Atheist!

[xssve]

Oh, I forgot to add: "check".

 

[xssve]

Wikipedia has a reasonably well rounded entry on medical ethics - The Terry Schiavo case is what I usually use as an example to illustrate the lengths the medical ethic board went to in that case to detect conflict of interest - cost/benefit analysis, i.e., whether her husband was making his decision based on the prospect of financial gain etc.

Interestingly, the fact that it was the husbands decision and not the parents has it's roots in common law, based on Genesis 2:24.

 

[xssve]

An equally interesting ethical question might be why she felt compelled to starve herself to the point of brain damage in the first place.

It plays into cultural expectations and the role of peer pressure in how individual make decisions. For example the Augustinian stricture that intercourse should be reserved for strictly procreational purposes, upon which philosophy is based the evangelical and religious right's opposition to birth control, the availability of which has altered the assumptions underlying the social philosophies upon which common law is based.

Wikipedia again; Common Law:

The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects. In contrast, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, and legislatures tend to delay acting until a situation is totally intolerable. For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (either positively or negatively).

Sound familiar?

 

[wmrs2]

Here are the points that I have clearly won.

1. It has been proven that Hitler was evil from the ge go and we really did not have to wait until his process of evil displeased the German people to know that Hitler was evil. Therefore, we know that there is a standard that is universal that defines evil before the process begins.

2. Correct logic is a matter of deduction and induction leading back to the original premise. Logic is not a triadic process as is being used by the liberals and atheist on this forum.

3. The quality of logic is different from the correctness of logic. If you want logic to yield a quality spiritual outcome, you must begin with a quality premise because thinking will always return to the premise by the induction process. If the Absolute is your premise, this is by default a more quality premise than "nothing" or a changing premise.

Before this day ends, it is my goal to explain why your process logic is faulty, why your interpretation of "common law" is in error, and why your logical process has turned logic upside down. Stay tuned for further information as it will be forth coming.

 

[xssve]

I can hardly wait.

 

[oggbashan]

I can hardly wait.

I can't be bothered to wait. "Logic" like many of wmrs2's concepts, is to be redefined to an unrecognisable shape.

wrms2 believes something and can't convince others that the belief has to be universally acceptable.

I'll stick to the Spaghetti Monster.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

I can't be bothered to wait. "Logic" like many of wmrs2's concepts, is to be redefined to an unrecognisable shape.

wrms2 believes something and can't convince others that the belief has to be universally acceptable.

I'll stick to the Spaghetti Monster.

Og

It believes it's "won" for one thing. Gotta say-- it's comedic relief!

 

[wmrs2]

I can hardly wait.

Well, here it comes. check mate by the way.

In the history of philosophy there has only been one explanation of logic that has passed the test of experience, science, and intuition. That is the art of correct deductions and induction from premises that do not change.

Each time you make a logical statement, the truth of the statement must be judged by the premise.

The better the premise is defined, better is the quality of the statement. The scientific method is a premise for discovering how things are and how things work. We know how a motor works because it is made with scientific knowledge but if we changed the meaning of scientific knowledge, then it would be impossible to understand how to make a motor. We can change the motor by applying the scientific method but we can not make a motor by altering science. Notice the permanence of the premise is the important element of the logical precess.

All of man's scientific progress has been made based on this theory. This is the strength of logic in the Western Civilization. In the history of philosophy this theory has never been successfully challenged. This logic has normally been referred to as Aristotelian Logic.

What we have seen defended by most atheist and liberals on this forum is not Aristotelian Logic but a triadic logic, which I call process logic, which does not depend on deduction or induction. This logic is commonly called Hegelian Logic. The communist lean heavily on this logic. Here is a example. society is in a democratic state of existence. People create anarchy to destabilize the state. What results is a synthesis or something different than the beginning state of affairs. This is triadic in that a thesis exist, an antithesis emerges and the result is a synthesis which become a new thesis.

