Logic

just like my prof said last night...bush's strategy in iraq was theoretically flawed. if there's peace in iraq in 20 years, all the better. it doesn't mean he was right; it just means he beat the odds.

tautology

my hat would be the black bowler with the matching eye makeup.

precisely. i'm sick of hearing the old 'only one can be right' argument.buddhism (which is 'merely a philosophy' when separated from the popular mixing of ancestor worship) doesn't assume that all other paths are wrong. it embraces many paths of self-denial and self-discipline which might lead to enlightenment. one can VERY easily be a buddhist and a christian, or anything else. i'm not familiar enough with any other philosophies to claim the same about them.islam accepts that christianity and judaism recognize the same god (i think i've decided we don't return the favor) but think that our methods are screwy.i don't see why pagans wouldn't accept a christian god into their pantheon. much of the old testament is quite pagan and even includes mention of national gods. (the guy who got healed and wanted to worship the god of israel so he took home assloads [literally] of israeli dirt...) so one could be a pagan and a christian if one was a henotheistic christian (there are many gods, but i only like this one) which most christians are because of their view of satan; they just don't know it. this is a little more difficult because it's even less likely to be accepted by others, but that's life.i think the only religions that are really exclusive, are the big three... you can only be one of those... you can't really be a christian and a jew. it doesn't work. (with jew here representing a religious not a cultural aspect.)

the fallacy. it's not circular, it's a tautology. you're defining your criteria by your conclusion and your conclusion by your criteria.

begging the question is not proper terminology.

i'm saying that in order to have a logical discussion about religion, one must be correct in one's assumptions. you have to define your terms appropriately and completely and you have to operationalize them appropriately in order to have a useful argument and generalizable conclusions. if you base your logic on faulty premises, your efforts are wasted.just like:
it is raining or the sun is shining
it is not raining
so the sun must be shining.this is completely false. sure it follows fine, but the first thing i learned in the logic section of my discrete math class is that this is wasted.in florida, you can have rain and sunshine.
it might be snowing
it might simply be overcast
it might be hailingbut the assumptions are faulty and so the logic is immaterial.

oh hold on i think i'm wrong.Tautology - Wikipediai looked for the real one but i can't find it. oh well.i'm looking for
A<=>B (AiffB)
B=>A (Bimplies A)This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-20-2005 01:24 PM

guh. please. only two sexes. immaterial of what your brain thinks, you either have xx or you have xy... or you have xxy which defaults female. period. gender is entirely different.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-21-2005 01:09 AM

*dies*

yes yes, and to be honest, we are the diploid cycle of our more important haploid gametes. there is no difference between plants and animals. it's a construction. we're precisely the same as moss.really. think about it for a minute.

true. i suppose.

1. that's what i said.2. that's why the christians won't accept pagans not the other way around.3. cause it's funny.

rocks have higher iqs.

ok then. goldfish?