Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Quotes

  1. #1 Quotes 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"

    "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge"

    -Einstein

    The idiots that populate this planet constantly claim that they need religion to provide their morals and ethics. Now, not that many people would call Einstein an idiot; what he said directly revokes that stupid idea. So either you have to believe me when I say that religion is if anything detrimental to ethics and moral, or you can discredit me, AND EINSTEIN, AND every person that he drew knowledge and inspiration from.

    And I am tired of idiots that either give a stupid irrelevant response or try to claim something like, "That quote is not real" or "He did not mean it in the way that you interpret it".


    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Although I agree with some of your sentiments, I have to point out that citing Einstein (or like) on matters of faith and morals etc. is little more than an argument from authority. Einstein was a genius when it came to physics, true, but it does not necessarily mean he was a genius regarding other things. I think it is a logical fallacy to cite him with the sentiment of "Einstein was a genius, so everything he says must be true and valid". Please understand, I am not disagreeing with your quote per se, just with the premise of his authority.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Cold (con)Fusion said:

    So either you have to believe me when I say that religion is if anything detrimental to ethics and moral[ity]. . .
    Which religion is being referenced. Condemning all religion based on one's own misperception is both unethical and immoral in itself.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    I have already given all the logical proof necessary yet people do not believe me when it comes to this, so I am only using this as a reinforcement to my previous statements.

    If you look up his philosophical quotes you can see that he was in fact also a philosopher. He is not known for philosophy only because his study of physics dwarfed it.

    I am referencing this to all people of all religions who claim that they need to be threatened to adhere to logical morals.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Appeal to athority is not an argument, you have to then proove why Einstein is right

    Regardless, the conclusion is right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I actually go by Einsteins philosiphy which I've only just realised sounds similar to mine. Curious.

    But I do disagree with the blind faith notion, to follow rational information can be deceptive, its best to make a chaotic path and leave a trail, after all the universe comes from chaos, the only way to explain things is by way of chaos. That doesn't mean that you don't have to strive for rational information, I strive to learn more to help me better the world, to make people happy. That is the way I follow science, becasue I feel greater motivated to help knowing others are better off than myself. So to sum that up, blind faith in God is more of an apparatus than an experiment itself.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Cold said:

    I have already given all the logical proof necessary yet people do not believe me when it comes to this, so I am only using this as a reinforcement to my previous statements.
    For the life of me, I am at a complete loss to figure out what it was in your OP which you construe as being "logical proof." You pulled out two quotes from Einstein and used them to come to a conclusion that is not supported by the Einstein quotes.

    If it were that far back, I would requote the whole original post here, but it is not that difficult to go back to it from here.

    While I pretty much agree with the Einstein quotes, they are far from proving your original statement.

    Beyond the reality that Einstein is neither philosopher nor theologean, and therefore not an authority, he does not even come close to saying that religion is detrimental or that fear is THE motivational factor for all people who are in some way religious. He merely states that fear is an improper motivation.

    To that extent that I would pretty much agree. The Bible concurs in that it says, "It is God's goodness that leads to repentence."

    In the OP, Cold says:


    The idiots that populate this planet constantly claim that they need religion to provide their morals and ethics.
    I don't think any one, even an idiot, is claiming that. If God did establish the basis of morality and ethics within us, they have already been provided and one should not need God to provide them again. It would be equally idiotic for someone to claim that they need religion to provide their oxygen. Oxygen is there whether you know it, agree with it, recognize it or fight it. Morals exist whether you know them, agree with them, recognize them or disagree with them. You don't NEED the Bible or any other religious faction to tell you what is right and wrong -- you already know. Whether you do right or wrong is a completely different matter.

    So I do agree with your conclusion that you do not need a religious source to apprise you of what is moral. It is as built in as the instinct to suckle.

    Cold claimed:

    If you look up his philosophical quotes you can see that he was in fact also a philosopher. He is not known for philosophy only because his study of physics dwarfed it.
    I addressed this a little bit earlier but to expand upon my earlier words: Einstein did make utterances which have some philosophical meaning. But so does just about everybody else. That does not make one a philosopher. It is possible that Dave Hume may have said something that was pertenant to physics, but that does not make him a physicist. Einstein also said things of a religious nature, but that does not make him a theologian. Preachers sometimes have mathematical references in their sermons. That does not make them mathematicians.

    Einstein's philosophical observations are just that -- philosophical observations. They are no more or less authoritative because of his acclaim in the field of physics. They are what they are -- valid or invalid in their own right, not because Einstein was a reknown physicist.

    And Cold concludes:

    I am referencing this to all people of all religions who claim that they need to be threatened to adhere to logical morals.
    Well, if Cold can show us some of "all" those people from "all" religions who are making such claims, then perhaps we can deal with them. I cannot speak for other religions, but I am not aware of what threats are being used to compel Christians to adhere to morals.

    If one is rejecting Jesus Christ only because one is not afraid of the consequences of rejecting Him, it is not a good reason. If one rejects to take an umbrella only because he does not fear getting wet, that is probably not a good reason. Wanting to be right with God is a proper motivation for accepting Jesus Christ just as wanting to stay dry is the proper motivation for taking an umbrella.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    No, my morals are not innate. Yes I was given the list of morals when I was very young, but I questioned every single of them since through objective methods and ended up eliminating the illogical ones.

    You would not call your example a mathematician because what math he uses is nothing compared to the math used by professionals. What Einstein said does in fact compare to the philosophy of Plato, Nietzsche, and Kant. Which is why you could call him a philosopher.

    Many people on this forum previously stated that we need religion for morals. Not only that, but it is the main argument of all the theists that I know once I logically defeat their religion. They always say, "Oh....well, we still need it to maintain order and give people ethics". WE DO NOT; if religion did not exist, the only difference would be that parents would use logic instead of fear to convince their children to maintain various morals. And really, even if logic was not enough and the populaces morals were not as "strong" as they are right now, the number of people not killed and hurt because of religion would far exceed those hurt by weak morals.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    No, my morals are not innate. Yes I was given the list of morals when I was very young, but I questioned every single of them since through objective methods and ended up eliminating the illogical ones.

    You would not call your example a mathematician because what math he uses is nothing compared to the math used by professionals. What Einstein said does in fact compare to the philosophy of Plato, Nietzsche, and Kant. Which is why you could call him a philosopher.

    Many people on this forum previously stated that we need religion for morals. Not only that, but it is the main argument of all the theists that I know once I logically defeat their religion. They always say, "Oh....well, we still need it to maintain order and give people ethics". WE DO NOT; if religion did not exist, the only difference would be that parents would use logic instead of fear to convince their children to maintain various morals. And really, even if logic was not enough and the populaces morals were not as "strong" as they are right now, the number of people not killed and hurt because of religion would far exceed those hurt by weak morals.
    Think about it, you said that people would use logic for ethics, wouldn't all of their logic be concerned about themselves and only them which would lead to many problems?

    How do you know that ethic weren't based on religion that they would be based on logic? Does everybody uses logic and thinking to determine their path in life or do some just go with the flow? Many parents have tried to use religion to base their kids morals on but have failed. Wouldn't the same hold true if logic was used instead?
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Think about it, you said that people would use logic for ethics, wouldn't all of their logic be concerned about themselves and only them which would lead to many problems?

    How do you know that ethic weren't based on religion that they would be based on logic? Does everybody uses logic and thinking to determine their path in life or do some just go with the flow? Many parents have tried to use religion to base their kids morals on but have failed. Wouldn't the same hold true if logic was used instead?
    No, because logic has and is always used. People who are religious follow a logical cherry picking of the things they like in the bible and discount "kill disobedient children" and "stone nonbelievers" etc. Even if you follow the flow you'll have morals that has been chosen, cherry picked or made exclusively. Of course, logic is often applied with personal belief etc and can be a bit twisted at times. Like christians who hate homosexuals and other christians who kill abortion doctors. I know I'm picking on the christians, but it was only two quick examples.

    Yes, logic would be applied with self-interest, but humans (having been evolved in groups) has to think about how they'll be percieved by others. There's no conscious deed without benefit, and having a good reputation will help a great deal in a group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Think about it, you said that people would use logic for ethics, wouldn't all of their logic be concerned about themselves and only them which would lead to many problems?

    How do you know that ethic weren't based on religion that they would be based on logic? Does everybody uses logic and thinking to determine their path in life or do some just go with the flow? Many parents have tried to use religion to base their kids morals on but have failed. Wouldn't the same hold true if logic was used instead?
    No, because logic has and is always used. People who are religious follow a logical cherry picking of the things they like in the bible and discount "kill disobedient children" and "stone nonbelievers" etc. Even if you follow the flow you'll have morals that has been chosen, cherry picked or made exclusively. Of course, logic is often applied with personal belief etc and can be a bit twisted at times. Like christians who hate homosexuals and other christians who kill abortion doctors. I know I'm picking on the christians, but it was only two quick examples.


