Originally posted by Suzianne
No. There is no "realization". He just decided it wasn't true. No "realization" involved.

Again, you can only claim this by claiming to be psychic and to be able to read peoples minds.

You can't.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You really should give this 'logical thinking' thing a try, it would make your life so very
much easier.

No it's not at all like saying ""What made me change my mind is that I changed my mind.""
It's saying "I realised this claim didn't make sense, therefore I stopped believing it"

Which is entirely different.

You first. 😛

Originally posted by Suzianne
You first. 😛

I do do logical thinking, and have for decades, so yes, by definition I have gone first.

It's time for you to catch-up.

EDIT: And yes, I realise your post was tongue-in-cheek... it was also a cop-out.
You are not getting off the hook that easily 😛

Originally posted by googlefudge
Again, you can only claim this by claiming to be psychic and to be able to read peoples minds.

You can't.

How can one "realize" an elephant is blue if it isn't? There's no "real" there.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I do do logical thinking, and have for decades, so yes, by definition I have gone first.

It's time for you to catch-up.

EDIT: And yes, I realise your post was tongue-in-cheek... it was also a cop-out.
You are not getting off the hook that easily 😛

But you also must "realize" that I do not agree with many of your "logical" conclusions.

Arguments where the given is incorrect are nothing BUT "mental masturbation".

Flights of fancy are one thing. But to call them "logical thinking" is arrogant in the extreme.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You really should give this 'logical thinking' thing a try, it would make your life so very
much easier.

So would Orwellian doublespeak. But I don't see you advocating that (for good reason).

Originally posted by Suzianne
How can one "realize" an elephant is blue if it isn't? There's no "real" there.

'Realising' something is a mental process that exists independent of the facts of the matter.
Plenty of people I know [or know of] would claim that they 'realised' that a god or gods
existed... As these gods are mutually contradictory at least some of these people must have
'realised' something that wasn't true.
That doesn't mean that the mental act of 'realising' something didn't occur in their brains.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So would Orwellian doublespeak. But I don't see you advocating that (for good reason).

I would strongly dispute that Orwellian doublespeak would make your life, or anyone else's life, easier.

Which would constitute a good reason not to advocate for it.

No such reason exists for logical/rational thinking.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But you also must "realize" that I do not agree with many of your "logical" conclusions.

Arguments where the given is incorrect are nothing BUT "mental masturbation".

Flights of fancy are one thing. But to call them "logical thinking" is arrogant in the extreme.

But you also must "realize" that I do not agree with many of your "logical" conclusions.

Yes, but the fact that you do not agree with the conclusions is not in and of itself any sort of reason to
suppose that they are wrong.

And because you refuse to use [or understand] logical arguments you never present any valid or
compelling arguments to back up your position.

Arguments where the given is incorrect are nothing BUT "mental masturbation".

I am not sure what you mean by 'the given'... If you mean the premises, then arguments that have known
to be false premises can be useful for exploring alternate possibilities and contrasting those with reality...
Counterfactuals and thought experiments fall into this category.
However if the argument is intended to prove a particular conclusion then a premise being wrong is a valid
criticism of that argument... So if you can show that a premise is wrong then congratulations, you have a
good argument for not accepting the conclusion. [Although that doesn't prove the conclusion false.]

Flights of fancy are one thing. But to call them "logical thinking" is arrogant in the extreme.

No 'arrogance' is involved. A logical argument is one that follows the rules of logic. It's that simple.

You also have not demonstrated in any way at any point that the argument I linked to IS a flight of fancy
and simply stating that it is so and then running away is not persuasive.

Originally posted by googlefudge

But you also must "realize" that I do not agree with many of your "logical" conclusions.

Yes, but the fact that you do not agree with the conclusions is not in and of itself any sort of reason to
suppose that they are wrong.

And because you refuse to use [or understand] logical arguments you never present any valid or
compelling ...[text shortened]... IS a flight of fancy
and simply stating that it is so and then running away is not persuasive.

