100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Atheism Weak or Strong | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
That was not the logical outworking of the gospels. As I said before, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. But again, the Crusades were done BY the Church(which also has yet to excommunicate Hitler) But to break away from just using Christianity examples, Look at the Middle East today. In Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is a price on EVERY US Soldiers head, not just because they are American, but because they don't believe the same thing as the Taliban and the Insurgents. I'm sure we have all seen the picture of the Middle Eastern man holding a sign that reads(paraphrasing): Islam is peaceful, if you don't think so, I'll kill you" So, you can say that is is "not a logical outworking" of the holy books all you want, but History has, and continues to show that it is just another reason to slay fellow man. You judge a philosophy by its teachings and the life of the founder. A good worldview will have three things 1Logical consistency 2Empirical adequacy 3Experiential relevance Well, there goes Religion. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was not the logical outworking of the gospels. As I said before, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. But again, the Crusades were done BY the Church(which also has yet to excommunicate Hitler) But to break away from just using Christianity examples, Look at the Middle East today. In Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is a price on EVERY US Soldiers head, not just because they are American, but because they don't believe the same thing as the Taliban and the Insurgents. I'm sure we have all seen the picture of the Middle Eastern man holding a sign that reads(paraphrasing): Islam is peaceful, if you don't think so, I'll kill you" So, you can say that is is "not a logical outworking" of the holy books all you want, but History has, and continues to show that it is just another reason to slay fellow man. You judge a philosophy by its teachings and the life of the founder. A good worldview will have three things 1Logical consistency 2Empirical adequacy 3Experiential relevance Well, there goes Religion. . . How does Christianity violate the laws of logic? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 01/30/09 11:39 AM
|
|
That was not the logical outworking of the gospels. As I said before, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. But again, the Crusades were done BY the Church(which also has yet to excommunicate Hitler) But to break away from just using Christianity examples, Look at the Middle East today. In Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is a price on EVERY US Soldiers head, not just because they are American, but because they don't believe the same thing as the Taliban and the Insurgents. I'm sure we have all seen the picture of the Middle Eastern man holding a sign that reads(paraphrasing): Islam is peaceful, if you don't think so, I'll kill you" So, you can say that is is "not a logical outworking" of the holy books all you want, but History has, and continues to show that it is just another reason to slay fellow man. You judge a philosophy by its teachings and the life of the founder. A good worldview will have three things 1Logical consistency 2Empirical adequacy 3Experiential relevance 1.) Logic is fluid and follows in the path of the premise. What may seem logical to me may not be logical to you. So number one is not specific. 2.) What amounts to empirical adequacy is also a personal consideration and opinion. 3.) Experiential relevance, too broad a requirement. Hence, the above three assessments can only be valid in judging your own world view, and not the world view of others whose opinions, beliefs and experience, premises and logic is different. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A good worldview will have three things 1Logical consistency 2Empirical adequacy 3Experiential relevance Well, there goes Religion. . . How does Christianity violate the laws of logic? How does it Not? You believe a guy was dead for three days, and rose from the dead. you believe that there is a man in the sky, who has a list of 10 things you cannot do if you do any of these things, you will burn and suffer for all eternity. But he loves you! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was not the logical outworking of the gospels. As I said before, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. But again, the Crusades were done BY the Church(which also has yet to excommunicate ) But to break away from just using Christianity examples, Look at the Middle East today. In Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is a price on EVERY US Soldiers head, not just because they are American, but because they don't believe the same thing as the Taliban and the Insurgents. I'm sure we have all seen the picture of the Middle Eastern man holding a sign that reads(paraphrasing): Islam is peaceful, if you don't think so, I'll kill you" So, you can say that is is "not a logical outworking" of the holy books all you want, but History has, and continues to show that it is just another reason to slay fellow man. You judge a philosophy by its teachings and the life of the founder. A good worldview will have three things 1Logical consistency 2Empirical adequacy 3Experiential relevance Well, there goes Religion. . . How does Christianity violate the laws of logic? 1. Logical Consistency a. the OT/NT is full of historical inaccuracies, for example, if you match the events written about with history you have the Census of Quirinis and the birth of Jesus spanning over ten years, usually gestation takes 9 months. There is so little evidence for Jesus so there are so many different theories. b. The OT g-d who demands sacrifices, suddenly says ok, just one more and than that's it? the main difference between Xianity and Pagan Mystery religion is that the Pagans viewed the dying/resercreting g-d on an annual basis with the change of seasons, where Xians again say one and done. c. By faith you are saved, so came to faith and is in Heaven now. 3. Experienial Relevance: All religions have this, most people come to faith through a phenomological experience; however the support system to keep and maintain this faith may or may not be cult-like. 4. I am so sleepy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Fri 01/30/09 12:11 PM
|
|
