[QUOTE=Mesothere;21103961]This isn't the definition of wrong, sorry.
[B]You can say it's illogical, you can't say it's "wrong"[/B][/QUOTE]
Do explain to me me how something being illogical is different from it being wrong.
ITT: Kybalt derails the thread and desperately tries to sound intelligent.
[QUOTE=Darkar;21104004]you cant be the judge of that. that is up to a person's logic. if his logic differs from yours does that make him wrong?[/QUOTE]
I think you're using a completely different definition for logic then me.
[QUOTE=Darkar;21103853]was there any evidence that the earth was round until 1492? no, but that did not disprove the fact that it could be round.[/QUOTE]
There was proof prior to that. Eratosthenes calculated it from the differences in the angle of the sun based on his location around 200 BC.
[QUOTE=JDK721v2;21104032]ITT: Kybalt derails the thread and desperately tries to sound intelligent.[/QUOTE]
What exactly is on-topic for this thread then?
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104011]Do explain to me me how something being illogical is different from it being wrong.[/QUOTE]
For example:
Illogical: "•confused: lacking orderly continuity; "a confused set of instructions"; "a confused dream about the end of the world"; "disconnected fragments of a story"; "scattered thoughts""
Incorrect: "not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; "an incorrect calculation"; "the report in the paper is wrong"; "your information is ...
•contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie" "
Even you should be able to tell these are two quite different things.
This is specifically applicable in this situation, as there is no fact proving either side of the argument.
Anyway the point is she wasn't necessarily a dumbass because she was a devout Catholic.
[QUOTE=Mexican;21103875]"Witty except the burden of proof is on those claiming god's existence, atheism is simply the default."
[b]Agnosticism is the default.[/b][/QUOTE]
No it isn't. If nobody told you about god you wouldn't even be aware of the concept. You'd be an atheist.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21104050]There was proof prior to that. Eratosthenes calculated it from the differences in the angle of the sun based on his location around 200 BC.[/QUOTE]
we covered that matter
[QUOTE=Darkar;21103953]maybe, but i think you get the point i was trying to make.
anyway,is the "earth is spinning" example more appealing to you?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mexican;21103989]I get what he's trying to say though, and I'll pick a better example.
The model of the atom. For a while it was the "plum pudding model". This model fit well in all tests done to it and therefore it was the accepted one. For all scientific purposes, we should assume it is correct. However, to outright proclaim "I know it is correct because nothing says otherwise" is illogical. Later we found evidence to revise the model based on new tests. So, yes, for scientific means only things without evidence should be ignored and we should only focus on what data we have. However, for something like religion, on which we have absolutely no data, this same method cannot apply.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104034]I think you're using a completely different definition for logic then me.[/QUOTE]
woah, that must make me wrong
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21104104]No it isn't. If nobody told you about god you wouldn't even be aware of the concept. You'd be an atheist.[/QUOTE]
No, if you don't have any belief that's agnostic. I can't disbelieve in a concept I'm unaware of.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104063]What exactly is on-topic for this thread then?[/QUOTE]
On topic is discussing the exorcism of Anneliese Michel. These religious arguments are pointless and no one's going to change their mind.
[QUOTE=Darkar;21103953]maybe, but i think you get the point i was trying to make.
anyway,is the "earth is spinning" example more appealing to you?[/QUOTE]
Earth Revolving around the sun would be more appealing, because many people thought it was the opposite (because of the church, and ignorance) until math and observations from Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo
[QUOTE=Mexican;21104141]No, if you don't have any belief that's agnostic. I can't disbelieve in a concept I'm unaware of.[/QUOTE]
Agnosticism is, by definition, the belief that humans are not well-enough equipped to understand the full extent of the universe and, as such, will never be able to prove OR disprove god. It requires the understanding of the concept of god.
[QUOTE=Mesothere;21104072]For example:
Illogical: "•confused: lacking orderly continuity; "a confused set of instructions"; "a confused dream about the end of the world"; "disconnected fragments of a story"; "scattered thoughts""
Incorrect: "[B]not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth[/B]; "an incorrect calculation"; "the report in the paper is wrong"; "your information is ...
•contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie" "
Even you should be able to tell these are two quite different things.
This is specifically applicable in this situation, as there is no fact proving either side of the argument.[/QUOTE]
[quote]
il·log·i·cal
   /ɪˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Show Spelled[ih-loj-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
[B]not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning: an illogical reply.[/B]
log·i·cal
   /ˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Show Spelled[loj-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
[B]1.
according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.[/B]
2.
reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.
3.
reasonable; to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats.
4.
of or pertaining to logic.
wrong
   /rɔŋ, rɒŋ/ Show Spelled[rawng, rong] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2.
[B]deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.[/B]
3.
not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4.
not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
5.
out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.
6.
not suitable or appropriate: He always says the wrong thing.
7.
(of clothing) that should be worn or kept inward or under: You're wearing the sweater wrong side out.
in·cor·rect
   /ˌɪnkəˈrɛkt/ Show Spelled[in-kuh-rekt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
[B]not correct as to fact; inaccurate; wrong: an incorrect statement.[/B]
2.
improper, unbecoming, or inappropriate: incorrect behavior; incorrect attire.
3.
not correct in form, use, or manner: an incorrect copy.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Darkar;21104107]we covered that matter[/QUOTE]
The subject was touched, but not covered. Even before Eratosthenes there were people who thought the Earth was round, but as far as I know he's the first one who can be said to have presented real evidence of it.
[QUOTE=Ishmael12;21104165]Earth Revolving around the sun would be more appealing, because many people thought it was the opposite (because of the church, and lack of evidence otherwise) until math and observations from Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo[/QUOTE]
fine, keep that example in mind
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104170][/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but the phrases you bolded don't strengthen your argument at all. Were you trying to make a point?
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21104197]The subject was touched, but not covered. Even before Eratosthenes there were people who thought the Earth was round, but as far as I know he's the first one who can be said to have presented real evidence of it.[/QUOTE]
i meant we covered that it was a bad example.
[QUOTE=Darkar;21104107]we covered that matter
[B]woah, that must make me wrong[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, you're using an incorrect definition.
[editline]04:55PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mesothere;21104218]I'm sorry, but the phrases you bolded don't strengthen your argument at all. Were you trying to make a point?[/QUOTE]
Yes, that wrong and illogical can both mean the same thing.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21104169]Agnosticism is, by definition, the belief that humans are not well-enough equipped to understand the full extent of the universe and, as such, will never be able to prove OR disprove god. It requires the understanding of the concept of god.[/QUOTE]
It's not just religious, it's regarding all forms of knowledge. You can be agnostic to anything at all, and it's saying you don't know 100% if said thing is true. Most people are slightly agnostic but have a major hint towards their belief. When people say they're agnostic, though, they pretty much mean they don't have a belief either way and accept they don't know and don't care to guess.
If I showed you a curtain, and asked if their was a car behind it, you wouldn't say "no because I don't have any evidence". You'd simply say "I don't know". So the default is agnostic.
Atheism shouldnt be looked at as a religion.
I try not to believe anything, because most of the time it is a bunch of [B]bull shit[/B].
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104226]Yes, you're using an incorrect definition.
[editline]04:55PM[/editline]
Yes, that wrong and illogical can both mean the same thing.[/QUOTE]
now, whats the key word in that sentence?
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104226]
Yes, that wrong and illogical [B]can[/B] both mean the same thing.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104226][highlight]can[/highlight]
[/QUOTE]
that means they dont [B]always[/B] mean the same thing.
[QUOTE=alphaspida;21104288]Atheism shouldnt be looked at as a religion.[/QUOTE]
Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" so yeah it is.
Shut the fuck up, all of you.
Stop waving your prepubescent "intellectual" dicks around trying to look smart. This is about the exorcism, not this playground fight between kids about religion. You guys arent masters of religious philosophy and history.
ON TOPIC:
It was scary to the point that mental issues could progress into something this bad. The human mind is crazy.
[QUOTE=Mexican;21104275]It's not just religious, it's regarding all forms of knowledge. You can be agnostic to anything at all, and it's saying you don't know 100% if said thing is true. Most people are slightly agnostic but have a major hint towards their belief. When people say they're agnostic, though, they pretty much mean they don't have a belief either way and accept they don't know and don't care to guess.
[B]If I showed you a curtain, and asked if their was a car behind it, you wouldn't say "no because I don't have any evidence". You'd simply say "I don't know". [/B] So the default is agnostic.[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, this is a physical example. We can test for the car, by looking behind the curtain. A better extension to your example would be an infinite number of curtains, and you claiming that there was a car behind one of them, yet none have had one so far.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104226]Yes, you're using an incorrect definition.
[editline]04:55PM[/editline]
Yes, that wrong and illogical can both mean the same thing.[/QUOTE]
No, they don't.
Take the plum-pudding model of the atom which was mentioned earlier in this thread. Was it logical? Yes, experiments seemed to reinforce the idea, it made sense, and it appeared true. Was this the case? No, as proven by more modern science, the model is incorrect. The model still makes SENSE, it's just not right.
To be wrong is to not conform to fact.
To be illogical is to not conform to logic.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104226]Yes, you're using an incorrect definition.
[editline]04:55PM[/editline]
Yes, that wrong and illogical can both mean the same thing.[/QUOTE]
Logic does not ask whether the premises are factually correct. One can logically deduce an incorrect result out of incorrect premises - therefore being logical but wrong.
[QUOTE=Mexican;21104312]Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" so yeah it is.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, shouldn't be looked at as a religion.
Hence it not being believable, but real.
If you believe in god you do not believe that trees can grow. My point
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21104332]On the contrary, this is a physical example. We can test for the car, by looking behind the curtain. A better extension to your example would be an infinite number of curtains, and you claiming that there was a car behind one of them, yet none have had one so far.[/QUOTE]
Okay assuming I wouldn't let you look behind the curtain, you get the point though.
[QUOTE=Darkar;21104303]now, whats the key word in that sentence?
[B]that means they dont [B]always[/B] mean the same thing[/B].[/QUOTE]
yes part of the use of a language is knowing what definition for words people are using.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.