The Hegelian Logic explains communism and Hitler's rise and fall but it is not logic. It is a social process but you can not explain good and evil with this type of logic. Notice that your thesis is always changing for the lack of permanent values whether these values be science or social laws of justice.

All serious philosophers have rejected Hegelian Logic as a purely logical system including Hegel himself. For this very reason is why I point out that Og and my good friend xssve are in great error when they argue for knowledge based on process philosophy as they do.

(There is more to come.)

 

[oggbashan]

Sorry, wmrs2.

Your premise has always depended on belief or faith.

That isn't any form of logic.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

You begin with the statement that God is an absolute, and that your faith is the same thing as knowledge.

from that statement you argue that atheists are illogical and liberal, pro-abortion, and deserving of any stupid insult you come up with on the spur of the moment.

These conclusions of yours give rise to two problems, one a matter of debate, and the other a matter of what a hangout such as this should encompass.

None of those things follow logically, that's the debate.

The social problem is this;

None of those things make you welcome here, and none of those things make you respectable, and none of those things make you anything anyone would want to hang out with.

 

[wmrs2]

You begin with the statement that God is an absolute, and that your faith is the same thing as knowledge.

from that statement you argue that atheists are illogical and liberal, pro-abortion, and deserving of any stupid insult you come up with on the spur of the moment.

These conclusions of yours give rise to two problems, one a matter of debate, and the other a matter of what a hangout such as this should encompass.

None of those things follow logically, that's the debate.

The social problem is this;

None of those things make you welcome here, and none of those things make you respectable, and none of those things make you anything anyone would want to hang out with.

Then, why do you not go away? If you and Og disagree with what I explained to you about logic, your college education was worthless to you. What I have said about logic is the consensus of the whole Western World of academia and no true scholar is ignorant enough to not accept this presentation of the facts. Now that is just it.

According to the consensus on your own threads there is no great plea for you to remain on this forum since you clearly are not able to conduct yourself like a lady or gentleman, which ever you prefer.

Unlike you, I have stopped for the time being at this cat fight. I gave a very scholarly presentation and you reply with great animosity. I fail to see any insult in my presentation whatsoever.

Yes, it is true that I think atheist and liberals are irrational. I am pointing out why I think this and you offer me a "show and tell" example of why my assertions are true. Now a big, important author like you and Og can surely do better than that.

 

[amicus]

The proof of the fallacy, presented by wmrs2, in Hegelian Logic, triadic logic, is in the inability of anyone using it to address a single moral issue with reason.

The question remains open for anyone to use reason and logic to justify abortion, the taking of an innocent human life and no one dares because that action cannot be justified by any rational means. It is a political act, a faith, a belief, that the action is justified pragmatically, just as the Final Solution and the Gulags were justified.

Score another big one for wmrs2.

You go, girl!

Amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

Well, here it comes. check mate by the way.

In the history of philosophy there has only been one explanation of logic that has passed the test of experience, science, and intuition. That is the art of correct deductions and induction from premises that do not change.

Each time you make a logical statement, the truth of the statement must be judged by the premise.

The better the premise is defined, better is the quality of the statement. The scientific method is a premise for discovering how things are and how things work. We know how a motor works because it is made with scientific knowledge but if we changed the meaning of scientific knowledge, then it would be impossible to understand how to make a motor. We can change the motor by applying the scientific method but we can not make a motor by altering science. Notice the permanence of the premise is the important element of the logical precess.

All of man's scientific progress has been made based on this theory. This is the strength of logic in the Western Civilization. In the history of philosophy this theory has never been successfully challenged. This logic has normally been referred to as Aristotelian Logic.

What we have seen defended by most atheist and liberals on this forum is not Aristotelian Logic but a triadic logic, which I call process logic, which does not depend on deduction or induction. This logic is commonly called Hegelian Logic. The communist lean heavily on this logic. Here is a example. society is in a democratic state of existence. People create anarchy to destabilize the state. What results is a synthesis or something different than the beginning state of affairs. This is triadic in that a thesis exist, an antithesis emerges and the result is a synthesis which become a new thesis.

