6
0

Conventional Logic vs. Religious Logic


 invite response                
2011 Dec 9, 9:12am   84,873 views  235 comments

by uomo_senza_nome   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

relcartoon

People who argue that their beliefs are true have the burden of proof. This is a very important concept in making arguments, known as Russell's teapot.

Russell's teapot states that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others.

People who argue that Evolution is not science, but dogma -- then should also accept that we should teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in schools.

From the founder of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster )

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

« First        Comments 234 - 235 of 235        Search these comments

234   curious2   2012 Aug 27, 8:09am  

freak80 says

Care to elaborate?

What part did you not get, the reference to the Crusades or Prop H8? I'll guess that you're familiar with the history of the Crusades, and thus answer with some links regarding Prop H8:

Poor saps donate life savings in favor of Prop 8

"We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money"

There Is a Dark Side to Mormonism

The campaign to pass [H8] is being organized primarily through churches and other houses of worship.

In every example, the syllogism is the same:
(1) We the preachers represent an omnipotent god who somehow needs your help;
(2) give us money and do what we say and you will be rewarded, or ignore us at your peril.
No refunds of course.

235   theocritique   2012 Sep 14, 12:37pm  

Conventional Logic: Non-metaphysics in your estimation.
Theistic: Metaphysics.

Philosophy= something that expresses itself through a life lived but the which has its principle in the mind for starters.
Are you than based off of your proposition above leading us to believe that because we cannot show "a philosophy" or an idea that it does not exist? That would be beyond fallicious. Philosophy and faith both can claim this. Theism like philosophy professes itself in a creedal way...it's propositions express itself "Incarnationally" through humans or through CREATION. I personally see evolution as a grand proof of God's existance and not of His non-existance. "Energy" is neither created nor destroyed according to thermodynamics...or as the Church Fathers would say "We are sparks off of the divine essence."

« First        Comments 234 - 235 of 235        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste