Kza is now thinking logically

Up until now I have considered opinions to have been emotionally based. And up until now thats how I have formed by opinions. By my emotional reaction not only to the ideas themselves but also to the charisma and rhetoric of other people expounding their opinions.

Another poster gave me something fundamentally new (to me anyway) to think about the other day, that opinions are the output of a rational thought process that begins with facts.

I have been doing a bit of reading and thinking and working things out and she was right. 3 of my most strongly held opinions have therefore had to be changed.

1. I used to be in favor of abortion, but that opinion was merely based on my emotional abhorrence to the idea of forcing women to give birth. Now, after considering the facts, I am against abortion. The main fact I of course have to consider is that I am adopted. In a sense, I owe my life to the stigma against abortion and the pro life movement. It is hypocritical of me, to be in favor of something that, if it were accepted as much as I used to think it should be, would have meant that my entire existance is less likley.

2. I used to be in favor of homosexual marriage, or at least the right of homosexuals to marry, however this opinion was merely based on an emotional reaction to the idea of preserving the civil rights of other human beings, as well as my reaction to the charisma and personality of people speaking in favor of homosexual marriage. However it is pretty illogical really, as I dont even know any homosexuals, there is no historical precendent for members of the same sex to marry, and as a heterosexual person who may one day wish to be married, I would prefer the traditional definition to be fixed, so that the status of the relationship I share with any future wife can not be lessened or altered by permitting the definition of marriage to change with mere current attitudes and pressure from the ultra-PC elements of society. I dont so much have any strong logical reasons to be against homosexual marriage but I dont have any strong logical reasons to be in favor of it either, so as an opinion, I simply cant maintain it anymore, on mere emotional grounds.

3. I used to be opposed to christianity, but this is the most irrational opinion I had of all, this wasnt even based on emotion (ok hate perhaps) as much as it was merely pulled out of my ass. After all, my family are all protestant christians, and I certainly arent opposed to my family, and I myself was baptised in the lutheran church! A is A. (The law of identity, practically one of the first things Aristotle had to say about logic) Kza is a christian. Its a fact. Ignoring it, or claiming otherwise doesnt make it false. The lord jesus christ is now, as he was in my childhood, my savior who died for my sins so that I could have everlasting life in heaven. One huge benefit of being a christian is that I dont feel so helpless when faced with what seems like a hopeless situation. Instead of just sitting there waiting and worrying, I can pray, and talk to god. Then I know that whatever happens happened for a reason, instead of the emptiness that comes from feeling that something happened arbitrarily, senselessley, or for no reason at all, I will at least now know that it happened at least partially due to the will of god. Oh and this new opinion, or should I say belief, of mine can be used as a further premise to strenghten opinions 1 and 2. As a christian I have a strong logical reason to be both against abortion and against homosexual marriage.

My isnt revelation refreshing, I can only thank the people on this forum that helped me abandon my subjective emotional way of thinking for a more objective, fact based rational way of thnking.

Has someone stolen your login?

I told you on the previous thread that someone had stolen Kza's login details

edit:ahh, snap Katrina

One of your least logical posts ever (sadly).

Consideration of the personal over the logical is logical ? Very dissappointed in you man.

Looks like a head injury to me. Very difficult to distinguish from an outbreak of religion though.

Lets do a little test Kza. What am I supposed to do the first time I meet you face to face again ?

Are you that bored today, Kza?

Apparently Kza is not the only one suffering rapid onset of dementia today. puh

Sag nein zu Drogen!

The spelling mistakes are still there, but that epic post has no Kza-syntax. It just doesn't read like a NZ ranter.
So A+ for theft, D- for style.

Um, Kza, I'm happy to hear that our discussion the other day provoked a good amount of thinking on your part, but it appears that your new usage of logic is still in the testing phase...

I did hear aboot a cloud of brain-paralysing gas in the vicinity of Rosenmeim this morning...

Thanks Kza, you've made a dreary morning at home sick much more entertaining!