That was not the logical outworking of the gospels. As I said before, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. But again, the Crusades were done BY the Church(which also has yet to excommunicate Hitler) But to break away from just using Christianity examples, Look at the Middle East today. In Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is a price on EVERY US Soldiers head, not just because they are American, but because they don't believe the same thing as the Taliban and the Insurgents. I'm sure we have all seen the picture of the Middle Eastern man holding a sign that reads(paraphrasing): Islam is peaceful, if you don't think so, I'll kill you" So, you can say that is is "not a logical outworking" of the holy books all you want, but History has, and continues to show that it is just another reason to slay fellow man. You judge a philosophy by its teachings and the life of the founder. A good worldview will have three things 1Logical consistency 2Empirical adequacy 3Experiential relevance 1.) Logic is fluid and follows in the path of the premise. What may seem logical to me may not be logical to you. So number one is not specific. 2.) What amounts to empirical adequacy is also a personal consideration and opinion. 3.) Experiential relevance, too broad a requirement. Hence, the above three assessments can only be valid in judging your own world view, and not the world view of others whose opinions, beliefs and experience, premises and logic is different. Do you believe truth is non contradiction? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth is not non-contradictory, for example:
light is a wave. light is a particle. Both statements are true and yet appear to contradict each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A good worldview will have three things 1Logical consistency 2Empirical adequacy 3Experiential relevance Well, there goes Religion. . . How does Christianity violate the laws of logic? How does it Not? You believe a guy was dead for three days, and rose from the dead. you believe that there is a man in the sky, who has a list of 10 things you cannot do if you do any of these things, you will burn and suffer for all eternity. But he loves you! Yes I believe there is a guy who was dead for three days and rose again. Its only illogical on a purely naturalistic basis. I dont believe in a man in the sky who has a list of 10 things you cannot do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont believe in a man in the sky who has a list of 10 things you cannot do. So, what you are saying, his you don't believe in the Christian God, or the Ten Commandments? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth is not non-contradictory, for example: light is a wave. light is a particle. Both statements are true and yet appear to contradict each other. Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) or (b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. I think the notion of time is more inherent in the Law as we normally understand it , but that the notion of context is equally important. Example: A table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood. Possible Counter Example : Light (l) is both a particle (P) and a wave (W). It makes sense to then say that (for all l) not (l is P and l is not P) and this statement is true because light is both a particle and not a particle. Problem: Both notions of context and time were lost. For physicists light is only considered to be a wave or a particle depending on the nature (i.e. context) of the problem to be solved. Light is not considered to be both a particle and a wave at the same time. More Counter Examples ? P = mostly empty space and x = a table. Or perhaps, P = is free and x = Paul. In both these case it seems we still need to be both temporally and contextually sensitive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Fri 01/30/09 12:17 PM
|
|
I dont believe in a man in the sky who has a list of 10 things you cannot do. So, what you are saying, his you don't believe in the Christian God, or the Ten Commandments? I believe in the God of the bible, not some man in the sky. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was not the logical outworking of the gospels. As I said before, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. But again, the Crusades were done BY the Church(which also has yet to excommunicate Hitler) But to break away from just using Christianity examples, Look at the Middle East today. In Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is a price on EVERY US Soldiers head, not just because they are American, but because they don't believe the same thing as the Taliban and the Insurgents. I'm sure we have all seen the picture of the Middle Eastern man holding a sign that reads(paraphrasing): Islam is peaceful, if you don't think so, I'll kill you" So, you can say that is is "not a logical outworking" of the holy books all you want, but History has, and continues to show that it is just another reason to slay fellow man. You judge a philosophy by its teachings and the life of the founder. A good worldview will have three things 1Logical consistency 2Empirical adequacy 3Experiential relevance 1.) Logic is fluid and follows in the path of the premise. What may seem logical to me may not be logical to you. So number one is not specific. 2.) What amounts to empirical adequacy is also a personal consideration and opinion. 3.) Experiential relevance, too broad a requirement. Hence, the above three assessments can only be valid in judging your own world view, and not the world view of others whose opinions, beliefs and experience, premises and logic is different. Do you believe in truth? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont believe in a man in the sky who has a list of 10 things you cannot do. So, what you are saying, his you don't believe in the Christian God, or the Ten Commandments? I believe in the God of the bible, not some man in the sky. Yet, when praising "god" most people look to the sky, and when in prayer, they bow their heads away from the sky. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are using Aristotalian logic, which implies yes/no. Schrodigger Cat analogy and Quantum physics implies the need for a maybe. One way to work around this is to use E-Prime, which is English with any use of the word "is" is removed. For example, on the previous light issue, if worded "light appears as a wave when measured by machine X and light appears as a particle when measured by machine Y" there is no contradiction. This is the language of most scientific writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 01/30/09 12:25 PM
|
|
