you are to interact with an Atheist like me, I don't know what is. Yet, you call this a "conversation" and use my name multiple times in the thread, as if you were actually addressing what I am saying; but you are not.

Hugo said...

And I can add a few more to this list based on the current thread. Perhaps these will be more interesting for you to clarify. However, I will not go in much detail this time, since clearly this is a waste of time, unless you specifically mention that you are interested...
6) You did not understand what I meant by "Free Thinking".
7) You think I think that Theism is bound by a fear of thought.
8) You think I presupposed a priori Theism to be false.
9) You did not understand what I meant by "Determinism is complicated".
10) You don't understand my views on objectivity vs subjectivity.


You made it clear that you don't write 'for' Atheists, nor that Atheists should appreciate your blog. I get that, and as I already mentioned, I will not really continue reading this further. However, I do care about you mentioning my name and my ideas and then misrepresenting them. I also think that it's good practice to try to reach out to people we disagree with to understand each other better, even if we don't end up changing our minds about anything. If you disagree with that, so be it, but at least be honest and clearly state: 'I, Stan, do not care what you, Hugo, actually think about. I prefer to address what I think you are thinking about. I prefer to make up my own mind because I do understand you, even if you say I don't. I know Atheists like you, I understand them, I know how they think. In other words, I don't need to ask you what you think; I know what you think. There is thus no point asking you to clarify anything you write; my interpretation is always correct, even for the 10 specific examples you gave.' Please re-word this to suit your own needs of course... but I hope the principle is clear. Either you have a conversation with me, or you address what you think I am thinking about without any conversation. It's up to you...

Finally, to be clear, if you really are interested in having an actual conversation, I will keep my comments shorter, as if it was a conversation. I would be extremely surprised if that is the case, but please, do surprise me if you want to. Show me that you are able to do more than just label me as irrational, illogical, non-coherent, etc... In other words, either you choose to have a conversation, or not. If you do choose conversation, I will be forced to admit I was wrong; you are better than I thought in addressing my claims. If you choose to not address my actual points and discuss, you will prove me right even if, ironically, you would use this as an occasion to express your superiority once more.

Cheers

Stan said...

Hugo,
The first five complaints you have are these:
1) You think I would like you to change.
You specifically said that I should change the blog. That I should be more accommodating to poor Atheists who might be offended. I read that to be “change”. It would require me to change what I care about. You have no valid complaint: it’s what you said.

2) You think I am contradicting myself regarding the vaccines issue.
You most certainly did. You cannot approve of both government dictation and personal choice without contradiction.

So now we get into relativism:
” But we have conflicting values all the time in life!”

And…
” Don't you sacrifice the right to choose in favor of the greater good by opposing some people to make certain choices?”

This sentence can be read two ways: “sacrifice the right to choose, vs. favoring the greater good” – or “sacrifice the right to choose the favoring of the greater good”. Either way, I don’t see the relationship to the second half – “opposing some people…..”

It is probably referring to social contracts: drive on only one side of the road; don’t yell fire in a theater, etc.

Social contracts are not the same as conflicting values. Social contracts usually imply restraint from directly harming others; holding reasonable social contracts is a value. However, forcing vaccinations is not restraint from action, it is the demand for a positive action directed at the person’s body or the body of his child, when that action has demonstrable ability for harm, especially with recent revelations regarding the malfeasance of vaccine manufacturers and the government agencies which gather data and produce propaganda. In fact, the detriment from vaccines is proven, and is highest in young black males, so promotion of vaccines as harmless is racist.

This in no manner changes the observation that the two positions you took are mutually contradictory. You have no valid complaint.

3) You think I would like to guide your life, tell you how to live.
This is the same as number 1. And the same as number 2. You say,
” I am thus perfectly justified in wanting to interfere with yours, indirectly by support mandatory vaccination.”

In a free society I am perfectly justified in not allowing you to dictate that to me as a justified principle, nor allowing you to interfere in my life to comply with your standards for my body or the bodies of my children.

On the other hand, I can see some value to my personal safety and the safety of society as a whole by requiring all Atheists and Agnostics to become practicing, believing Catholics, since Catholics have killed far, far, fewer people in their nearly 2,000 years of existence than Atheists did in the past 100 years. I am not a Catholic, but it would benefit the safety of society if all Atheists were forced to become Catholic.

How do you feel about that?
Your complaint is false; your interference is documented.

Stan said...

4) You did not get my point regarding Christianity
”…you are putting your fight against the evil forces of the Atheo-Left in ahead of your love of God. Christianity is second, if not further, on your list of priorities and things to spend time on.”

Re-read that and then go back to 1 and 2 and 3. Good grief.

You as an Atheist are deciding whether I meet the standards of Christianity as you deem necessary in order to meet what you think are necessary for a Good Christian… Really? No Christian has the right to make that judgment, but you, as an Atheist, have that right?

My life is not up to you to judge. You have no idea where I spend my time. You have no idea whether this blog is of value to a deity. And what you find odd is of no concern to me or any deity that I might or might not observe. So your accusation of hypocrisy is non-valid and you have no valid complaint. (Other than you want me to shut up and are trying to guilt me into it, a very cheesy and ineffective move).

5) You thought I wanted to hide the comments

If you’re not sure, then why is this a complaint with a number and everything?

Stan said...

Moving on:
If you don’t like the analysis of the logic of your thought process as presented by your own words, then you have a choice: either accept that there are errors and correct them, or do not. But you take a third route: always blame others for misrepresenting what you say, and/or not understanding your actual thoughts. You do not accept responsibility for your actual, written words.

So it is not a conversation you seem to want, it is an exercise in avoiding the consequences of what you actually write by blaming others, over and over.

Let’s take your complaint #6.
The term “free thinking” has a standard denotation. It refers to a specific category of people who call themselves Free Thinkers, and who form into Free Thinker Societies. You used the term twice. The usage appeared to fall completely into the genre of thought processing that the Free Thinkers use. Free thought is untethered thought; if it were tethered to any principles, it would not be free. If that is not what you mean, then how is anyone to know any different?

Let’s take your complaint number 7.
You specifically said,
“Therefore, you can at best be as independent of a thinker as I am, if you ignore the fact that your God is listening and think about whatever you want, or, you are not as independent, since you need to be careful about what you think, in case God disapproves. In my opinion, you cannot be both a God believer and a free thinking who think independently. You have to concede that God either does not care or cannot listen to your thoughts to be a free thinker.”

