Quote:

---

"Do You Have a Thinking Problem?

"It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then
to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was
more than just a social thinker.

"I began to think alone - 'to relax,' I told myself - but I knew it wasn't
true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was
thinking all the time.

"I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix,
but I couldn't stop myself.

"I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka.

"I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, 'What is it
exactly we are doing here?'

"Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off
the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at
her mother's.

I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in.
He said, 'Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking
has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll
have to find another job.' This gave me a lot to think about.

"I came home early after my conversation with the boss. 'Honey,' I
confessed, 'I've been thinking...'

"'I know you've been thinking,' she said, 'and I want a divorce!'

"'But Honey, surely it's not that serious.'

"'It is serious,' she said, lower lip aquiver. 'You think as much as college
professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on
thinking we won't have any money!'

"'That's a faulty syllogism,' I said impatiently, and she began to cry.
I'd had enough. 'I'm going to the library,' I snarled as I stomped out the
door.

"I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche, with NPR on the
radio. I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors...
they didn't open. The library was closed.

"To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that
night.

"As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for
Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. 'Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your
life?' it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the
standard Thinker's Anonymous poster.'

"Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA
meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was
'Porky's.' Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the
last meeting.

"I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just
seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Like many, he finds religion a great substitute for thinking and hopes one day all Americans will do the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"Oh, b-but, I can't control my thinking--it's a disease!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Like many, he finds religion a great substitute for thinking and hopes one day all Americans will do the same.

---

Really, now--do you mean to imply that one cannot be a serious thinker and also be religious?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Like many, he finds religion a great substitute for thinking and hopes one day all Americans will do the same.

---

Really, now--do you mean to imply that one cannot be a serious thinker and also be religious?

---

No, I mean to state that George W Bush wants people to replace intellectual thought on certain matters with religious beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

Although obviously logical thoughts are the natural enemy of nearly every religion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
1. God created the world in 6 days and faked vast amounts of scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.

2. A religious leader was once asked how the world came into being and made up what all that stuff about the Garden of Eden, etc, etc. The tale gets retold a few hundred times and then is transcribed.

Which one is the logical answer?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
It's just they're matters of faith and belief, not logical thought.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
I'm not saying religions have to be wrong, I'm just saying if you apply logical thought, you generally get a very different answer.

For example, you pick up the Bible and read the account of creation in Genesis. Two possibilities leap to mind:

1. God created the world in 6 days and faked vast amounts of scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.

2. A religious leader was once asked how the world came into being and made up what all that stuff about the Garden of Eden, etc, etc. The tale gets retold a few hundred times and then is transcribed.

Which one is the logical answer?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@SimonWho:

Don't you find it interesting that you've come up with an example to make a point (not necessarily stating that these are the only two options), and people completely missed that? That they are picking apart the way you are arguing and not discussing the point itself?

I find that interesting at least.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Well, Simon, great question! To be all logical-like, you've committed the (informal) fallacy of false-dilemma:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
The only way for a belief in God to be part of logical thought is for evidence that absolutely proves the existence of an omnipotent being. A bunch of guys 2000 years ago saying that their friend definitely definitely came back from the dead does not fall under this category.

---

Quote:

---

And doesn't the fact that your religious friends oppose your philosophising so strongly rather back up my point?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
That they are picking apart the way you are arguing and not discussing the point itself?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
thats interesting... but you make a good point; the key message of the bible is that our earthly, physical bodies are only temporary, and are more or less vessels for our souls to manifest in the third dimension. the exciting concept though is the ressurrection, or Mans redemption, when we return to our "pre-fall" state, which is described as eternal(immortal), perfect, and in relationship with the living God. there are some who believe that this story of Man in our current stage is detailed by the Zodiac, of which of a full cycle represents Mans prophesied redemption ( i dug up this link as an example; im curious for the opinions of the more scientifically inclined http://www.mt.net/~watcher/newun.html ). i realize the bible appears simplistic at a glance, but the more time committed to researching its different facets, the more intriguing it becomes

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Showing how his example is fallacious shows how his point is likewise fallacious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

I refuse to select one of Simon's two alternatives because they are quite clearly not the only two alternatives--that being the case, I select neither and point out the fallacy instead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Well Simon never said that they were the only two either. So, where does that put you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Why do you have to read so much into it when those things don't necessarily exist (nor does the evidence support it).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

I refuse to select one of Simon's two alternatives because they are quite clearly not the only two alternatives--that being the case, I select neither and point out the fallacy instead.

---

Well Simon never said that they were the only two either. So, where does that put you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Showing how his example is fallacious shows how his point is likewise fallacious.

---

Wrong. False does not necessarily equal false in this context

---

Quote:

---

we are not talking absolutes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
The only way for a belief in God to be part of logical thought is for evidence that absolutely proves the existence of an omnipotent being.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Sigma is right in that the identification of a fallacy doesn't mean that the conclusion (or even the premises) is false

---

Quote:

---

Also, can I just take a moment to point out the deep, deep irony of having this debate given the way the thread started? (My apologies to CTS for hijacking the thread.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Um, you do realize the voluminous and hostile response to the concept he expressed indirectly supports the claim, yes ?

Just sayin...

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Um, you do realize the voluminous and hostile response to the concept he expressed indirectly supports the claim, yes ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
It is not logical to put any trust in a third hand account written 60 years after the event as recorded by some very ignorant people 2000 years ago. It just doesn't make any logical sense....
Perhaps a simpler question: how does religion make logical sense? From what basis can you argue in a purely logical manner that there must be a God?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
All Causal and I are saying is...please don't label us "illogical" simply because we subscribe to a religion. Some of us really value logic (where it applies) and being called "illogical" feels insulting. That's all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
or as you say alogical (assuming that if we had more data faith would be logical, which is practically absurd) is ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
That is not what alogical means. It does not mean NOT YET understood by logic. It means outside the outer boundaries of logic, inherently and by definition.

---