Great pisstake Kza, love the subtle sarcasm and irony filled post

Just curious Kza on topic #1 - wouldn't the compromise between the two be Pro Choice, as in each woman has the right to choose what she should do when faced with the situation? Not trying to stir things up (well, maybe I am). But why should we have the right to tell someone else how to live their life? I understanding your feeling in relation to the specific situation that you described (i.e. you are grateful that your biological mother chose not to abort, but to give you up for adoption), but how does this necessarily translate into forcing a woman who has been raped and gotten pregnant to have the baby (esp in the case of incessuous rape cases). There are several circumstances that I could understand certain reasons for abortion. I would never do it myself (because of my personal moral convictions), but what gives me or you the right to tell another person how to live?

#2 I have the same sorts of thoughts on, but I am most interested in the abortion issue as I am a woman and it affects me more personally.

As for #3, I am an agnostic and will certainly welcome a debate of theology should anyone have an interest in one. But I refrain from commenting as I think every person is entitled to his or her own beliefs and convictions so if you have chosen to be a Christian and that is what brings you happiness and strength, then I am very happy for you.

(holds breath awaiting a hailstorm of negative karma)

The pisstake I see, but irony?

@ipj: You better see the pisstake...it's all in your face...

This is good stuff even if Kza is being impersonated.

Gotta accept 1. Perfectly logical

2 is based on false data. If marriage is what it was 50 years ago - for life, his argument is good. But it isn't so rejected.

3 is wrong. You are what you believe in. I was brought up strict Catholic, but a few years ago I made a concious decision to do something because if the Budhhists and Hindus are right, then time to make a big entry in the karma bank. So what am I. Someone who believes in the possibility of the karma bank? If you put a gun to my head and said pick a religion, I'd say Buddhist. But I am not Catholic.

Funny, it only really seemed half a pisstake to me at the start, since I didn't read on to the christianity bullshit.

Kza, don't bother trying, because you're never going to show that logic is pointless. I think the funniest part of the pisstake is that you even tried.

@IPJ

KZA's new logic function seems to be in the beta-testing phase indeed. Please send him some more PM's, maybe it would help. The tree you planted needs watering.

I thought it was funny.
Beats reading some mindless argument about the same old shit. I like it.

Not that I wouldn't expect the argument to be along shortly, it's obviously just running a bit late or stuck in traffic.

Remaining still are your views on:

1) the War on Terror
2) The Kyoto Protocol
3) Herion addicts

I suggest we make a concerted group effort, before this wormhole closes.

@MadAxeMurderer:
Regarding point 2. Hmm you may have a point here. I have to admit that I might have let a bit of subjective preference for the traditional form of marriage in there, which was unfortunatly inspired by the emotional reaction to my parents marriage. Ok, I will have to try again, leaving feelings like that out. However still considering merely the facts as they pertain to me, I still cant form a logical argument, at the moment at least, in favour of homosexual marriage.

Regarding point 3: Well it all comes down to the definition of who is a christian and who isnt. The definition I used in the past, and still seems the best today is "true christians are those people who will be chosen by Jesus to join him in the kingdom of heaven at the end times". The biggest problem with that definition is that its not that useful to us today. It depends on some future event occuring. To be honest I dont think your definition is that great either, what someone merely believes in is not I dont think that great an indicator of what someone is. After all, what do christians believe in? I think theres a different answer for every christian out there. Not many of them (us) today believe in every word in the bible, at least literally. And even as a non christian, I still believed in portions of the bible.

I dont think theres any straightforward litmus test that we can use today to determine exactly and precisley who is and who isnt a christian. You are right, merely being baptised doesnt make someone without a doubt a christian, but its a strong starting point that permits us to at least claim that a person baptised in the church, and accepting of that baptism, as I am, has a stronger chance of being a christian than someone who hasnt been.

Only God can really judge who is and who isnt a true christian.

And to all who said that my logic might need a bit of fine tuning, you are right, its new to me to form opinions logically, I have always formed them emotionaly, and its indeed a significant change in how one thinks, to suddenly abandon ones subjective feelings and emotional responses and focus on the facts. The hardest bit I find is the first bit, gathering up all the facts, making sure they are all relevant, and making sure no facts have been missed out. Any tips on thinking logically are most welcome!

Sorry, ain't falling for that...

The bodysnatchers have left Ismaning and are advancing on Rosenheim.

Logically, the literal truth of the Bible must be accepted. If God were to exist, then clearly He would be capable of transmitting His message to men through infallible means and would seek to give us His clear word and guidance and not confuse us with interpretation.

That Christianity is the true faith of God is obvious from History. The Roman empire crumbled after it fell to decadence and turned its back on God. America's faith in God has caused it to be the dominant power on earth and Christian countries control nearly all of the power and wealth of the planet. It follows pretty straightforwardly then that God must have intended for it to be that way.

I think your first step, should of course be to seek American citizenship. Anyone thinking logically would of course be able to see that God intended for America to shepherd His creation. Therefore, as a Christian (which logic demands you must be) your failure to be American would be a sin and therefore illogical as it deviates from God's plan for His creation.

Secondly, it clearly solves your girlfriend dillemma as Marriage and monogamy are the only logical choices in a rational society committed to the will of the Lord.

ps - Logic is simply a tool whose truth-value is zero. It can help clarify and point to failures and falsehoods, but a logical argument is ultimately based on assumptions whose truth-value is non-zero and whose truth is not itself proved by the argument. Logical arguments can have false conclusions. Logical does not equal true and rational does not equal logical as something may be logical and irrational. It is the age-old mistake made by scientists outside of the lab - they associate sound methods with sound results, which is not tenable outside of the realm of things that are empirically verifiable.

BTW, kudos for the interesting time-waster - that's the Kza I've grown to miss.

That was beautiful!

(Though, as an aside, I must say I somewhat resent that scientist comment, because I know very few who make the mistake of assuming "truth" in their work - that's just what many non-scientists assume. Most accept the status of their work as supporting "theory" quite comfortably.)

Ok, I beleive Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Zoroaster, Mohammed, and Ghandi were all great prophets. What is a great prophet? Someone who inspires millions, years after his death, and spoke good stuff.

Is a great prophet touched by God, (or the Sun of God), or is he merely a charismatic deep philosopher? The answer to that question you will find in whatever holy book you choose to believe in. And if you don't beleive in any holy book you already have your answer.

So Kza, you either take the bible as a dictation from God, rather modified through the ages, or you are not a proper Christian.

@KZA

And then some forum members say that the topics are boring or humourless today. I need some of whatever you're on currently. And I used to be the forum zombie. Now we have a new candidate. KZA is possesed.

@IPJ

It was only a gentle jibe. Anyway, the real mistake scientists sometimes make is thinking that everything is empirical. The touchy-feely side of life should never be under-theorized.

Too right, Slim, too right.

@Bumpy, hmm heavy topics, to really answer your question you would have to define the topics precisely and ask more specific questions, and even then I would probably just say that I have insufficient facts at hand to form an opinion.

@Iceberg Slim, well for the most part I agree, but theres a couple of points that arent that clear because they lack evidence. In fact the wealth of america would suggest its not on the christian track, after all, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19 v23) On the other hand, the meek will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5), leaving heaven to the strong and powerful, so maybe you are right.

@Mad Axe Murderer,
Yes I would agree with that.

EDIT: Ooops just read in matthew that the meek are also blessed (the proper quote is "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.") so scripture cant be talking about the non-christians. Guess us christians will inherit both the earth AND heaven. Cool! In light of that though I can only assume that being rich and powerful are minus points as far as receiving the lords grace goes. Sweet for me, I am neither!

@kza

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul, producing holy witness,
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

Et tu Polonius!

EDIT: I mean Shylock!

Here we are months later. He seems like a nice chap(KZA), and I can not recall having an unlogical convo with the guy.