|
|
#11
10-22-2004, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Failure Of Logic
[ QUOTE ]
The thought experiment I presented was to show that those who are in love with logic (and opposed to religion) should not be so smug because logic can lead to all sorts of terrible consequences. [/ QUOTE ] The death penalty is illogical because it is not an effective deterrent, and a small % of innocent people, are wrongly executed. Also, it’s illogical to believe there is a perfect set of laws that can be implemented to eliminate murder. Btw, faith completely failed the victims here. This is because the burglar turned murderer didn’t believe he would receive punishment from God or the appropriate deity for committing his sins, or he simply doesn’t care or doesn’t believe in religion. 
|
|
#12
10-22-2004, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Failure Of Logic
[ QUOTE ]
Btw, faith completely failed the victims here. This is because the burglar turned murderer didn’t believe.. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, but that's simply untrue and an illogical statement. Do you define "faith" as a sort of force-field that believers have against the world? That's not how THEY define it.
|
|
#13
10-22-2004, 11:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Failure Of Logic
I think Mr. Spock of Star Trek showed us both the failure of pure logic and the failure of pure emotion. You can't have one without the other. I might point out the failure of religion in the middle ages when cat's were deemed to be the devil's tool on Earth leading to the widespread destruction of cats, the over population of rats and the resulting black death which killed millions.
|
|
#14
10-22-2004, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Failure Of Logic
[ QUOTE ]
Because that's all it is, a guess. [/ QUOTE ] Let's say a man is on trial for his life, and you are foreman of the jury. He's accused of brutally raping and murdering a child. Some witnesses say one thing, some another. What do you do?
|
|
#15
10-22-2004, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Failure Of Logic
This doesn't represent anything resembling a failure of logic. It's a "failure" of morality/ethics if anything. If there is no God then there can be no objective standard on which to judge morality and ethics. "Logic" has little do with it. In this case, logic is merely the tool used to acheive the murder's moral goals. If he some believes killing women in children is wrong, then logic would tell him not to kill them. If he's cool with killing women and children, then the logical thing to do would be to kill them. By saying logic has failed, you just beg the question. If there is no morality or ethics, there's no standard to judge failure by.
|
|
#16
10-22-2004, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Failure Of Logic
[ QUOTE ]
What is the logical thing for the burglar to do? It is to kill both mother and child in order to facilitate his escape and minimize his chance of capture. [/ QUOTE ] The logical thing to do is to leave the mother and the child alone and then to turn himself into the authorities. My statement is just as correct as yours. Do you see why? (Logic doesn't dictate what our objectives are. It just tells us the best way to achieve them. So whether murdering the family or turning himself in is more "logical" depends on the robber's objectives. If sparing the mother and child isn't the robber's objective, that's not a problem with logic; it's a problem with the robber.)
|
|
#17
10-22-2004, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Failure Of Logic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Because that's all it is, a guess. [/ QUOTE ] Let's say a man is on trial for his life, and you are foreman of the jury. He's accused of brutally raping and murdering a child. Some witnesses say one thing, some another. What do you do? [/ QUOTE ] If the evidence demonstrates that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond any doubt, mind you, just a reasonable one), I vote guilty. If not, I vote not guilty. If the witnesses' testimony is the only available evidence, and I have no reason to believe that those testifying in favor of the accused are lying, then I have to vote not guilty; in the US legal system, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty (at least, that's the ideal). OTOH, I do oppose the death penalty for various reasons, and probably wouldn't get picked for the jury in the first place because of that. At any rate, what's your point? -Mike
|
|
#18
10-22-2004, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Failure Of Logic
My point is this:
in the case of religion, you hear conflicting statements and conclude that "it's just a guess". If you're on a jury, you use your MIND to sift and weigh the evidence for yourself. If possible, you research, you read, you call expert witnesses; in short-- you look hard for an answer. You then decide based on the preponderance of the evidence. If a man's life is at stake, you don't toss a coin and go whistling off to lunch..because you CARE. You care about the truth, you care about the accused, you care about the victim, and you care about how the outcome will affect society as a whole. How much effort would you make if the man in the dock were you?
|
|
#20
10-22-2004, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Failure Of Logic
[ QUOTE ]
for some reason im under the impression homeowners dont have the right to simply shoot burglars just because they broke into a house, they must make efforts to avoid the burglar and use deadly force only if their lives are in danger, [/ QUOTE ] * that! If someone breaks into my house and I'm home, they will die a slow and horrible death. Then if I have to prove self defense, that's what I'll do. You don't come into my house uninvited and expect to leave unharmed. Dov
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