That was not the logical outworking of the gospels. As I said before, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. But again, the Crusades were done BY the Church(which also has yet to excommunicate Hitler) But to break away from just using Christianity examples, Look at the Middle East today. In Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is a price on EVERY US Soldiers head, not just because they are American, but because they don't believe the same thing as the Taliban and the Insurgents. I'm sure we have all seen the picture of the Middle Eastern man holding a sign that reads(paraphrasing): Islam is peaceful, if you don't think so, I'll kill you" So, you can say that is is "not a logical outworking" of the holy books all you want, but History has, and continues to show that it is just another reason to slay fellow man. You judge a philosophy by its teachings and the life of the founder. A good worldview will have three things 1Logical consistency 2Empirical adequacy 3Experiential relevance 1.) Logic is fluid and follows in the path of the premise. What may seem logical to me may not be logical to you. So number one is not specific. 2.) What amounts to empirical adequacy is also a personal consideration and opinion. 3.) Experiential relevance, too broad a requirement. Hence, the above three assessments can only be valid in judging your own world view, and not the world view of others whose opinions, beliefs and experience, premises and logic is different. Do you believe in truth? Indeed.  (But you are changing the subject and ignoring the points I have put forth.) I am a legal ordained minister. I am the High priestess of the Universal Life Church of Brutal Truth and Honesty. I advocate for people to be truthful to themselves and others. Think Truth Let me take you aside With a sample of thought And tell you about the earth ride That you have heard not. What games we play my friend. What fools we be And we can’t see the end ; We live eternally. The dream is our creation; It’s the thoughts we share The illusion of a nation That we have all put there. See truth! (Put on your truth glasses.) Think truth! (As the illusion passes..) Be truth! And know that you are! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are using Aristotalian logic, which implies yes/no. Schrodigger Cat analogy and Quantum physics implies the need for a maybe. One way to work around this is to use E-Prime, which is English with any use of the word "is" is removed. For example, on the previous light issue, if worded "light appears as a wave when measured by machine X and light appears as a particle when measured by machine Y" there is no contradiction. This is the language of most scientific writing. You use the yes/no logic to deny it. There is no way around it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sat 01/31/09 08:27 AM
|
|
Truth is not non-contradictory, for example: light is a wave. light is a particle. Both statements are true and yet appear to contradict each other. Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) or (b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. I think the notion of time is more inherent in the Law as we normally understand it , but that the notion of context is equally important. Example: A table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood. Possible Counter Example : Light (l) is both a particle (P) and a wave (W). It makes sense to then say that (for all l) not (l is P and l is not P) and this statement is true because light is both a particle and not a particle. Problem: Both notions of context and time were lost. For physicists light is only considered to be a wave or a particle depending on the nature (i.e. context) of the problem to be solved. Light is not considered to be both a particle and a wave at the same time. More Counter Examples ? P = mostly empty space and x = a table. Or perhaps, P = is free and x = Paul. In both these case it seems we still need to be both temporally and contextually sensitive. Nubby you would do well with a formal education. ______________________________________ Oh man just ran across this one its so great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusSNjBd8do |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth is not non-contradictory, for example: light is a wave. light is a particle. Both statements are true and yet appear to contradict each other. Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) or (b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. I think the notion of time is more inherent in the Law as we normally understand it , but that the notion of context is equally important. Example: A table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood. Possible Counter Example : Light (l) is both a particle (P) and a wave (W). It makes sense to then say that (for all l) not (l is P and l is not P) and this statement is true because light is both a particle and not a particle. Problem: Both notions of context and time were lost. For physicists light is only considered to be a wave or a particle depending on the nature (i.e. context) of the problem to be solved. Light is not considered to be both a particle and a wave at the same time. More Counter Examples ? P = mostly empty space and x = a table. Or perhaps, P = is free and x = Paul. In both these case it seems we still need to be both temporally and contextually sensitive. Nubby you would do well with a formal education. ______________________________________ Oh man just ran across this one its so great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusSNjBd8do Are you denying the law of non contradiction Billy? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sat 01/31/09 09:00 AM
|
|
Truth is not non-contradictory, for example: light is a wave. light is a particle. Both statements are true and yet appear to contradict each other. Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) or (b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. I think the notion of time is more inherent in the Law as we normally understand it , but that the notion of context is equally important. Example: A table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood. Possible Counter Example : Light (l) is both a particle (P) and a wave (W). It makes sense to then say that (for all l) not (l is P and l is not P) and this statement is true because light is both a particle and not a particle. Problem: Both notions of context and time were lost. For physicists light is only considered to be a wave or a particle depending on the nature (i.e. context) of the problem to be solved. Light is not considered to be both a particle and a wave at the same time. More Counter Examples ? P = mostly empty space and x = a table. Or perhaps, P = is free and x = Paul. In both these case it seems we still need to be both temporally and contextually sensitive. Nubby you would do well with a formal education. ______________________________________ Oh man just ran across this one its so great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusSNjBd8do Are you denying the law of non contradiction Billy? Every heard of retro causation? There are many things at the quantum level that go completely against traditional "macro" forms of logic. If you take an absolutists stand point on these very old forms of logic then you will fail to appreciate the true strangeness of QM, as well as fail to be able to deal with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic When I say you need a formal education I am not trying to be derogatory, not in the least, but as someone who is traveling down that path myself, one of the first things a professor will do with you is to explain that you are trying to use the wrong tool, for the job. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sat 01/31/09 10:54 AM
|
|
You are right Billy, I should not have commented, I dont know enough about it, I thought my post was a satisfactory answer.
|
|
|
|
|