The Hegelian Logic explains communism and Hitler's rise and fall but it is not logic. It is a social process but you can not explain good and evil with this type of logic. Notice that your thesis is always changing for the lack of permanent values whether these values be science or social laws of justice.

All serious philosophers have rejected Hegelian Logic as a purely logical system including Hegel himself. For this very reason is why I point out that Og and my good friend xssve are in great error when they argue for knowledge based on process philosophy as they do.

(There is more to come.)

Ok, you asked for it. While it is true that parts of Aristotelian logic have been the basis for the development of current logical systems (of which there are many), including Hegel's, who, as you rightly stated, has been influencing Feuerbach and Marx and later Marxist philosophers, this is as far as it goes. Since we had roughly 180 years of philosophy, people like Russell, Wittgenstein, et al.

Dialectics are still a major component in critical and skeptical thinking, but the development has been towards symbolic or mathematical logic. That is what science uses and modern philosophy uses, although there are different models also, none of which have anything to do with Aristotle. Aristotelian logic hasn't been used outside of theology since the mid 19th century.

Your deductions are, to put it kindly, a little out there. I would suggest that you stick to theology.

 

[DeeZire]

...None of those things make you welcome here, and none of those things make you respectable, and none of those things make you anything anyone would want to hang out with.

Well-said. Of course, there is the train wreck aspect...

 

[cloudy]

The proof of the fallacy, presented by wmrs2, in Hegelian Logic, triadic logic, is in the inability of anyone using it to address a single moral issue with reason.

Oh, please. You thought Hippocrates was a "grad student."

 

[xssve]

The proof of the fallacy, presented by wmrs2, in Hegelian Logic, triadic logic, is in the inability of anyone using it to address a single moral issue with reason.

The question remains open for anyone to use reason and logic to justify abortion, the taking of an innocent human life and no one dares because that action cannot be justified by any rational means. It is a political act, a faith, a belief, that the action is justified pragmatically, just as the Final Solution and the Gulags were justified.

Score another big one for wmrs2.

You go, girl!

Amicus...

In fact it is justifiable under any number of conditions; I offered you one such example and you were unable to resolve it yourself, although I think we all know how that one would go.

 

[xssve]

The Hegelian Logic explains communism and Hitler's rise and fall but it is not logic. It is a social process but you can not explain good and evil with this type of logic. Notice that your thesis is always changing for the lack of permanent values whether these values be science or social laws of justice.

All serious philosophers have rejected Hegelian Logic as a purely logical system including Hegel himself. For this very reason is why I point out that Og and my good friend xssve are in great error when they argue for knowledge based on process philosophy as they do.

(There is more to come.)

You assume there are no unchanging laws of social interaction - as you have said, simply because these philosophers did not reference them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I even offered a purely utilitarian argument against the holocaust - in the entire 2000 year history of Christianity, the best they can come up with is split decision between sentiment and a desire for revenge.

 

[amicus]

Past_Perfect:

"...Dialectics are still a major component in critical and skeptical thinking, but the development has been towards symbolic or mathematical logic...."

~~~

Intellectual skullduggery and dishonesty, as if symbolic or mathematical logic was remotely connected to formal ethics in philosophy.

It is this kind of intellectual snobbery that has cloudied the field of ethics and driven away all but one percent of the pointy heads who postulate there are no absolutes in ethics because of chaos theory.

Christ on a crutch....gimme a ******* break!

Amicus...(read my asterisks) (I like that, more and more)

 

[sr71plt]

Intellectual skullduggery and dishonesty,

Your theme song, I take it?

 

[amicus]

In fact it is justifiable under any number of conditions; I offered you one such example and you were unable to resolve it yourself, although I think we all know how that one would go.

~~~

Actually there is only on instance in which killing a child in the womb is justifiable and that is when the life of the mother is at risk.

I understand why you cling to your faith but you have exibited a total inability to produce a reasoned, rational defense of abortion. I will point that out over and over again until you admit that your premises are based on belief and that your philosophy is faith based.

Amicus...