What else could you possibly mean, other than “fear of God” restricting a theist’s freedom to think??? And the absurdity I pointed out in that position still holds.

Let’s take your complaint number 8.
You said,
” Adding a God to the equation does not explain anything however...”

How can you not admit that your above statement does not presuppose “no God” (Atheism)????
This complaint is false.

Let’s take your complaint number 9.
You claimed,
” Determinism is complicated because we don't have all the answers to how we can be thinking human beings based on solely natural processes.”

I specifically provided the actual principle of determinism, and demonstrated that it is, in fact, simple. Further, your “complication” comes not from determinism, but from trying to jam a non-deterministic feature into determinism, for the purposes of Atheist Materialism. That attempt is a logic Category Error. Now. If that is not what you meant, then why did you say it????

This complaint is false.

Let’s take your complaint number 10.
If your views on objectivity and subjectivity are different from standard definitions of those terms, then either define them when you use them differently, or expect to be understood under the standard definitions. It’s not up to me to “understand” your views when they are based on the redefinitions outside of standard terminology. It’s up to you to fully define your deviations from the standards. Further, why change definitions at all? Why not just use the correct words to say what you mean?

This complaint is without merit.

Stan said...

I hardly “misrepresented” your writings – I quoted them. If your written words misrepresent your thoughts, that is hardly anyone’s issue but your own.

You said,
” Either you have a conversation with me, or you address what you think I am thinking about without any conversation. It's up to you...”

You keep saying you are leaving and not reading any more. So I analyze your (final?) written words, then you come back and say that those words are not representative of your actual thoughts and it is unfair for you to be held to your words.

Do you see no absurdity in your position? None?

” Show me that you are able to do more than just label me as irrational, illogical, non-coherent, etc...”

Perhaps you missed this: the entire purpose of this blog is to analyze the stated positions of Atheists, agnostics, and their offshoots into Leftist political hegemony, based on their written words and occasionally on their oral speech from videos. When an Atheist, agnostic, AtheoLeftist makes a statement, I apply the rules of logic and rational Aristotelian deduction to those statements. If you don’t want that for your own words and written positions, then you should not continue here. If you choose to continue here, then you must expect that your positions will be treated to the same analysis as all others get.

If you wish to have a “conversation” in which you will not be held responsible for your written positions, then you should not stick around. Especially if you insist on redefining your words without warning.

I assume full responsibilities for my written words. Why is it that you think that you should not be responsible for yours? That attitude is the logic error of Special Pleading.

Finally you make this amazing statement:
” If you do choose conversation, I will be forced to admit I was wrong; you are better than I thought in addressing my claims. If you choose to not address my actual points and discuss, you will prove me right even if, ironically, you would use this as an occasion to express your superiority once more.”

Stan said...

Your claims have been addressed; you don’t like the conclusions drawn from your words. So you want to correct that with charges that your words don’t mean what they appear to say, and you want me to acknowledge a different meaning that you give them second time around. You do that rather than acknowledge your own logical fallacies. That is not a conversation.

And here is what is superior in my world: intellectual submission to the principles of logic and rational deductive processes. If that offends you, then you have placed yourself outside of known rational processes for thinking. And that is your choice. It has nothing to do with me. All I do here is the analysis. (Analysis is part of the title of the blog – it’s what happens here).

Hugo (count that use of your name, too), you have an identifying Unified Theory Of Conversation With Hugo; It is this: You make statements using words and phrases that you later claim mean something other than the obvious meanings in the original context of your original claim. Things like “free thinking”, “you should”, “determinism”, “complicated”, “in case God disapproves”, “your blog sux” (OK that is a paraphrase from your complaint # 4, where you want to have this blog run your way), “freedom to choose = government diktat = no contradiction (also paraphrased). All of those words, phrases, concepts now are claimed to not mean what the words say they mean using standard and common definitions.

The point is that you charge everyone here with the same offense against you: you people misinterpret or lie about my position/writings/thoughts. And yet you still maintain that defense when your very words are quoted back to you, verbatim. So you write one thing and later either deny it, or change it as you go, or didn’t mean it in the first place.

On that basis, a conversation with you is impossible because no one can take your words or phrases to have fixed meanings which are known and understood by literate English speakers.

Hugo said...

Hi Stan,

I guess I have to admit that you were better at addressing my actual words than I expected, this time. Kudos to you! As promised though, I would like to try to keep this focused on fewer points, and come back to the others later on, if we get to it. So first, I selected a few quotes regarding logic and rational deductions:

" If you don’t like the analysis of the logic of your thought process as presented by your own words, then you have a choice: either accept that there are errors and correct them, or do not.
...
It’s not up to me to “understand” your views when they are based on the redefinitions outside of standard terminology. It’s up to you to fully define your deviations from the standards.
...
I apply the rules of logic and rational Aristotelian deduction to those statements. If you don’t want that for your own words and written positions, then you should not continue here. If you choose to continue here, then you must expect that your positions will be treated to the same analysis as all others get.
...
And here is what is superior in my world: intellectual submission to the principles of logic and rational deductive processes. If that offends you, then you have placed yourself outside of known rational processes for thinking.
...
You make statements using words and phrases that you later claim mean something other than the obvious meanings in the original context of your original claim. [...] All of those words, phrases, concepts now are claimed to not mean what the words say they mean using standard and common definitions.

On that basis, a conversation with you is impossible because no one can take your words or phrases to have fixed meanings which are known and understood by literate English speakers.
"

All of that put together shows what I mentioned before: instead of trying to understand where we simply "disagree", you claim that I am illogical, irrational and incapable of seeing any error. But why would I bother discussing with you if it was not to learn something, correct some of views which may be incorrect, and do that using logic and reason? And what's really confusing when you reply back to me like this is that it never ever happens in my everyday life, even if the same topics come up, though rarely. In person, I have actually been only accused of the opposite: to be too rational and not caring enough about the emotional nature of some decisions.

Therefore, I would like to address point #6 and #7 together:
"The term “free thinking” has a standard denotation. It refers to a specific category of people who call themselves Free Thinkers, and who form into Free Thinker Societies. You used the term twice. The usage appeared to fall completely into the genre of thought processing that the Free Thinkers use. Free thought is untethered thought; if it were tethered to any principles, it would not be free. If that is not what you mean, then how is anyone to know any different?"

