Why demand logic?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
No, all that required is that people belief some beliefs are mutually exclusive. Then they would beleive in the possibility (and understand the concept of) a self-defeating religon.

and now you definitely don't need an example.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, very nice. Way to go for saying absolutely nothing, and also with too many words. Previously you have said that some certain beliefs are mutually exclusive, now you have somehow forgot the word "certain" and are saying that "all that required is that people belief some beliefs are mutually exclusive". And if people don't believe that? Well, hmmmm. It doesn't matter, since all you said is that it is "required". All that is required for me to become a little hairy spider is that my right leg will spontaneosly start dancing the cha-cha-cha. This is really great. True? False? How do you even verify it? Who knows and who cares. Let me write your next version for you. Here it goes: "it is clear that if some people believe that it is possible to believe that a belief regarding the possibility of some beliefs being mutually exculsive is possible, then surely the possibility of believing in the belief that someone can believe the possibility of self-defeating religion, is possible."

Now you don't need to write it yourself.

You are also correct about no example needed. What you are saying is crystal clear, and it has nothing to do with anything in particular, whether anything in particular exists or not, true or not, afkniouf394893h4 or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Either its possible to believe some propositions cannot be believed or its unbelievable that some propositions cannot be believed

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that this sentence, as simple as it is, is meaningful in any sense whatsever to any kind of discussion between human beings about logic and religion, or about anything at all, you are very high on drugs. Which is OK BTW.

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

No, the simple fact you know what I mean means I have said something meaningful.

and as I suspect you knew that all along, I think you are wasting my time. No offense intended but if you need to apply a theory to something before you will accept its applicability then we aren't going to get anywhere.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense intended but if you need to apply a theory to something before you will accept its applicability

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that what you have said during this exchange qualifies as "a theory", then really there's no hope and we are indeed going nowhere (which is clear for quite a while now, but what the hell, it's fun).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No offense intended but if you need to apply a theory to something before you will accept its applicability

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that what you have said during this exchange qualifies as "a theory", then really there's no hope and we are indeed going nowhere (which is clear for quite a while now, but what the hell, it's fun).

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe fun, but as I think you know what I mean but keep trying to claim it is meaningless, I think you are just being silly.

That's a theory btw, not a very exciting one and maybe not worthy of the name but at least I've provided a real example for you.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe fun, but as I think you know what I mean but keep trying to claim it is meaningless, I think you are just being silly.

That's a theory btw, not a very exciting one and maybe not worthy of the name but at least I've provided a real example for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then, let's call what you have said on this thread "a theory".

Now, is that "theory" true? false? Not true and not false? Both? 2:1 chance it's true? 32:5 it's false? Is there any possible way to even think about a way to get to any answer with regard to this? Of course, now you'll say that all these questions are completely irrelevant to your "theory", which is "meaningful", since I got its "meaning", and that's all that matters for it to be "a theory".

Well, that's not a theory, I'm very sorry. It is just something you said.

Here's an example: "some clouds might turn into big books". That's my "thoery". You got its meaning? Great, so it's a "theory". Well, no.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe fun, but as I think you know what I mean but keep trying to claim it is meaningless, I think you are just being silly.

That's a theory btw, not a very exciting one and maybe not worthy of the name but at least I've provided a real example for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then, let's call what you have said on this thread "a theory".

Now, is that "theory" true? false? Not true and not false? Both? 2:1 chance it's true? 32:5 it's false? Is there any possible way to even think about a way to get to any answer with regard to this? Of course, now you'll say that all these questions are completely irrelevant to your "theory", which is "meaningful", since I got its "meaning", and that's all that matters for it to be "a theory".

Well, that's not a theory, I'm very sorry. It is just something you said.

Here's an example: "some clouds might turn into big books". That's my "thoery". You got its meaning? Great, so it's a "theory". Well, no.

[/ QUOTE ]
Getting closer but are we really going to have to discuss a huge chunk of philosophy before we can converse?

Meaning and truth are related. So if you understood my meaning there is a connection with truth. I really don't think we need to go into that to discuss religon in general or in particular.

Maybe you just have a problem with analytical philosophy.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting closer but are we really going to have to discuss a huge chunk of philosophy before we can converse?

Meaning and truth are related. So if you understood my meaning there is a connection with truth. I really don't think we need to go into that to discuss religon in general or in particular.

Maybe you just have a problem with analytical philosophy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have no problem at all with analytical philosophy. All this has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And I'm happy to see that you don't insist anymore that the things you've said are a "theory", but only that they might be related to truth becaus they have "a meaning". Well, OK. Everything is related to truth in some way or another. My cat's gurgles are related to truth as well (no offence).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Getting closer but are we really going to have to discuss a huge chunk of philosophy before we can converse?

Meaning and truth are related. So if you understood my meaning there is a connection with truth. I really don't think we need to go into that to discuss religon in general or in particular.

Maybe you just have a problem with analytical philosophy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have no problem at all with analytical philosophy. All this has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And I'm happy to see that you don't insist anymore that the things you've said are a "theory", but only that they might be related to truth becaus they have "a meaning". Well, OK. Everything is related to truth in some way or another. My cat's gurgles are related to truth as well (no offence).

[/ QUOTE ]
ok, so you understand what I'm saying and thereby what it means.

So if your interested go back, make an effort to understand what I said, thereby what I meant and thereby how it relates to religion in general. What I said applies to all religions, real and hypothetical, it also applies to any belief system - if that doesn't interest you then just don't bother.

Its all very simple so as long as you understand it you'll be fine. If you don't understand it, tell me which bit you don't understand. If you understand a bit and believe it is wrong then tell me why.

Thats how we communicate.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
What I said applies to all religions, real and hypothetical, it also applies to any belief system

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it applies to everything, therefore to nothing. It's a great achievement.

"If a=5 then a=5" also applies to all religions, real and hypothetical, and also to any belief system, chairs, boats and stars.

[ QUOTE ]
Its all very simple so as long as you understand it you'll be fine. If you don't understand it, tell me which bit you don't understand. If you understand a bit and believe it is wrong then tell me why.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken if you think there's a problem of misunderstanding here.

[DougShrapnel]

PrayingMantis. I am curious if you have engaged in conversataion so that you can remain silent?