(Added Edit: Logic fails for me based on how I've seen some people use it to convince themselves they're right (or that someone else is right) based on incomplete data. Like deciding God is not real.)

Yes, most of my beefs against the "logic" of some posters is precisely because the premise is incorrect, or because the logic fails on a very early step because of the weakness of the premise. And no, I do not understand the "name" of some logic manipulations (a loaded term, I admit, but that is how I see it) but that doesn't mean that I cannot recognize BS when I hear it. I've made decisions in the past which do end up benefiting me simply because my BS meter went crazy while simultaneously others' do not. I'm usually the one looking at people saying "Well, I guess that makes sense" as if they were crazy, because I know that it doesn't make sense in any kind of real way (read: the 'sense' it makes could be construed from the argument, but it makes the wrong conclusion, or a conclusion governed by undisclosed facts, for example). I don't "need" a course in college "logic" to know what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.

Call it a "sixth sense"... (yes, I'm being facetious with that last one)

Originally posted by Suzianne
I don't "need" a course in college "logic" to know what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.

Given your posting history on this site, you would clearly benefit from a course on logic. Some of the stuff you come up with breaks my BS meter.
Certainly, going around telling people they are being illogical when you don't know the first thing about logic is just plain dishonest - as is telling people how to use the word 'realized' when you clearly don't understand its meaning.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You also have not demonstrated in any way at any point that the argument I linked to IS a flight of fancy and simply stating that it is so and then running away is not persuasive.

When I wrote my first post in that thread, I did follow up (iirc) once, but I wasn't too terribly concerned with being 'persuasive' about it. Fat chance with that group. I can pick my battles, but I can still register my protest to it, which was my main intent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Given your posting history on this site, you would clearly benefit from a course on logic. Some of the stuff you come up with breaks my BS meter.
Certainly, going around telling people they are being illogical when you don't know the first thing about logic is just plain dishonest - as is telling people how to use the word 'realized' when you clearly don't understand its meaning.

We've gone around on this (a few times), and you claiming that I do not know its meaning merely to make yourself feel better isn't entirely honest either. I do not say that people are illogical. I can't recall ever saying that here. As for your BS meter, since you are an atheist, my position is that your BS meter is the King of False Alerts, and perhaps you need to re-calibrate that puppy. But yeah, I understand if you like it that way.

My definition of "realize" is "to make real". This includes understanding the "real" from the "unreal", or the "true" from the "false". You cannot make true things false, no matter how far you bend your "logic". You CAN realize something is false, if it IS false. But that is exactly the stone in your "realization" tire. You cannot "realize" something is false if it is true. If you insist on doing so, you're just "deciding" it's false, or "calling" it false, based on bad (or no) evidence.

You misplace your hotel room key, so then you "realize" you left it in your room. If it's actually in your car, then you "decided" it was in your room based on bad (or no) evidence. What you actually did was FAIL to "realize" it was in your car. You didn't "realize" it was in the room because you could not "make it real" that it was in your room, because it was actually in your car. If you later go to your room and get someone to let you in, THEN you can "realize" that it is NOT in the room, and you still cannot "realize" that it IS in the room.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
And how exactly do you know that "lots of Jews and pagans witnessed alleged miracles by Jesus and his Apostles"?

Because there are still Jews and pagans in the world.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. There is no "realization". He just decided it wasn't true. No "realization" involved.

Strange use of the word "decided" there. I decided what socks to put on this morning and what jam to put on my toast, but I did not decide that it would rain--I realized it would rain and decided to take an umbrella.

I find it strange that Christians think one decides to believe in God (or not to). I suppose it's to do with the freewill issue: God wants people to choose God. But I can't choose something that makes no sense to me. I can't choose to start believing that the Earth is flat (or round, for that matter), though I can become persuaded by accumulation of evidence.