I think your definition is wrong. Looking at Wikipedia and the dictionary sources it states, I would agree with the following definition: "Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas. Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or the intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas."

Hugo said...

Therefore, I see what you wrote regarding #6 and #7 to be wrong 2 ways, with my statements still being relevant:
6) You did not understand what I meant by "Free Thinking".
7) You think I think that Theism is bound by a fear of thought.

What I meant by "Free Thinking" is actually bound by principles. You said the opposite, as pointed out in bold above. You think that "Free Thinking" is some sort of absurd notion of thinking about everything, anything, in any ways possible in order to come up with ideas that suit us. It's actually the exact opposite. It's the rejection of blind acceptance of dogmas and authoritarian statements without proper logical analysis. Logic and reason are an intrinsic part of "Free thinking". You were wrong to state:
"Free Thinking is an absurdity for the following reason: free thinking works outside of the discipline and parameters of logical boundaries. If it did not, it would not be “free”, it would be subservient and beholden to outside principles – an abomination to free thinking."

Therefore, when it comes to Theism, as expressed under #7, I don't think it is a "fear of thought" that is making people believe in God, nor do I think that people are afraid of thinking certain things, but I do think that there are certain aspects of religious doctrines that are considered holy and not touchable.

Moreover, I also mentioned that "you can at best be as independent of a thinker as I am, if you ignore the fact that your God is listening and think about whatever you want, or, you are not as independent, since you need to be careful about what you think, in case God disapproves" and that is the only part you seemed to care about. Because you think it implies a fear of God. However, I said you 'can' still be a free thinker if you ignore God. Therefore, if you 'can' still be Theist and not fear God, it means that it is certainly possible to have your Theist position not bound by a fear of thought. Both situations are possible and your statement "Theism is not bound by a fear of thought as Hugo would have it" was thus a misrepresentation.

But look, to be fair, that part was not super clear! I wanted to emphasize on the "Free thinking" aspect as being the rejection of unstudied dogmas, but it came across as being more of a statement regarding fear of thought. So you are right it was not clear, but you are completely wrong on what "Free thinking" means. And by the way, Jesus clearly stated that thought crime was a thing, so even if I am thinking about this just now, there is definitely a notion of being afraid of thinking the wrong thing under Christianity... so even if it was not my intention, it was still a valid statement ironically...

So, what do you think Free Thinking means; was my definition that wrong?
Did I clarify my position regarding Theism and Fear, and how it was badly expressed?
Is that not me correcting something I wrote?

Cheers

Stan said...

Hugo says,
” All of that put together shows what I mentioned before: instead of trying to understand where we simply "disagree", you claim that I am illogical, irrational and incapable of seeing any error.”

And what I actually said is that what you write fails logical principles and that you do not acknowledge those logic errors. I did not analyze you, I analyzed your writing. And I don’t think you are incapable of seeing any error, I know only that you don’t acknowledge them.

So here again, what you have written (above) is not true.

”…is that it never ever happens in my everyday life, even if the same topics come up, though rarely. In person, I have actually been only accused of the opposite: to be too rational and not caring enough about the emotional nature of some decisions.”

Perhaps you need a better quality of discussion partners.

” I think your definition is wrong. Looking at Wikipedia and the dictionary sources it states, I would agree with the following definition:”

That definition boils down to this: “facts, science, logic, only" thereby rejecting not just metaphysics but all philosophy. Further it uses a philosophical position statement to claim its rejection of philosophy.

This is the same as the Logical Positivism of A. J. Ayer, who later in life rejected his own theory due to its obvious internal non-coherence.

So that definition of Free Thinking is Logical Positivism AND Philosophical Materialism plus Scientism, none of which are logical, since total reliance on “facts and logic” cannot be proven valid by using only “facts and logic” => self-refuting. So that’s an empty claim, and it’s not what the Free Thinkers actually do. They actually promote an unprovable ideology without any support from facts and science, and they therefore create a case in what is called non-reductive metaphysics in their denial of metaphysics. So the essence is that their thought process is unrestricted by logic; unrestricted by science; unrestricted by facts. I.e., it is based on rationalization and is totally untethered to either the restrictions of logic or science. Further, they cannot possibly know (or maybe care) what the limitations of science are, nor what logic actually demands of the rational process, because they violate those things at the most fundamental level.

Stan said...

So if you believe yourself to be freethinking under those premises, under irrational principles, then you must use science and logic to prove your fundamental beliefs. I guarantee that you cannot do that, and that you have already shown that your beliefs are based on Scientistic hopes, not demonstrable, objective, empirical, unfalsified, scientific factoids.

But go ahead, give it another shot. Prove that morally I must submit to your demand to be vaccinated, using your best science, facts, and/or Aristotelian deductions. Make sure you stay within the limitations of each, and do not violate their limited spaces in generating knowledge.

” What I meant by "Free Thinking" is actually bound by principles. You said the opposite, as pointed out in bold above. You think that "Free Thinking" is some sort of absurd notion of thinking about everything, anything, in any ways possible in order to come up with ideas that suit us. It's actually the exact opposite.”

No, it actually is NOT. I explained above how freethinking actually works, claiming one thing but doing another. Freethinking boils down to free-associating rationalizations for an ideology, and is demonstrably error laden.

Even the term, “free thinking”, has no merit logically; here’s why: Focused intellect requires discernment, starting with the underlying principles. Discernment requires the analysis of the properties of the principles being declared, and discrimination in the use of those principles in order to remain true to the capabilities and non-capabilities of those principles.

Free thinkers do not do that. They declare that those noble principles are valid for every proclamation which they make, and they do not even use those principles when making their proclamations. Their proclamations fail known logical principles so commonly that free thinking is considered a joke, except to those whose ideology coincides with the Atheist, Materialist philosophy being rationalized by free thinking. (You will be hard pressed to find a free thinker who is not ideologically the same as all other free thinkers in the same irrational ideology).

To recap, despite their stated principles, free thinkers are not bound by science, fact, or logic. As rationalizers, they abandon principled process and resort to unprincipled fealty to an ideology. They defend that ideology with metaphysical, idealistic and unrealizable assertions that “science, fact, and logic” support that ideology – without any ability to validate that claim. Thus their unifying ideology is dogmatically held, being unprovable and thus a blind belief.

