The law of Logic

The law of Logic

There are 44 comments on the News24 story from Jun 7, 2012, titled The law of Logic. In it, News24 reports that:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Los Angeles, CA

#43 Jul 13, 2012
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>If there's a law of non-contradiction, the authors of the bible are repeat felons.
What do you mean if?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#44 Jul 13, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Not me, I am filing charges against the thing, on behalf of every human who has been hurt by that monstrous book of evil, from whence the god came.
You can't fight a wisp of nothing, but a god made real, bring that bastard. I got a world of hurt, saved just for it.
OK, I want to invite you to comment please on another thread, that I jsut started, called how to save god from being evil. It discusses how there could not possibly be an allgood god that is allpowerful, allknowing, the creator of everything, and capable of intervening in events on this planet, and has intentionality. I essentially argue that without the attribute of allgood, it would be possible (though I fortunately do not think it exists). I understand your point very well. pain and suffering are in ourselves, and we know it differently than how we know things we think we see, smell, hear, taste, or feel with our external senses. it is our body's knowledge - and we add to it what we think we see, when we think we see others (including animals) in pain, or when we read accounts of pain, written by other persons, or hear them discussed. our empathy and our lack of belief that we are the only being in the universe, leads us to believe that there are other living beings that suffer, much as we do, and to have a bit of anger against any even fictional being that made us that way - the curse god and die attitude, even among atheists like me! I am an agnostic atheist, and do not rule out the possibility of a partly bad god - only the possibility of a Good and Powerful one.

have you read the play jb, by Archibalc Macleish?
"If God is God, He is not good;
if god is good, he is not God;
take the even, take the odd,
I would not sleep here if I could,
except for the wind in the grass and the
little green leaves in the wood." (from memory, not exact, probably)

It is a fine play. based on book of job, but with a different message. much like the feeling I think you were expressing. You come across with very strong feelings at times, and other times you are well modulated and cooly rational. since I vary in mood also, I feel a connection.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#45 Jul 13, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>LOL! Damn, am I coming across as a school marm?
No, I think he was partly referring to the more obvious stylistic defects in the book - I assume you both refer to the Bible - as well as to the substantive objectionable content. I went through the Bible with a red ink pen once, intending to mark out the bad parts. I saved lots of time and motion and ink just by putting a star once in a while by one short pasage, and then putting a slash where the good thing ended and the bad resumed.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#46 Jul 13, 2012
P_Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Such idiots are also incapable of grasping "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law. Most of them are sociopaths who "think" being accused makes someone guilty...unless the accused is a high-profile christian, of course. It doesn't surprise that idiots who can't grasp one also fail to grasp the other.
Innocent until proven guilty means *false until proven true*. The accusation against the defendant is presumed to be false until sufficient evidence is presented, verified and then judged by an (allegedly) impartial jury. Only when there is proof is the person declared guilty.
Science also assumes false until proven true. Theories, assumptions and extrapolations are made based upon evidence and then tested. It is only when the tests and new evidence (and repeated tests and further evidence) back up the claim is the theory assumed to be true (e.g. evolution is both theory and fact).
There are two major differences between science and the adversarial court system, but they are both in science's favour:
(1) There is no "double jeopardy". Science will test and retest, and things which were once considered false can actually become accepted science (e.g. plate tectonics).
(2) Science is willing to consider alternate theories and not have tunnel vision when it comes to proving and disproving things or about changing theories when the theory disagrees with the evidence (e.g. there are at least three valid explantions other than "dark matter" for why the universe behaves as it does).
There is also a similarity to courts which again proves that science's methodology is as valid as a court's:
(1) Some proofs are directly proven by testing and facts (e.g. DNA in a court, and DNA in a genetics lab).
(2) Some proofs are made by induction and circumstantial evidence, but are based in fact and not opinion (e.g. geological dating based on striations in land masses).
helpful, but opens up lots of small points to quibble abotu, as many metaphors do. there is a major element of don't know in both processes as well, in many cases. I udnerstand that in some countries, not proven is an alternative to either guilty or not guilty. should have been for OJ., for example. the prosecution did a lousy job, and the evidence was mishandled is one of the sources of not proven - and not enough evidence is another - and nothing conclusive can be determined yet because we are waiting for more facts to come in, is another. it is an interesting metaphor in which to discuss specifics, however, and I am not objecting to it in general.

I like scientific attitudes and method - more than I like the temporary conclusions of a majority of scientists or experts in any scientific field. I am highly agnostic and skeptical and do not swallow scientific consensus any more than I do religious consensus. I do not buy the big bang theory, for example. I do not need it, so why buy it?

I will provisionally rent the manmade global warming theory, not because it is something to believe in, but because my view of risk assessment is that not taking it seriously could lead to worse consequences than taking it seriously would, as more info comes in over time. I do not want to be any hotter than last week in Iowa. we finally got a bit of rain today. I notice the mass media gives very little coverage to the science about global warming, and is all hot about the god particle socalled. they are so dumb they do not even know where the name came from, but think believers will act like salivating pavlov's dogs - apologies to dogs - and read whatever is printed about it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr IB DaMann 75,173
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 4 hr Eagle 12 - 169
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Nemesis 32,051
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 7 hr Nemesis 4,068
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 12 hr Subduction Zone 6,096
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat John 4,952
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web