    True logic has always been used but does everybody use it? If presented with a case of helping a person stranded on the side of the road, how would logic deal with the situation. Stopping would make you late to were you going and take up your time so logically you wouldn't stop. Logic wouldn't make very good ethics or morals.
    Unfortunately religion can be twisted but more often than not it is used the way that it was suppose to.


    Yes, logic would be applied with self-interest, but humans (having been evolved in groups) has to think about how they'll be percieved by others. There's no conscious deed without benefit, and having a good reputation will help a great deal in a group.
    But a good reputation and what it really is depends on what kind of person you are and what group you are involved with. A good reputation in a gang would be very different than having a good reputation in a church. Most people, I would venture to say, only primary concerned about themselves and those close to them, and would primary think of themselves.

    Logically is there any reason to help out some else? Would there be any bases for ethics and morals?
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    True logic has always been used but does everybody use it? If presented with a case of helping a person stranded on the side of the road, how would logic deal with the situation. Stopping would make you late to were you going and take up your time so logically you wouldn't stop. Logic wouldn't make very good ethics or morals.
    Unfortunately religion can be twisted but more often than not it is used the way that it was suppose to.

    But a good reputation and what it really is depends on what kind of person you are and what group you are involved with. A good reputation in a gang would be very different than having a good reputation in a church. Most people, I would venture to say, only primary concerned about themselves and those close to them, and would primary think of themselves.

    Logically is there any reason to help out some else? Would there be any bases for ethics and morals?
    You're kidding, right?

    Of course gang people and church people have different moral values, that is quite evident. You're obviously not thinking logically

    You're example of the stranded stranger is intriguing. If it were on a highway, I doubt many people would in fact stop. Some may, some might not notice and others wouldn't care or had reasons not to. Now I'm not sure if you meant driving or walking, but let's take both. Off the highway driving a car most people might not care, some might call the ambulance and some might in fact stop to help, it depends.

    Now let's consider walking. In fact, I remember I saw a program (or show) where they tested if people in the US would help a person needing medical attention. NOBODY HELPED! In fact, the only person willing to help the man who was practically begging for help was a european! I could be so bold and suggest that given the US high religiousity, perhaps that could be the reason people did not help But that would be unfair, and probably not correct.

    There's actually greater benefit to help the man, logically. You would be considered a "team player" (hero) and gain a good reputation. The benefits there would/could be many.

    If it weren't for logic, the human world would be chaotic and random, without any moral code whatsoever, probably.

    EDIT:

    In fact, let me give you this paradox. What would you do? You say you would probably help the guy. Are you saying that that is not logical? Think about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Think about it, you said that people would use logic for ethics, wouldn't all of their logic be concerned about themselves and only them which would lead to many problems?

    How do you know that ethic weren't based on religion that they would be based on logic? Does everybody uses logic and thinking to determine their path in life or do some just go with the flow? Many parents have tried to use religion to base their kids morals on but have failed. Wouldn't the same hold true if logic was used instead?
    Why would their logic cause them to be only concerned about themselves? How did you draw that conclusion?

    I stated in a world free of religion, as in, a world free of stupidity. The term "In a nutshell" is intrinsically implied here.

    Most people seem to not know the definition of logic on this forum. Logic is pure thought without bias or self interest. It is pure mental power used towards an intellectual goal regardless of the consequences. I use LOGIC constantly. It is why I do not drink alcohol, do not smoke, randomly attack and insult people etc...

    Through logic and statistical thought you can determine whether you should help a random person. Such as, If I were in the bad part of my city and saw someone asking for help, most likely I would not help them; because 1. They could be a mugger, in which case I would need to get my cloths dry cleaned. 2. There would be a 99% chance that they are not worth helping. 3. I have heard very many stories of someone who tried to help someone else, did not fully succeed and was later sued by the victim for not "trying hard enough".

    Though If I were in the good part of town I would most likely help them.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    99% chance that they are not worth helping ? Jeez dude, that is one reason why pure logic is probably not the way to go. We have to allow emotion and empathy to at least have some influence on your choices!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Kalster wrote:
    I think it is a logical fallacy to cite him with the sentiment of "Einstein was a genius, so everything he says must be true and valid".
    I have said that all along. :P
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    99% chance that they are not worth helping ? Jeez dude, that is one reason why pure logic is probably not the way to go. We have to allow emotion and empathy to at least have some influence on your choices!

    Yeah we don't want to be totally Vulcan do we?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Well, emotions etc are there for a logical reason... So whether the logic is direct or indirect (by mind or evolution), it's still there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Cold Fusion said:
    Most people seem to not know the definition of logic on this forum. Logic is pure thought without bias or self interest.
    I think the definition of logic on this forum should be the same as the definition elsewhere. I am not sure, by Cold's definition, that he understands what logic is himself.