So, your claim here is not true:

” It's actually the exact opposite. It's the rejection of blind acceptance of dogmas and authoritarian statements without proper logical analysis. Logic and reason are an intrinsic part of "Free thinking".”

Feel free to attempt to prove otherwise, using free thought “principles”.

Stan said...

Next up:
” However, I said you 'can' still be a free thinker if you ignore God. Therefore, if you 'can' still be Theist and not fear God, it means that it is certainly possible to have your Theist position not bound by a fear of thought.”

Why would a theist “ignore God”??????? Do you not see any internal contradiction? In terms of coherence, only your claim that fear of God stifles freedom to think makes sense, despite its falseness.

” Both situations are possible and your statement "Theism is not bound by a fear of thought as Hugo would have it" was thus a misrepresentation.”

You are engaging in denialism and refusal to accept the consequences of your words. Why don’t you take the responsibility for looking at your own position? I’ll do it for you, using logic. You presented two cases:

1. IF [ (Theist ignores God) ], Then [ Theists are able to use science, fact and logic ].
The premise is internally non-coherent.

2. IF [ Theist fears thinking because: God }, THEN [ NOT (Theists able to use science, fact and logic) ].
This argument is valid but not applicable because although the form is correct, the premise is not universal. And the implication is false because (a) it is not universally true of all theists – it is a caricature - and (b) it is the second horn of a false dilemma. This is shown by the following arguments:

3. IF [ Theist accepts that logic, science and fact are congruent with a deity which created a logical universe, created the faculty of comprehension, and created the human ability to apply logic to material cause and effect ], THEN [ Theist is totally free to use logic, science and fact within their known natural limits and boundaries ].

4. IF [ Theist does not ignore God and does NOT fear God’s retribution for using science, fact and logic within their known natural limits and boundaries ] THEN [Theists are free and able to use science, fact and logic ].

So the dilemma you presented contained a non-coherence and a caricature as premises. Plus there are other options which are not even considered.

That’s how actual logic works, not by making unconsidered declarations. Here’s another argument:

Stan said...


IF [ Science, fact, and logic are used outside of their known natural limits and boundaries ], THEN [ valid conclusions cannot be drawn ].

” And by the way, Jesus clearly stated that thought crime was a thing, so even if I am thinking about this just now, there is definitely a notion of being afraid of thinking the wrong thing under Christianity... so even if it was not my intention, it was still a valid statement ironically...”

Support this claim, please. You are the only person I have ever heard to make this claim. Jesus said that thinking thoughts which are contrary to Atheist-Leftist-Progressive dictates must be given extra-severe punishment by the government? (Don’t bother with the “lusted in his heart” meme, OK?) Plus, since we are discussing “theists”, there is no limitation to a single ecclesiastical position; just the acknowledgement of a creating agent, called deity, which agent cares about the creation. For example, Jews don’t consider themselves bound by what Jesus said and Christians son’t consider themselves bound by what Muhammad said, and Muslims don’t consider themselves bound by what Jesus or Paul, etc. said.

Last, explain in detail why any theist would reject his own ability to use (1) Aristotelian logic, (2)objective empirical science, or (3) currently held factoids based on either Aristotelian logic or objective, empirical science – because of fear of a deity. To make it interesting, go ahead and try to use either/both evolution and global warming. Or any other “science” or logic or whatever you choose.

” So, what do you think Free Thinking means; was my definition that wrong?
Did I clarify my position regarding Theism and Fear, and how it was badly expressed?
Is that not me correcting something I wrote?”


Considering that you did not change your position, I don’t see how you corrected it. You did clarify it and double down on it, though.

Hugo said...

Hi Stan,

You write a lot of words yet say so little... and essentially went back to doing exactly what I said: you label people who disagree with you, all "free thinkers" today, as having " thought process is unrestricted by logic; unrestricted by science; unrestricted by facts. I.e., it is based on rationalization and is totally untethered to either the restrictions of logic or science." This sort of irrational generalization is meaningless; it's completely wrong to lump such a variety of people like that, and even worse when done using such broad labels. It's based only on your own emotional need to fight the evil "others", whoever they may be, depending on your thought process du jour. This addresses probably 80% of what you wrote today in that long 4-block comment, but also applies to so many statements like these you have made over the years.

"Prove that morally I must submit to your demand to be vaccinated"
I already did that: herd protection is compromised if not enough people get vaccinated. For some specific diseases, it's too risky to let people choose because anti-science people like you would choose to opt out based on the irrational fear of brain damage. Or, as I also expressed already, we can also see this as selfish and unpatriotic. By not getting yourself, or children, vaccinated against certain diseases, you put your own self ahead of the good of the country, and do not care about vulnerable people who cannot get vaccinated.

"Perhaps you need a better quality of discussion partners."
What a good piece of advice! Because who are you exactly? Why would I care about you? If I am to play your game of calling me an Elitist as you have done many times before, might as well own it and realize that talking to some old conservative cliché grandpa from the Midwest is not really the best use of my time. Of course the couple of people who called me too rational are not the ones I would fall back to, that was years ago, but my friends with PHDs might be more suitable for philosophical discussions than you.

There would be lots of other interesting things to discuss but it's just too long and tedious... So please, go ahead and smile from the inside for doing your little part! I could not answer everything! OMG! And after being more direct than my previous comments, you are going to do your little dance of "strike 1, 2, 3" or some other rubbish like that, in order to call me out once more on my complete lack of rationality. It is thus impossible to have a conversation with me. Thank you.

Phoenix said...

Glad to see this discussion is still coninuing,

Hugo said:All of that put together shows what I mentioned before: instead of trying to understand where we simply "disagree",you claim that I am illogical, irrational and incapable of seeing any error. But why would I bother discussing with you if it was not to learn something, correct some of views which may be incorrect, and do that using logic and reason?

Hugo

Atheists claim to have the monopoly on logic but why are they so reluctant to provide a simple logical deduction that can be analyzed for validity and soundness?I don't get it.You can end all discussions by settling it once and for all.What sound logic can you provide for the truth of Materialism and by extension refute dualism/theism?

Here's my deduction in support of intuition which implicates dualism/theism and refutes materialism by reductio ad absurdum(proof by contradiction).Feel free to analyze it for coherence,structure and truth.

P1.All knowledge,logic and rational thought are based on axiomatic principles and therefore intuitively known.
P2.If All logic and knowledge are fundamentally intuitively known then they fall outside the Materialist’s epistemology which claims all knowledge can only be known empirically.
P3. if Materialism rejects intuition as empirically unreliable then they reject the first principles of logic.
C.Since Materialism rejects the First Principles of Logic it is therefore an irrational worldview.

Formal Format:
P1.P->Q
P2.Q->S
P3.S->X
C.;X->Y

Stan said...

You write a lot of words yet say so little...

And yet you respond only with denials and no – NO – supporting logic whatsoever.

”and essentially went back to doing exactly what I said: you label people who disagree with you, all "free thinkers" today, as having " thought process is unrestricted by logic; unrestricted by science; unrestricted by facts. I.e., it is based on rationalization and is totally untethered to either the restrictions of logic or science." This sort of irrational generalization is meaningless…”

Hmm. It must have just enough meaning to offend you, and to cause you to go straight into denialism, bypassing any logical response totally.

”it's completely wrong to lump such a variety of people like that, and even worse when done using such broad labels. It's based only on your own emotional need to fight the evil "others", whoever they may be, depending on your thought process du jour.”

Really? Your logical evidence for that is found in what deduction?

”This addresses probably 80% of what you wrote today in that long 4-block comment, but also applies to so many statements like these you have made over the years. ”

"Prove that morally I must submit to your demand to be vaccinated".

”I already did that: herd protection is compromised if not enough people get vaccinated. For some specific diseases, it's too risky to let people choose because anti-science people like you would choose to opt out based on the irrational fear of brain damage. Or, as I also expressed already, we can also see this as selfish and unpatriotic. By not getting yourself, or children, vaccinated against certain diseases, you put your own self ahead of the good of the country, and do not care about vulnerable people who cannot get vaccinated.”

No, that is not proof. It is an assertion of your opinion as being superior: the herd must do as you demand, because X. You have not established any right to demand anything from the “herd” (herd is Nietzsche’s term) due to your moral authority which exceeds that of all members of the herd. That you presume such a right does, in fact, prove your personal assumption of moral authority over every other member of the herd, which in turn proves, is evidence of, your presumption of elitism. You don’t like that fact – FACT – being pointed out, but that’s just tough. It is still a free speech internet (this week).

Further, you assert it not as logical fact, but as Hugo-driven morality: not to comply with the dictate is both unpatriotic (a moral term usually eschewed by AtheoLeftists) and is criminally callously uncaring for the “unfortunates” under your protection. Hugo-driven morality is logical… to Hugo.

You are the putative moral arbiter. In other words, the morally elite, making a moral argument for you right to dictate the actions and making bodily demands on others, regardless of their wishes for their own bodies. And it’s all for their own Good, as you morally define that. Oh, and as always, the Good of those under your protection.

Stan said...

"Perhaps you need a better quality of discussion partners."
What a good piece of advice! Because who are you exactly? Why would I care about you? If I am to play your game of calling me an Elitist as you have done many times before, might as well own it and realize that talking to some old conservative cliché grandpa from the Midwest is not really the best use of my time.”


I’d guess that it really is not the best use of your time: you have no intention of resorting to actual logic. I suspect that in your circles, leftist cant is mistaken for intellectual creativity. You are angered by logic, because it takes a look at that Atheist, Leftist, elitist dogma, and calls it out for what it is: logically false. If you want Pollyanna conversations which demonstrate to you how wonderful you are, you need to stick to Atheist, Leftist, dogma sites.

And you have used your outrage to completely avoid all the arguments made above (too long, oh my).

” Of course the couple of people who called me too rational are not the ones I would fall back to, that was years ago, but my friends with PHDs might be more suitable for philosophical discussions than you.’

Then go! With my blessing. Be amongst your like beings; do not ever use actual logic. Keep your mind free.

”There would be lots of other interesting things to discuss but it's just too long and tedious... So please, go ahead and smile from the inside for doing your little part! I could not answer everything! OMG! And after being more direct than my previous comments, you are going to do your little dance of "strike 1, 2, 3" or some other rubbish like that, in order to call me out once more on my complete lack of rationality. It is thus impossible to have a conversation with me. Thank you.”

This response was totally expected; you have not changed one whit. You came here to criticize me and this site, and like in the past, you ran into a buzz saw of actual logic. You do not accept actual logic; it goes directly counter to what you want. So you rail on and on, and without a shred of any attempt to logically justify your positions… except for mistaking your elitist demand for control of the “herd” as an argument in favor of suppression of individual choice. And I shall not refrain from calling that which is demonstrably elitist for what it precisely is. You cannot avoid it by calling it a moral offense to point it out.

In fact, all of your counters are not logic-based, they are all moral declarations based on your own particular moral judgments. This, to you apparently, is logic. Especially visible now that your response is directed purely emotionally and specifically avoids acknowledging the logic cases provided in the prior exchange.

In fact, the vaccination issue is not amenable to any science, or fact. It is purely an issue of the conflict of human rights (your right to dictate to me vs my right to resist dictators), and the weighting of human rights one over another, which amounts to moral conclusions made under presumption of moral authority. I thought perhaps you might tumble to that, but you did not. You asserted it as a “logic” argument where your right supercedes my right, automatically, due to “herd” philosophy.

So since you don’t want to engage in logic, rather preferring to make moral pronouncements on the logical conclusions, why don’t you just go be with friends who are similarly persuaded of their moral superiority, and you all can back-slap and free think the exact same thoughts together? Why waste time here, where your positions will continue to be subjected to actual logic, and rather than provide logical refutations your moral anger will just rise further?

Stan said...

Hugo,
If you are the truly logical person you claim to be, then you will logically analyze the argument which Phoenix has given, above, won't you?

Hugo said...

You guys are hilarious, no wonder I can't give up on interacting with you! All your arguments consist of saying 'we are logical, you are not, we are right, you are wrong!' and then pretending that I am the one dodging issues... it's so funny.

"Hugo,
If you are the truly logical person you claim to be, then you will logically analyze the argument which Phoenix has given, above, won't you?
"

Sure, I love challenges... first, the format:
P1.P->Q
P2.Q->S
P3.S->X
C.;X->Y

This is not even a valid syllogism. It's just a bunch of statements one after the other... Not that it really matters since I find it completely useless to write syllogism; it's useful as a teaching tool only, to explain how logic works and what proper reasoning is. For high school kids who don't know yet how it works for instance. Oh wait, you guys are Americans right? So I guess you never learned that in school... my bad... Because you 2 are extremely bad at logical reasoning, and you think that it makes you look smart to write syllogism, even when you fail miserably... Anyway, in the case presented here, it's useless to point out the form because it's just talking. It's just sharing ideas like I am doing now, 1 sentence after the other. I read the blog and saw stupid things; after seeing stupid things I decided to address them; because I addressed them I wasted time online. Conclusion: reading blogs make me waste time. But I knew that already ;)

"P1.All knowledge,logic and rational thought are based on axiomatic principles and therefore intuitively known. "
No, we learn how to reason, we learn how to use logic and we learn knowledge (I seriously can't believe I have to write the 3rd one...) Intuition is the exact opposite; it's what 'feels' right, what our gut is telling us, what appears true without too much analysis. It's not necessarily wrong, but you need reason and logic to confirm, or not, your intuitions. Babies are first purely intuitive, they do stuff but don't know why; then they learn that when they cry they get what they want, so they become selfish little monsters; then they learn that their parents don't let them have their ways, so they grow up and become more rational. Intuitions come first, yes, but they are not a source of objective knowledge. We need to learn that by observing the world, talking to other human beings, and then adapting our inner views, for those of us who actually care to do so.

Glossing over P2... P3... materialism entails blah blah blah...
" C.Since Materialism rejects the First Principles of Logic it is therefore an irrational worldview."
Good job genius. You wrote a bunch of sentences and concluded with 'Materialism rejects Logic hence its irrational', a well formulated tautology based on your pre-conceived idea that Materialism is illogical/irrational. Bravo. I am amazed at your logic and will never call myself a Materialist ever again. It's so crystal clear now; if you say that Materialism is illogical, then it must be! Well let me do the same and I will even use your (useless) favorite approach:
P1. Whoever rejects logic and reason has an irrational worldview.
P2. Stan and Phoenix based their views on emotions and rejects logic and reason.
C. Stan and Phoenix have an irrational worldview.
Oh oh, now you have to change your worldview too; I presented a perfectly valid syllogism. Now you can argue with P2 but how could you do that? I just demonstrated that you reject logic and reason and hence nothing you say can make sense... this sucks...

Hugo said...

Stan also said these little gems using the word 'herd':

"the herdmust do as you demand, because X. You have not established any right to demand anything from the “herd” (herd is Nietzsche’s term) due to your moral authority which exceeds that of all members of the herd. That you presume such a right does, in fact, prove your personal assumption of moral authority over every other member of the herd, [...] except for mistaking your elitist demand for control of the “herd” as an argument in favor of suppression of individual choice. [...] You asserted it as a “logic” argument where your right supercedes my right, automatically, due to “herd” philosophy."

You used the same word, herd, I used regarding vaccines but in a completely different context. Basically, you are saying that I want to control the "herd", but that is not what it means at all regarding vaccines! It has a very specific meaning which you clearly do not understand. I guess this explains why your position is so irrational on that topic. Herd protection is a real thing, a real scientific principle which helps protect entire populations. If enough members of a population are vaccinated, the few individuals who cannot get the vaccines, for medical reasons, still get protected because the odds of them being in contact with the disease is reduced. So after all, it seems that you go against the scientific consensus not because you are selfish, but because you simply don't get it. I am not sure what's worse...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

But the best part is that you, Stan, thinks I am angered by logic, or even offended. Offended! How can you forget that this is purely for entertainment purposes? Your blog is completely meaningless and completely irrelevant to anything I do. It was interesting to read for some time, a long time, but not really anymore because you are just so dam negative all the time. There is no discomfort while reading; it's just funny, when you disregard the dark views of everything you cover. You are a 'nobody' writing about things you know very little about. Your latest "course" on evolution is the best example ever!

You pretend you are the sole owner of truth, logic and reason and label anybody who disagrees with you as illogical, irrational, biased, etc... the Left is evil, Atheists irrational, Gays are unnatural monsters, Pro-Choicers destroy family values, Liberals are elitists control freaks, Scientists are conspiring to make us believe Climate Change and Evolution are real, Feminists are insane bitches who think every heterosexual act is rape, Elitists create Victimhood classes, but of course, white Christian males are the ones really getting oppressed. Am I offended by any of this? Are you kidding me... you are the person with some of the most absurd positions and writings I have ever ran into. The few crazier ideas I have seen are flat-earthers, moon landing hoaxers and that radical feminist blog you (ironically) linked to once, where women though that any P in the V is rape. But of course, you being just as crazy as them, quoted them, discussed them, linked to them and even implied that it's something wide spread throughout the Feminist movement. Priceless!

And yes, it is too long to reply to every single nonsensical thing you write. It takes much less time to just spit out summaries like I just did above, which is exactly what you always do. You don't construct ideas and try to support them; you assert your position, call the other ones illogical and fill paragraphs of labels that you think are accurate because that's how you feel.

Any other specific question; anything else I can teach you?

You may want to start there btw. It's the best explanation of what I actually believe in; these guys are awesome at summarizing what we KNOW about the universe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6be-CZJ3w

Cheers!

Phoenix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phoenix said...

Hugo:This is not even a valid syllogism. It's just a bunch of statements one after the other... Not that it really matters since I find it completely useless to write syllogism; it's useful as a teaching tool only

That's a perfectly valid syllogism.It's called a chain argument and all my premises follow the transitive law.ie they're related.But your ignorance does not surprise me,Atheists are fond of crapping on logic.
===
No, we learn how to reason, we learn how to use logic and we learn knowledge (I seriously can't believe I have to write the 3rd one...) Intuition is the exact opposite; it's what 'feels' right, what our gut is telling us, what appears true without too much analysis. It's not necessarily wrong, but you need reason and logic to confirm, or not, your intuitions.
Your claim is that logic presupposes intuition,and not vice versa.But this is clearly false because it makes intuition redundant.Also,prima facie evidence against your claim is people who have not studied logic are still able to discern truth claims from falsehoods.This is where their intution comes into play.Without this a priori ability,learning would become impossible.

Babies are first purely intuitive, they do stuff but don't know why; then they learn that when they cry they get what they want, so they become selfish little monsters; then they learn that their parents don't let them have their ways, so they grow up and become more rational.Intuitions come first, yes, but they are not a source of objective knowledge. We need to learn that by observing the world, talking to other human beings, and then adapting our inner views, for those of us who actually care to do so.

The part in bold is where you concede intuition is a priori and the first mental ability in infants.That settles it because my contention was that intuition is the foundation (underpinning/starting point) of First Principles and knowledge as shown in this link:
http://friesian.com/arch.htm
So you must be arguing against something because you seem to agree with me.
===
Good job genius. You wrote a bunch of sentences and concluded with 'Materialism rejects Logic hence its irrational', a well formulated tautology based on your pre-conceived idea that Materialism is illogical/irrational. Bravo. I am amazed at your logic and will never call myself a Materialist ever again. It's so crystal clear now; if you say that Materialism is illogical, then it must be! Well let me do the same and I will even use your (useless) favorite approach:
You lable my argument a well formulated tautology because there's a transitive link from P1 to C.It's well formulated,yes but be specific,where exactly is the tautology?
P2 states that Materialism and intuition are incompatible,given that Materialism emphasizes knowledge derived from sensory experience (based on 5 senses) and experimentation.You have failed to refute or even adress this.Why? Instead you offer a joke of a syllogism,proving that Atheism is incompatible with logic.Let's look at your supposedly modus ponens argument.

P1. Whoever rejects logic and reason has an irrational worldview.
P2. Stan and Phoenix based their views on emotions and rejects logic and reason.
C. Stan and Phoenix have an irrational worldview
.

Premise 2 begs the question.You are suppose to prove we are irrational before using that as a premise.
My second premise can easily be verified that Philosophical Materialism rejects intuition.Unless of course you can prove intuition is a quantifiable entity.Until then, your poor substitute for a syllogism which was supposed to show that logic is useless and too simplistic ,only proved your disdain for the discipline.

Phoenix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phoenix said...

Correcting 2 typos,should read:

-So you must be arguing against something else because you seem to agree with me.

-Premise 2 begs the question.You are suppose to prove we reject logic before using that as a premise.

Stan said...

Hugo, here is the evidence of your failure to use logic. In this one single statement you have revealed your disdain for the one tool available to humans which can reach truth:

”I find it completely useless to write syllogism; it's useful as a teaching tool only, to explain how logic works and what proper reasoning is. For high school kids who don't know yet how it works for instance. Oh wait, you guys are Americans right? So I guess you never learned that in school... my bad... Because you 2 are extremely bad at logical reasoning, and you think that it makes you look smart to write syllogism, even when you fail miserably... ”

Of course you don’t like syllogisms. The IF/THEN of syllogistic reasoning is the basis for sematic language, and when it is pursued with the discipline of proper format, proper premises, proper grounding, it provides conclusions that are guaranteed to be true. And that is the reason that you do not use or analyze syllogistic reasoning, isn’t it? It gives answers which you don’t want. So you declare the syllogisms “wrong” but you never, ever say why they fail the rules of disciplined logic. For you, they have to be wrong, because you do not like the answers. And here I deviate from analyzing your words, to analyzing you: you are ideology-bound to principles you cannot defend using disciplined logic, and yet you claim to be a Free Thinker, bound only by logic and evidence. That is a contradiction which you cannot deal with logically. So now you strike out against the logic – which you assert that you have the only claim to.

You completely avoided and dodged the logic syllogisms I gave, claiming “too long to read”. Now you claim “bad logic” without any counter logic whatsoever.

”I read the blog and saw stupid things; after seeing stupid things I decided to address them; because I addressed them I wasted time online. Conclusion: reading blogs make me waste time. But I knew that already”

False analogy; no facts, only charges without substantiation. Merely snark, as a last resort, a form of giving up on rationality altogether, and going for childish, “your mama” Tu Quoque Failure. A lapse into total retreat.

Stan said...

I’ll take just the first issue, and Phoenix can take the rest:


"P1.All knowledge,logic and rational thought are based on axiomatic principles and therefore intuitively known. "
No, we learn how to reason, we learn how to use logic and we learn knowledge (I seriously can't believe I have to write the 3rd one...)


He was talking about AXIOMs, Hugo. All proofs, clear back to Euclid and the invention of geometry rely on AXIOMs! You have entirely missed the point and completely not understood the content of the assertion at all. Axioms are self-evident. Look it up. Good Grief.

Phoenix, over to you.

I’ll skip down to his complaint about his own terminology: herd. By referring to humanity as a herd, he has taken on the same Atheist terminology used by the inventor of anti-rationalism and the Will To Power (worship of elitism): Friedrich Nietzsche. The classist placement of humanity into a “herd” self-reveals the elitist classism of the person using that term. (Or the total ignorance of major historical Atheist thinkers and their continued influence on Free Thinking, or both).

Basically, you are saying that I want to control the "herd", but that is not what it means at all regarding vaccines! It has a very specific meaning which you clearly do not understand. I guess this explains why your position is so irrational on that topic.

Yes. Herd protection is a real thing… for cattle. And it’s use for humans, even by health officials, is elitist and is the domination of humanity and all humans “For Their Own Good ™”. In other words, “your own good will be determined by us, and you WILL do as we say”. Also, “We know what’s best for everyone; you do not know what is best for yourself or your children. We are superior; you are inferior. AND we do not care that black male children are adversely affected, so we will conceal that data – you are too inferior to do the right thing with actual data”. Now, go ahead and deny that this is exactly what is occurring right now. Go ahead.

”So after all, it seems that you go against the scientific consensus not because you are selfish, but because you simply don't get it. I am not sure what's worse...”

The scientific consensus was fooled, wasn’t it. The data has been falsified for public consumption. It’s so odd that Leftists believe all science from the corporate world that they hate – when the (released) data puts them in charge of forcing the “herd” to do something. But you defend it even now, in the face of the racist suppression of the REAL DATA. Because: science = truth = science = truth = science = truth… regardless of any rational limits on science… and corporate ethics.

These reasons and this following statement are the reason that I am abandoning you, Hugo. You are a troll, and nothing more. You have been banned before for this exact behavior. You are a waste of time. Your true colors have come to the surface in this last set of exchanges: you have no intent of making real statements with meaning which you will actually defend rationally. You are merely a troll with nothing else to do.

”How can you forget that this is purely for entertainment purposes?”

Adios.

Hugo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo said...

Hi Stan and Phoenix,
Stan said:
"I’ll take just the first issue, and Phoenix can take the rest:"
So you need to tag team now? I am honored.

Phoenix said:
"That's a perfectly valid syllogism.It's called a chain argument and all my premises follow the transitive law.ie they're related.But your ignorance does not surprise me,Atheists are fond of crapping on logic."
Because you know the name of what syllogism is 'looks like' does not make it valid. You explicitly wrote an invalid form:
"P1.P->Q
P2.Q->S
P3.S->X
C.;X->Y
"
A valid chain argument would be:
P1.P->Q
P2.Q->S
C. P->S
P1. When I play sport, I lose weight.
P2. When I lose weight, women like me more.
C. If I play sport, women like me more.
Plus, your premises were completely illogical and would require support on their own, which is why I find syllogism useless. It's not because it avoids logic; it's the opposite! Forcing the use of syllogism is done by irrational people who want to distract from the actual conversation, like what you 2 do since you are so bad at logical reasoning. You make mistakes left and right, misunderstand and misrepresent statements, but don't realize it. But your ignorance does not surprise me, Stan and Phoenix, you are both fond of crapping on logic. Did you see what I just did there? I use the exact same empty insult but I made it better: I am focusing it on you 2 because of what I have seen here. You, on the other hand, made a false generalizing statement about Atheists. It goes to show how irrational and emotional you are...

Going back to the distraction that are syllogisms, it's like using simple math but forcing the person you are discussing with to explain the details. If I were to say, 10% of the US citizens are left handed, that's similar to the population of Canada, you would come back to me and say 'that's illogical, 10% is not a number of people! You suck Hugo!!', so then I would need to explain... 10% of 330 million is 320,000,000*0.10 = 32,000,000 and the population of Canada is 35,000,000, so I was right. You are doing exactly the same thing when insisting syllogisms are useful. It is the arithmetic of philosophy, and you guys prefer to discuss that instead of real issues you know nothing about, are wrong about and can only bitch about. You are the ones who never ever use actual logic.

"-Premise 2 begs the question.You are suppose to prove we reject logic before using that as a premise."
Really? You took that syllogism to be serious? Poor boy... The point was that at least it was VALID. Yours did not even get to that point. Of course my argument was not SOUND because one of the premises is false. It's called sarcasm buddy...

Hugo said...

" My second premise can easily be verified that Philosophical Materialism rejects intuition. Unless of course you can prove intuition is a quantifiable entity."
Ya I have played this little game several times over the years. The problem is that people like you constantly confuse knowledge and existence, and do not understand where to start/end arguments about existence only, which is the whole point of Atheism, Materialism, Naturalism, Physicalism. You put restriction on what can be material, like intuition, and then declare that tadam! you have proven that Materialism is false because that thing you just defined as non-material exists. It's bullshit and takes forever to explain to dogmatic people like you because we would run in circles about what we know, cannot know, what exists, what we can know exist, etc... it's fascinating stuff, but just not with people like Phoenix or Stan who cannot process more than 2 sentences at a time. By the time we reach some sort of starting point, you would have forgotten the principles we agreed on... it's a futile exercise when done in comment boxes of random blogs. But of course, Stan uses that to say 'na na na na, I was right, you are afraid to talkkkkk, I win you lose' and then he smiles from the inside apparently. Very juvenile for a grandpa....

Stan wrote:
"You completely avoided and dodged the logic syllogisms I gave, claiming “too long to read”."
Not too long to 'read', too long to 'reply to'. It takes a paragraph for each silly sentence you write when I want to do it properly. And clearly I am way passed this point... it's just funny to write to you guys now and point out some of the absurdities you say, basically using your technique back to your face. I really have no reason to spend more time to be precise and accurate since it hits a brick wall every time. All you do, again and again, is try to read my mind and conclude that I must not like the answers, or that I cannot deal with something, that I avoid logic, etc... Pathetic... such a blatant case of projection.

Stan wrote:
"You are a troll, and nothing more. "
I helped you get rid of a troll over a year ago you moron; don't you remember? I told you, three times I believe, 'Stan, you should turn on the options in Blogger which force people to use a profile, that will probably discourage trolls'. You're welcome I guess!

Stan wrote:
"”How can you forget that this is purely for entertainment purposes?”
Adios.
"
Are you insulted by this comment? Seriously? You have to be truly delusional to think that your blog can be anything else but for entertainment purposes... you are nobody, have little readership if we judge by the number of comments and profile view (an astonishing 273, but not sure since when since you changed your profile, but anyway...). But more importantly, all you do is share your opinion, so it's just like reading any other blog on any other topic. As readers we can learn from it, but only as a hobby, not much more. You are not an authority on anything at all and do not even use a real full name, which shows how unimportant you are... And anyway, it's true that it's probably time to say 'Adios'.

Stan said...

Hugo:
Last ditch childish insults, as you are being thrown out:

"...you moron"; "you are nobody".

Your comments from this point on will be summarily deleted without being read.

You are banned again.

I'm not sure why I tried to be nice to you, since I realized early on that you still have not grown up. So it's true that you did succeed in wasting my time again. I'll try to remember that next time you attempt to infest this blog.

And BTW, a chain argument does not have to have the final statement which you assert that is required; it is complete without the summary. You went somewhere on the web to get a definition and did not think it through.

Good riddance.

Phoenix said...

Hugo

Firstly,Where does it state a chain argument must only have two premises?

Secondly,declaring my premises illogical does not make it so.Why are you so reluctant to a) give specifics and b) give us an actual deduction?Show us how it's really done.Or is sarcasm all you got?

Lastly,your phony syllogism was to avoid scrutiny.Thus when you fail miserably (as you did above) then you can say it was just a joke or sarcasm.That's a deceptive tactic and yet you claim to be logical.

Phoenix said...

Here's a defintion of chain argument from an actual logic textbook


an argument in which the conclusion of one argument becomes a premise of the next argument (and, possibly, so on)

Stan said...

Hugo's comment has been deleted.