 

[wmrs2]

You assume there are no unchanging laws of social interaction - as you have said, simply because these philosophers did not reference them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I even offered a purely utilitarian argument against the holocaust - in the entire 2000 year history of Christianity, the best they can come up with is split decision between sentiment and a desire for revenge.

This is secular Christianity's problem. My definition of Christianity does not match secular Christianity. I see no desire for revenge in my philosophy of logic. Would you please clarify this point?

simply because these philosophers did not reference them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I am simply surprised that you do not recognize logic in the same way that scholars do universally. You have a right to your world view of logic but it does conflict with the rest of the world's view of what logic is. That makes it difficult to understand your premises upon which you base your assertions.

 

[past_perfect]

Past_Perfect:

~~~

Intellectual skullduggery and dishonesty, as if symbolic or mathematical logic was remotely connected to formal ethics in philosophy.

It is this kind of intellectual snobbery that has cloudied the field of ethics and driven away all but one percent of the pointy heads who postulate there are no absolutes in ethics because of chaos theory.

Christ on a crutch....gimme a ******* break!

Amicus...(read my asterisks) (I like that, more and more)

Yeah, why having to prove something if it is so much easier just to claim it is true, has always been true, and will always be true (in my book that is called believing). You go on playing with your absolutes in philosophical kindergarten where you belong.

 

[kendo1]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/kendo1111/3532.jpg

 

[wmrs2]

Ok, you asked for it. While it is true that parts of Aristotelian logic have been the basis for the development of current logical systems (of which there are many), including Hegel's, who, as you rightly stated, has been influencing Feuerbach and Marx and later Marxist philosophers, this is as far as it goes. Since we had roughly 180 years of philosophy, people like Russell, Wittgenstein, et al.

Dialectics are still a major component in critical and skeptical thinking, but the development has been towards symbolic or mathematical logic. That is what science uses and modern philosophy uses, although there are different models also, none of which have anything to do with Aristotle. Aristotelian logic hasn't been used outside of theology since the mid 19th century.

Your deductions are, to put it kindly, a little out there. I would suggest that you stick to theology.

Sorry, but you are not the last authority on this subject and I am still looking for a reason to be impressed by your explanation of Aristotelian logic. Most of the world still uses correct referencing as a basis for reasoning. Other so called more sophisticated or special types of logic depend on correct referencing also. Modern science and mathematical logic is refined and clarified logic but it remains based on deductions and inductions. not process.

including Hegel's, who, as you rightly stated, has been influencing Feuerbach and Marx and later Marxist philosophers, this is as far as it goes.

Whose thinking do you think we are dealing with when we deal with today's world problems? Marxist, atheist, and liberals still rely on faulty logic and to say that Aristotelian logic has not been used since the mid 19th. century is to ignore over half the world's population of today who defends against the other half of the world population that still uses Hegelian logic.

Russell, Wittgenstein, et al. are not people who the common man is familiar with at all. Most do not know that Russell had a chicken nor do they know that he ate the chicken for dinner just to prove a point that the chicken had faulty logic.

 

[amicus]

Yeah, why having to prove something if it is so much easier just to claim it is true, has always been true, and will always be true (in my book that is called believing). You go on playing with your absolutes in philosophical kindergarten where you belong.

~~~

I can understand your distress, after devoting years to formal philosophy and find that your premises are all wrong. I think wmrs2 has already made this clear to you and others.

The ultimate conclusion of your symbolic logic and arcane mathematical forumae, is that nothing is real, nothing is absolute, nothing is certain, all is chaos and thus relative; so do drugs & die.

If that be ur bag, baby, go for it. Most rational people see natural order in the universe and strive to comprehend it by using their minds. You labor to prove that your senses and your mind are inadequate to conceive of reality even if it did exist, for you.

That, in simple terms, is the argument you wish to foist upon this forum.

You ain't kiddin' no one.

Hang in there kid, your wasted college years will soon fade behind you and you can make an effort at comprehending the real world.

See. I have hope for you yet.


(Not really)

amicus...