    I agree with Cold Fusion that posters on this forum do not seem to understand logic, that is, from a scholastic or practical standpoint But I would have to include Cold Fusion in that group.

    Logic is a means of measuring the rationality and validity of a thought or event, not quite the thought itself or event in and of itself.

    We determine if things are rational and make sense by means of logic. There is no indication in anything Cold Fusion has written that would remotely indicate he has ever had any course work in logic or ethics which is closely related. A very short crash course in logic can be found at http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Logica/logic.htm

    I would highly recommend that any of you who are still involved in undergraduate scholastic endeavors to use one of your elective slots to take a course in logic or ethics. No matter which course you took, it would necessarily include the other.

    The question of helping someone is far more properly placed in the school of ethical thought or moral thought or value judgement. In retrospect, we might consider whether the decision the person made was logical in view of all the circumstances, but that is hardly the process by which one would decide on whether to render assistance.

    If we were going to actually sit down and think it out we might consider some of the following:
    Do I have the ability to render assistance?
    Do my efforts have a reasonable chance to benefit the person?
    Can the person make it through the problem without my assistance?
    Will the person's outcome be the same whether or not I assist.?
    How much risk will I incur by rendering assistance?
    What is the chance I will suffer harm while the person does not?
    How good would I feel if I successfully rendered assistance?
    How would I feel if my efforts were not successful?
    How would I feel if I did not try?
    How would I feel if I did not try and find I could have helped?
    Etc. -- there are many considerations that could go into one thinking on this problem.

    However, while Cold Fusion is sitting over there trying to "logic out" his decision on whether to render assistance, my hope would be that someone like would come along who had as strong sense of ethical or moral obligation to help people in distress. Whether it was logical is a matter that can wait until the final outcome.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Yes, I know Kalster, it seems a little cold of me to say that. No worries though, I already stated that I am not an entity entirely composed of pure logic. So yes, there would be a chance that I would compulsively help the person out.


    Logic is a means of measuring the rationality and validity of a thought or event, not quite the thought itself or event in and of itself.
    So you are saying that one cannot use logic to determine whether their logic is real or not. I disagree; in the case of one mind frame of logic or one entity, yes, it would be impossible, but what about many logical composite entities inside one being?

    I will tell you the truth, this thread was not meant to be an ultimate defeat of my opposition...and am glad that none of you entirely were convinced of it. It was only a supplement and idea to think of as an addition to my discussions of the past where no one could refute my logic. At least you showed me that you can respond to my anti-religion posts at all, and with logic! I was starting to think that all of you guys had died or given up on this forum.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Quotes 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"

    "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge"

    -Einstein

    The idiots that populate this planet constantly claim that they need religion to provide their morals and ethics. Now, not that many people would call Einstein an idiot; what he said directly revokes that stupid idea. So either you have to believe me when I say that religion is if anything detrimental to ethics and moral, or you can discredit me, AND EINSTEIN, AND every person that he drew knowledge and inspiration from.

    And I am tired of idiots that either give a stupid irrelevant response or try to claim something like, "That quote is not real" or "He did not mean it in the way that you interpret it".
    ... or alternatively morals and ethics are merely sub religious principles ...

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    I think the definition of logic on this forum should be the same as the definition elsewhere. I am not sure, by Cold's definition, that he understands what logic is himself.

    Logic is a means of measuring the rationality and validity of a thought or event, not quite the thought itself or event in and of itself.
    ter which course you took, it would necessarily include the other.


    If we were going to actually sit down and think it out we might consider some of the following:
    Do I have the ability to render assistance?
    Do my efforts have a reasonable chance to benefit the person?
    Can the person make it through the problem without my assistance?
    Will the person's outcome be the same whether or not I assist.?
    How much risk will I incur by rendering assistance?
    What is the chance I will suffer harm while the person does not?
    How good would I feel if I successfully rendered assistance?
    How would I feel if my efforts were not successful?
    How would I feel if I did not try?
    How would I feel if I did not try and find I could have helped?
    Etc. -- there are many considerations that could go into one thinking on this problem.
    I would agree. Logic is the process of thinking out a decision and all of its affects and possibilities. Ethics and morals are what decisions are based off or judged against. I don't think that it is possible to have simply logic because then there would be no emotion or anything that makes a person human.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I know I'm being picky here, but logic is not exactly a reasoning "process."

    Actually, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning more accurately describe reasoning processes while logic is what we then use to measure validity or rationality of the product of that reasoning.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •