Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reason vs. Religion
The Stranger [Seattle] ^ | 10/24/02 | Sean Nelson

Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp

The Recent Nightclub Bombings in Bali Illustrate Just What the "War on Terror" Is Really About

On the night of Saturday, October 12--the second anniversary of the suicide bombing of the USS Cole, a year, month, and day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, and mere days after terrorist attacks in Yemen, Kuwait, and the Philippines--two car bombs detonated outside neighboring nightclubs on the island of Bali, triggering a third explosive planted inside, and killing nearly 200 people (the majority of whom were Australian tourists), injuring several others, and redirecting the focus of the war against terror to Indonesia.

Also on the night of Saturday, October 12, the following bands and DJs were playing and spinning at several of Seattle's rock and dance clubs from Re-bar to Rock Bottom: FCS North, Sing-Sing, DJ Greasy, Michiko, Super Furry Animals, Bill Frisell Quintet, the Vells, the Capillaries, the Swains, DJ Che, Redneck Girlfriend, Grunge, Violent Femmes, the Bangs, Better Than Ezra, the Briefs, Tami Hart, the Spitfires, Tullycraft, B-Mello, Cobra High, Randy Schlager, Bobby O, Venus Hum, MC Queen Lucky, Evan Blackstone, and the RC5, among many, many others.

This short list, taken semi-randomly from the pages of The Stranger's music calendar, is designed to illustrate a point that is both facile and essential to reckoning the effects of the Bali bombings. Many of you were at these shows, dancing, smoking, drinking, talking, flirting, kissing, groping, and presumably enjoying yourselves, much like the 180-plus tourists and revelers killed at the Sari Club and Paddy's Irish Pub in Bali. Though no group has come forward to claim responsibility for the bombings, they were almost certainly the work of Muslim radicals launching the latest volley in the war against apostasy.

Whether the attacks turn out to have been the work of al Qaeda or one of the like-purposed, loosely connected, multicellular organizations that function in the region--groups like the Jemaah Islamiyah (an umbrella network that seeks a single Islamic state comprising Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore), the Indonesian Mujahedeen Council (led by the nefarious Abu Bakar Bashir), Laskar Jihad (which waged holy war on Christians in the Spice Islands before mysteriously disbanding two weeks ago), or the Islam Defenders Front (which makes frequent "sweeps" of bars and nightclubs, attacking non-Muslims, and violently guarding against "prostitution and other bad things")--will ultimately prove to be of little consequence. What matters is that the forces of Islamic fascism have struck again, in a characteristically cowardly, murderous, and yes, blasphemous fashion that must register as an affront to every living human with even a passing interest in freedom.

The facile part: It could have happened here, at any club in Seattle. It's a ludicrous thought, of course--at least as ludicrous as the thought of shutting the Space Needle down on New Year's Eve because some crazy terrorist was arrested at the Canadian border--but that doesn't make it any less true. That doesn't mean we should be looking over our shoulders and under our chairs every time we go to a show. It simply means that it could happen anywhere, because anywhere is exactly where rabid Islamists can find evidence of blasphemy against their precious, imaginary god.

Which brings us to the essential part: The Bali bombings were not an attack against Bali; they were an attack against humankind. In all the jawflap about the whys and wherefores of the multiple conflicts currently dotting our collective radar screen--the war against terror, the war on Iraq, the coming holy war, et al.--it seems worth restating (at the risk of sounding pious) that the war against basic human liberty, waged not by us but on us, is at the heart of the matter. Discourse has justifiably, necessarily turned to complexities of strategy, diplomacy, and consequences. The moral truth, however, remains agonizingly basic. We are still dealing with a small but indefatigable contingent of radicalized, militant absolutists who believe that every living being is accountable to the stricture of Shari'a, under penalty of death. As Salman Rushdie wrote, in an oft-cited Washington Post editorial, the fundamentalist faction is against, "to offer a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex." If these were fictional villains, you'd call them hyperbolic, not believable. But they aren't fictional. Their code would be laughable if it weren't so aggressively despicable.

As headlines about Bali cross-fade into news of North Korean nukes, and there are further debates about the finer points of Iraqi de- and restabilization, it's crucial to remember that there is, in fact, a very real enemy, with a very real will, and the very real power of delusional self-righteousness. How to remember? Consider the scene of the attacks (as reported by various Australian and European news sources):

It's a typical hot, sweaty, drunken, lascivious Saturday night. People, primarily young Aussie tourists from Melbourne, Geelong, Perth, and Adelaide, are crammed into the clubs, mixing it up, spilling out into the street. Rock band noises mix with techno music and innumerable voices as latecomers clamor to squeeze inside. Just after 11:00 p.m., a car bomb explodes outside of Paddy's, followed a few seconds later by a second blast that smashes the façade of the Sari Club and leaves a hole in the street a meter deep and 10 meters across. The second bomb is strong enough to damage buildings miles away. All at once, everything's on fire. People are incinerated. Cars go up in flames. Televisions explode. Ceilings collapse, trapping those still inside. Screams. Blistered, charred flesh. Disembodied limbs. Mangled bodies. Victims covered in blood. Inferno.

Now transpose this horrible, fiery mass murder from the seedy, alien lushness of Bali to, say, Pioneer Square, where clubs and bars are lined up in the same teeming proximity as the Sari and Paddy's in the "raunchy" Jalan Legian district, the busiest strip of nightlife in Kuta Beach. Imagine a car blowing up outside the Central Saloon and another, across the street at the New Orleans. Again, it seems too simple an equation, but the fact remains that the victims were not targeted at random, or for merely political purposes. They were doing exactly what any of us might be doing on any night of the week: exercising a liberty so deeply offensive to religious believers as to constitute blasphemy. And the punishment for blasphemy is death.

There is an ongoing lie in the official governmental position on the war against terror, which bends over backwards to assure us that, in the words of our president, "we don't view this as a war of religion in any way, shape, or form." Clearly, in every sense, this is a war of religion, whether it's declared as such or not. And if it isn't, then it certainly should be. Not a war of one religion against another, but of reason against religion--against any belief system that takes its mandate from an invisible spiritual entity and endows its followers with the right to murder or subjugate anyone who fails to come to the same conclusion. This is the war our enemies are fighting. To pretend we're fighting any other--or worse, that this war is somehow not worth fighting, on all fronts--is to dishonor the innocent dead.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; islam; religion; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,251-1,3001,301-1,3501,351-1,400 ... 1,501-1,550 next last
To: donh
So you stand by your statement then that

"Pharisees is just another word for jews."--donh post 1133

?
1,301 posted on 12/02/2002 9:36:25 PM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1279 | View Replies]

To: donh
This nakedly violates Identity

How? I don't see how it violates identity even fully clothed.

1,302 posted on 12/02/2002 9:38:29 PM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1281 | View Replies]

To: Tares
If you could, would you provide a link to these discussions?

I'm sure you don't need it, but just in case and to make sure I can do it correctly. here.

1,303 posted on 12/02/2002 10:23:36 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1292 | View Replies]

To: beavus
How? I don't see how it violates identity even fully clothed.

Man, that is so funny Beavus!

1,304 posted on 12/02/2002 11:50:53 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1302 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
A statement cannot refer to itself as a negative without asserting it doesn't exist. This assertion is self contradictory, THEREFORE, invalid.

Kind of like standing in front of a mirror and stating "I do not exist.".

1,305 posted on 12/03/2002 8:02:05 AM PST by Tares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1257 | View Replies]

To: beavus
"Pharisees is just another word for jews."--donh post 1133

yes, I stand by it because it is, and has been, in common usage with that meaning, according to historians and bigots for about 1600 years, as I have offered you both encyclopedic evidence, and specific examples to verify. How long will you stand on this petifogging issue before you manage to think of something meaningful to say?

1,306 posted on 12/03/2002 1:47:01 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1301 | View Replies]

To: beavus
This nakedly violates Identity

How? I don't see how it violates identity even fully clothed.

Draw a venn diagram around one of the slits on the shield of the 2-slit experiment. Label it "A". Label the rest of the shield "NOT(A)". Call the elements of the domain of discourse the buckyballs thrown at the shield. At a given time(t) throw one buckyball through the shield. According to classical physics, the buckyball can go through only one or the other slit at time(t). According to quantum physics, the buckyball goes through both slits at time(t).

Now lets construct the predicate representation of this phenomenon:

We examine the element buckyball(t) to determine whether it is went through A or NOT(A), and discover it went through both, so plug these values into the predicate statement, which you claim always gives the value FALSE, (A AND NOT(A)), and we discover that it now gives the value TRUE.

So which baby are you planning to throw out with the bathwater? Are you going to claim we can't draw venn diagrams on a flat plate? Are you going to claim a 60 atom molecule cannot be an element of a set? Or are you going to acknowledge that the law of identity is just a useful tool for understanding some things that are mathematically tractable, rather than a law of nature?

1,307 posted on 12/03/2002 2:00:55 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1302 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings; Tares
I never could. Just when I thought I'd wrangled things around to some area of agreement I'd find myself faced with jumping through those two slits again,

I don't know about the rest of the discussion (and I do agree that what we have been wrangling about come to not very much about which we were at odds after all), but you did not put the 2-slit discussion to sleep with the claim that "someday we'll understand better". That is remarkably feeble. If the law of identity is ubiquitous, than you don't have to hold your head just right to see it working in a properly constructed domain of discourse.

1,308 posted on 12/03/2002 2:08:24 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1292 | View Replies]

To: Tares
Kind of like standing in front of a mirror and stating "I do not exist.".

This reflection is false.

This reflection cannot be validated.

1,309 posted on 12/03/2002 2:17:26 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1305 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings; Tares
A statement cannot refer to itself as a negative without asserting it doesn't exist. This assertion is self contradictory, THEREFORE, invalid.

...therefore, both TRUE and FALSE at the same time? Like Tares just claimed can't exist? Such statements are the the form of valid predicates. Where do you get the nerve to swipe them off the table?

In point of fact, they aren't contradictory in the straghtforward sense Tares means, although I have accepted this previously, just to get on with the argument.

They just don't have a known binary truth value. You can't say "This sentence is FALSE" has a value, because none is ever returned when you try to evaluate it. You can therefore, also not say whether such statements are elements in A or NOT(A). So you can't process the law of identity on them.

Whatever "invalid" means, "this sentence is FALSE" does not poop out of existence because you uttered the word--it is member of the set of predicate statements--said which, we are not normally shy about including in valid domains of discourse about which one may meaningfully issue proclaimations about the Law of Identity.

1,310 posted on 12/03/2002 2:29:10 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1257 | View Replies]

To: beavus
Probably, but the closure would make the whole argument worthwhile--and tell me that you are someone who can be argued with, rather than a moving target who slyly slips from position to position to avoid clarity.

Fascinating words coming from someone whose made a lifetime thesis out of the supposedly exclusive exacting definition of a word, to the exclusion of an actual sensible response to the meat of the question.

1,311 posted on 12/03/2002 2:37:32 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1268 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings; Tares
Don't you know the definition of a fanatic?

Someone who won't drop it, and won't change the subject.

Why don't you two toss a coin, and decide whether I am constantly changing the subject, or won't drop a subject?

There have been two promenent discussions in this thread I've tried to participate in: whether the Law of Identity is inviolate and ubuquitous, and whether the Gospels were the chief source of Western anti-semitism. If you will, between you, decide whether I am constantly changing the subject or constantly sticking to the subject, I will offer my profound apologies for whichever behavior was incorrect.

1,312 posted on 12/03/2002 2:44:24 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1258 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Do you believe in God? Whose?

There is only one.

So...Allah and Zeus, and the exacting God of the Laws the Jews worship? They don't exist? They are the same as your God, but with makeup on? The Chistian God of the Holy Rollers and the Mormons is the same as the christian God of the Aglicans?--these are the same God, but with makeup on? Sorry. Ask a less broad question, and maybe I'll not need clarification. I am putatively a catholic. My commitment to the notion varies from time to time.

1,313 posted on 12/03/2002 2:53:29 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1283 | View Replies]

To: beavus
I quote yourself:

I'll concede that there have been bigots and ignoramouses who have equated Jew with Pharisee with Christ-killer with root of Germany's problems with money-grubber with big-nosed crotchity money lender.

Tell me again who is being precious and elusive here?

1,314 posted on 12/03/2002 2:57:13 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1201 | View Replies]

To: donh

Where do you get the nerve to swipe them off the table?

Hey, I gotta lotta nerve, in case you haven’t noticed. But then, you should have met my Dad. Now there was a man with a lotta nerve!

They just don't have a known binary truth value. You can't say "This sentence is FALSE" has a value, because none is ever returned when you try to evaluate it. You can therefore, also not say whether such statements are elements in A or NOT(A). So you can't process the law of identity on them.

I don’t want to process the law of identity on them because by definition it has none, it contains a contradiction. All sentences that contain a contradiction have no identity, by definition.

Whatever "invalid" means, "this sentence is FALSE" does not poop out of existence because you uttered the word--it is member of the set of predicate statements--said which, we are not normally shy about including in valid domains of discourse about which one may meaningfully issue proclaimations about the Law of Identity.

It is meaningless. It isn’t true, false, up, down, right, wrong, true, untrue, blue, red, green, or anything. It is nothing. It is not valid. None of this has anything to do with anything other than that single statement. Doesn’t mean horses aren’t horses because horses aren’t sentences. It doesn’t mean logic is invalid because logic isn’t a self contradictory sentence. It can contain a self contradictory sentence and that sentence is exactly what it is, one utterly without meaning. It has no other effect outside itself. It has no other implication outside itself. None can be shown, none can be demonstrated. It is an isolated blob meaninglessness.

1,315 posted on 12/03/2002 3:52:23 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1310 | View Replies]

To: donh
My commitment to the notion varies from time to time.

So what does God want us to do?

1,316 posted on 12/03/2002 3:57:30 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1313 | View Replies]

To: donh
the Law of Identity is inviolate and ubuquitous

The law of identity is not inviolate and ubiquitous because it is not a 'thing.'

The Law of Identity is an absolute requirement for the mind to apprehend anything in reality. No matter what concept, thought, idea or whatever the human mind uses to picture that reality it has a one to one relationship between that 'symbol' in the human mind and the object itself that conforms to the 'law of identity.'

It doesn't matter whether 'Buckyballs' are simulaneously particles and waves because to the human mind it doesn't matter. To the human mind they are a chain of molecules in the shape of a geodesic dome that are doing something weird. Before it goes thru the two slits and after it goes through the two slits it is a 'Buckyball.' The 'mind' creates the "law of identity' because it cannot think any other way.

Call it a domain of discourse, call it ice cream, i don't care. As soon as you define anything, including what a 'domain of discourse' is, you are utterly dependent upon the law of identity or you can't understand it.

1,317 posted on 12/03/2002 4:17:18 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1312 | View Replies]

To: donh
but you did not put the 2-slit discussion to sleep with the claim that "someday we'll understand better".

I'm not interested in putting it to sleep. I'm not trying to say we have an absolute understanding of the universe, which is the only answer you will accept in this case. There are unresolved contradictions, just as there was before Einstein came along. But the fact that they are contradictions proves logic, not the fact that there are contradictions disproves logic.

You want this 2-slit experiment to be verified with a certainty that you claim is impossible. You want all answers absolutely answerered now, and I'm admiting that that cannot be done. That doesn't invalidate logic, just the opposite. The only reason we know that we don't have all the answers is because of the contradictions that remain, something doesn't make sense. This is evidence of a faulty map. The only other conclusion is that it will forever be impossible to know.

It is you who continually defines your 'domain of discourse' as the molecular world and this supposed violation of the law of identity, who then wants to apply that 'domain of discourse' to where it doesn't apply, in the discussion of the logically fallacy of the Smuggled Premise, the Question Begged, the Assertion Without Proof, and the Circular Definition implied in ID, which is where the conversation began. You violate your own rules with impunity and never see that you are doing so.

If you assert that Godel forever bars anyone ever, ever, ever from creating a formal system that can prove its own axioms, then you assert an absolute certainty that you say this very formulation proves is impossible.

If you assert that the 2-slit experiment proves that the Law of Identity is forever flawed, will never be solved, can never be reconciled then you have placed an absolute Law of Identity upon this experiment, an irrevocable proof, which you say the 2-slit experiment makes impossible.

These very assertions are type violations with themselves. They are, therefore, contradictions, and therefore, invalid. The viewpoint is faulty.

1,318 posted on 12/03/2002 5:24:05 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1308 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings; beavus; donh
I just wanted to thank each of you for this identity discussion! I'm learning a lot from all of you!
1,319 posted on 12/03/2002 8:03:54 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1318 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; LogicWings; beavus; donh; Tares
I just wanted to thank each of you for this identity discussion! I'm learning a lot from all of you!

ohhh please! like you aren't far more intelligent than you let on! and you forgot Tares. I always forget to ping everybody on these, I just figure they are following along. Like any of this mattters.

1,320 posted on 12/03/2002 9:42:21 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1319 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Thank you so much for the kudos! (blushing...)

Like any of this mattters.

It does matter! It is invigorating to me to be able to discuss such a wide variety of topics - in so great a depth - with other people who truly care.

I suspect that is why Free Republic is addictive.

1,321 posted on 12/03/2002 9:56:07 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1320 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Like any of this mattters.

It matters. If you really think it doesn't, then why did you ping us to the illegal immigration thread?

1,322 posted on 12/04/2002 10:01:41 AM PST by Tares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1320 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
My commitment to the notion varies from time to time.

So what does God want us to do?

I don't know, but if I was a betting man, and God is a loving Presence that cares about humans, than I would bet he doesn't want His Gospels to be used to justify hounding and murdering jews for another 1000 years.

And I would further bet that God doesn't want His Children standing smugly on ceremony, certain that their understanding of His Word is the one correct understanding--tut-tuting at all those nasty Nazi's and Crusaders and Inquisitors who murdered in his name, justified by His Word.

If the German Lutherans, who bore the brunt of the guilt in Germany for setting the stage for eliminationist sentiment, can do something to make moral repair and amend their Gospels, it isn't unwarranted to expect the the rest of the christian world could do so without dying of hemmorage.

1,323 posted on 12/04/2002 12:03:30 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1316 | View Replies]

To: donh
Good News For The Day

‘Love never fails’ ( 1 Corinthians 13:8)

"Love never fails because those who place themselves under its governance are beautified by it. If you have a friend, or family member that is committed to the love of Christ, you know that love never fails."

"If you know anyone, living in... bitter circumstances---and they have not grown bitter, you know love never fails."

"In the cut and thrust of public life, is there someone you know, who never repays evil for evil? Love does not fail. If you know someone who spends her days giving care to people who have no way of paying her back, you know love does not fail."

"There is a temptation to think of force and violence as strong, and love as soft and weak. The opposite is true. Violence always fails. It cannot achieve what it sets out to achieve. It makes no friends, builds no characters. On the contrary it disintegrates personalities. Was Ghandi weak? Was Mother Theresa weak? Was Christ weak?"

"Love never fails."

1,324 posted on 12/04/2002 12:15:11 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1323 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
It can contain a self contradictory sentence and that sentence is exactly what it is, one utterly without meaning. It has no other effect outside itself. It has no other implication outside itself. None can be shown, none can be demonstrated. It is an isolated blob meaninglessness.

Ever the burnt hand goes wabbling back to the fire. We already had this discussion on another thread.

Consider the case of the barber who shaves himself. I can make a court case out of this. Suppose the barber is a genuine person, genuinely being sued for false advertisement. How will the judge, using logic, determine whether this is false advertising? The barber was genuine in his commitment to his advertised claim, genuinely lives in the village in question, is genuinely a man who needs shaving. If the judge is constrained to logic alone, he must process the syllogism to determine whether the barber is guilty of false advertising.

As I pointed out previously, there are many real world examples of this problem existent in working programs, which we refuse to trash because they are expensive and useful, but which contain elements that unavoidably recurse in the matter of the barber's paradox. The example I gave you was from a language translator--most existing comprehensive language translators contain such entities--cyclic definitions that cannot therefore be resolved. A literal take on the dictionary would yield the same results. If you tried to expand a dictionary's definition by looking up and substituting all the definions in the dictionary for each word in a given definition, you'd get the same thing.

these problems aren't meaningless--they represent areas in an otherwise valid formally correct engine where you can't go with any hope of returning with a logical result. Since you can't vanquish them, and you can't resolve them, you can't say their universe is confined to either A or NOT(A), so the predicate (A AND NOT(A)) is unknown, and the principal of identity is undemonstratable. Furthermore, they are not meaningless, they are a behavior we can observe that tells us something we can act on to improve our circumstances ie. the code is hung up.

As a matter of intuition, I agree that the principle of Identity is a sound one to maintain, for most practical issues in the gross universe. As a formal basis for developing any overarching notions of how the universe works, it is useless, because it is, by or current lights, demonstrably wrong for things that are very small, and things that are very subjective, and things that are very unamenable to being usefully represented as sets, such as our charming selves' inner workings.

1,325 posted on 12/04/2002 12:26:26 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1315 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
If you assert that the 2-slit experiment proves that the Law of Identity is forever flawed, will never be solved, can never be reconciled then you have placed an absolute Law of Identity upon this experiment, an irrevocable proof, which you say the 2-slit experiment makes impossible.

As you are prone to, you vastly overstate my case. If you are going to make any global assertions about the law of identity, it is you, and not I who has a burden of proof. I, of course, have never made anything remotely like explicit claims to an "irrevocable proof", simply because I haven't put "I think" or "I believe" in front of every statement--despite your attempts to make that reading of the question stick in our last thread on this subject. Since conditional acceptance of claims is the scientific norm in this century, no such warrant is required of normal speech.

These very assertions are type violations with themselves. They are, therefore, contradictions, and therefore, invalid. The viewpoint is faulty.

And this is just silly. Pointing out the existence of, say, the sentence "This sentence is FALSE", does not, in some mysterious way, somehow make the act of said pointing out paradoxical.

1,326 posted on 12/04/2002 12:39:50 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1318 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
"Love never fails because those who place themselves under its governance are beautified by it. If you have a friend, or family member that is committed to the love of Christ, you know that love never fails."

Love never fails, as long as love isn't asked to do much of anything useful. For that, you also need brains and ambition and loyalty and duty. Such as the duty of noral repair for damage that's been done in your name, with your adopted instrument of love.

The one thing that drives me out of the catholic church every time I try to attend is this attitude of moral blankness--jesus's moral whiteout of love. A little less love, and little more responsibility wouldn't hurt...bunch of feckless 60s flower children...grumble, grumble, grumble...

1,327 posted on 12/04/2002 12:48:02 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1324 | View Replies]

To: donh
Where the pearl---surprise---joy comes from...

"If you know anyone, living in... bitter circumstances---and they have not grown bitter, you know love never fails."


The Bible says...

"If you hunger and thirst for righteousness...you will be filled"---UP/overflowing!


1,328 posted on 12/04/2002 12:54:43 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1327 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
I'm not trying to say we have an absolute understanding of the universe, which is the only answer you will accept in this case.

No, it is not. Stop making these absolutist claims about my position. I have had to ask this of you far too often. If we don't have an absolute understanding of the universe, then we also don't have an absolute understanding that the Law of Identity is universally correct, either as an ontological or an epistemological claim. It presently does not appear to be universally correct, in that we have innumerable counter-examples before us. It is correct, for those cases where it is correct--which is a small mathematically tractable subset of the entire universe--that's the best claim you are entitled to make at the moment.

1,329 posted on 12/04/2002 12:56:30 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1318 | View Replies]

To: GeekDejure
pieces of s##t
1,330 posted on 12/04/2002 1:02:11 PM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
It doesn't matter whether 'Buckyballs' are simulaneously particles and waves because to the human mind it doesn't matter.

This is an easy question to resolve without touching on the Law of Identity, however, this is not the question at issue.

The question at issue is, why does the one buckyball diffract with itself as if it had gone through both slits at once? This is called the problem of entanglement, and the later experiments inspired by Bell have verified this, as they say, non-locality of physical events, over and over. Einstein's "hidden variables" that would someday change this non-locality into an illusion (much to your relief) look like a pretty distant hope at this point.

1,331 posted on 12/04/2002 1:06:46 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1317 | View Replies]

To: donh
bunch of feckless 60s flower children...grumble, grumble, grumble

LOLOLOL!

1,332 posted on 12/04/2002 1:10:00 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1327 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Call it a domain of discourse, call it ice cream, i don't care. As soon as you define anything, including what a 'domain of discourse' is, you are utterly dependent upon the law of identity or you can't understand it.

No. We disagree sharply here. The acceptance of a domain of discourse is not necessarily an act of logic, to which the Law of Identity need be brought meaningfully to bear. It is an act of faith, whose anticedents can be quite vague and unreliable.

Once you accept a domain of discourse as governed by the laws of a specific realistic logic: elemental constraints, axioms of logic and predicates, you are governed by these axioms of logic, including the Law of Identity, for anything you want to discuss within that domain.

Outside that, the law of identity is just a fairly reliable, but not universal heuristic, not unlike your mother's admonition to brush your teeth, go to bed early, and don't believe the fast-talking salesman who says pigs can turn into swans in a instant.

1,333 posted on 12/04/2002 1:19:47 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1317 | View Replies]

To: blam
Oh My God! I love you man! I wish I was that good in putting things so clearly and so comprehensively! Thank you so much for your post. God Bless You!!!

For the readers who skipped your post, please read the following excerpts

The overwhelming majority of Moslem religious authorities who have spoken out on the subject, including those at the main mosque in Mecca and Egypt’s prestigious Al Azar University, either endorse or rationalize acts of terrorism. On a day when Americans were incinerated or buried under tons of rubble, Muslims from Nigeria to Indonesia, celebrated in the streets.

Genocide in the Sudan, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, religious persecution in Saudi Arabia, calls for another holocaust in mosques from Mecca to Gaza, the imposition of Islamic law in Nigeria, forced conversions in Indonesia, synagogues burned in France, Jews attacked across Europe – these are everyday events, as Third World and much of the First slowly turns Islamic green.

The reason lies partly with our absurd foreign policy. We have declared certain Moslem nations to be our loyal allies – including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. We would not want to offend these dear friends by saying something unflattering about their bloody, butcherly, dark ages faith.

1,334 posted on 12/04/2002 1:19:55 PM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
our loyal allies – including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. We would not want to offend these dear friends by saying something unflattering about their bloody, butcherly, dark ages faith.

Our shamful politicians in an attempt to be friend with Egypt, which considers Sudan her sphere of influence, we looked the other way for twenty years as they slaughtered millions of Christians. The entire horn of africa became the killing field for Christians. Since our government is not Christian, and the enemies are Moslem governments, they use their government resources to exterminate the Christians without opposition from us, the non-Christian nation!

1,335 posted on 12/04/2002 1:26:19 PM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1334 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
"They have... lost---a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

"That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

1,336 posted on 12/04/2002 1:42:58 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1335 | View Replies]

To: donh; LogicWings
We already had this discussion on another thread.

Consider the case of the barber...The example I gave you was from a language translator...

A link to this previous discussion on another thread would be most welcomed.

1,337 posted on 12/04/2002 1:51:07 PM PST by Tares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1325 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
QM is a house of cards built upon Planke's Constant and that Planke's Constant is bad math

About 15 years ago, I wrote the software to control a high temperature optical fiber thermometor based on the Black Body phenomenon. It used Planck's Constant directly to derive the temperature from the photons emitted by the iridium painted tip of the fiber as it combusted. Other techniques using other, more traditionally built thermometers were used to verify the accuracy of my thermometer.

Planck's equation was consulted by the developers of the Eber's-Moll equations that describe how a solid state transistor works, before Intel implemented the very first of them to be used commercially. The very transistors that gate your computer onto the internet so you can be happily typing away here.

Planck's equation was fundamental in astronomy. We treated the stars as if they were Black Bodies, (which they are) for the purpose of simulateously deriving their actual magnetudes, temperatures, and distance, using Planck's Equation. This is why we can map the heavens with authority, and this mapping has been too extensively verified by secondary considerations, such as the relationships of stellar novas and interstellar dust concentrations, to be likely to be coming into question anytime soon.

It's barely conceivable that it's bad math or bad physics, but that's looking like a pretty poor bet just now.

1,338 posted on 12/04/2002 1:54:47 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1277 | View Replies]

To: Tares
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/749062/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

Starting somewhere between post #700 and #1000, I think.

1,339 posted on 12/04/2002 2:12:44 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1337 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thank you so much for the kudos! (blushing...)

you deserve them.

It does matter! It is invigorating to me to be able to discuss such a wide variety of topics - in so great a depth - with other people who truly care.

do you have to disagree with everything i say? (just kidding) It matters because we are communicating, we are forced to think about what we are saying, forced to think about how to refine it, and to refine our writing skills. (for those that try and care) This is all to the good. I suspect that is why Free Republic is addictive.

This is a big problem for me. It is far too addictive. But it is a good thing. I've learned so much in the short time I've been here since I found this place.

1,340 posted on 12/04/2002 6:56:37 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1321 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
The Law of Identity is an absolute requirement for the mind to apprehend anything in reality.

As I've asked you before, how is the law of identity employed to teach me the motor skill of bicycle-riding? The law of identity can help me process the question of whether it makes sense to go bicycle riding today, but it cannot help me apprehend bicycle riding. Bicycle riding skill is a continuous domain activity of the right brain. It is not in any mathematically sensible way divisible into sets, so set-theoretic constructs like (A AND NOT(A)) have no obvious meaning or application here. The law of identity is about discrete domains, which you can divide up into sets you can put labels like A and NOT(A) on. That is one the reasons my inner workings are not subject to the law of identity: I can be both happy and not(happy) over the very same event, and the very same time. I am too complex, and too riddled with inherent type violations (like my ability to think about thinking about thinking about something) to be constrained, en toto, by the rules of logic. I am large, I contain multitudes.

1,341 posted on 12/04/2002 7:04:24 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1317 | View Replies]

To: Tares
It matters. If you really think it doesn't, then why did you ping us to the illegal immigration thread?

Just when I think nobody is paying any attention. I was being frivilous, and now that I think back on it, part of me may have been testing. When I get discouraged I do that sometimes, without really focusing on it consciously. Like recently somebody asked me in an offhand manner to do some math in my head, I just kind of thought about it for a second, got a sort of a feel without really figuring it out, and just spit out a number. It was wrong but exactly double. That statement was made in that kind of state, frustrated with some of the conversations I've had recently, wondering why I bother.

And that was the perfect link, you obviously know me well enough to know I'd agree with it. For whatever disagreement I may have with content, I can't argue with the process. They know what they are about. That is all anybody can ask.

1,342 posted on 12/04/2002 7:08:53 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1322 | View Replies]

To: donh
The acceptance of a domain of discourse is not necessarily an act of logic, to which the Law of Identity need be brought meaningfully to bear. It is an act of faith, whose anticedents can be quite vague and unreliable.

As predicted, you are all over the map with your posts, filling them with irrational nonsense that is anything but the subject at hand. Assertion upon assertion, with no content at all to back them up. This is the only statement you have made that actually means anything. You, who would argue for mathematics, science and evolution, believe what you believe as an act of faith!

I rest my case, it is the Faith of donh. Fine. Weave and dodge and dance all you want. There is nothing I can say logically that will convince you, because your view isn't based upon reason, it is based upon a faith. What you are saying is you believe what you believe because you want to, it is an act of faith.

Live there if you want, I don't want to.

1,343 posted on 12/04/2002 7:28:16 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1333 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Thank you so much for your reply! Hugs!
1,344 posted on 12/04/2002 7:55:31 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1340 | View Replies]

To: donh; LogicWings
Since y'all are talking about Planck's Constant and astronomy, you might be interested in this one:

Stability and Size of Galaxies from Planck's Constant (pdf)

Stability and characteristic geometrical and kinematical sizes of galaxies are strictly related to a minimal characteristic whose value is of order h, the Planck Constant. We infer that quantum mechanics, in some sense, determines the structure and size of galaxies.


1,345 posted on 12/04/2002 8:02:35 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1338 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
As predicted, you are all over the map with your posts, filling them with irrational nonsense that is anything but the subject at hand. Assertion upon assertion, with no content at all to back them up.

Let me point out, as politely as I can, that this is obvious nonsense. I have submitted a dozen explicit use examples, which were quite obviously on the point of the subject to hand: the scope of the Identity Law, about which I have gone on at substantial length, not one counterexample of which you have managed to answer effectively except with sarcastic piffle, such as your explanation of the barber paradox that the barber doesn't grow a beard. Or with the same sort of omnibus vague dismissiveness this is an example of.

This is the only statement you have made that actually means anything. You, who would argue for mathematics, science and evolution, believe what you believe as an act of faith!

Yes, that is precisely correct. Unless you are ready to submit the formal written proof of the law of gravity, or any other laws of natural science, I accept that gravity works as a matter of inductive faith in the consistency of what was previously observed or successfully explained. From one quite reasonable point of view, shared widely by natural scientists, I might add, the difference between this and faith in God's Plan is only a matter of preference (which, again, you cannot provide a proof of the necessity of) for more accessible, objectively sharable material evidence.

If you had anything other than faith at the fundamental base your acceptance of reason itself, you would have caughed up the formal proof of, say, the Law of Identity, the first time I asked for it. Without a formal proof, you are accepting things because of inductive arguments and evidence, which themselves have no formal deductive base--we accept that they work on faith. Nowhere is there a proof of the adequacy of inductive reasoning, and science is riff with old examples of inductive reasoning, accompanied by massive confirmations which, nonetheless, proved inadequate eventually; most especially including the inductive reasoning, and inductive history of successful examples of the use of--that make us confident that we should trust--formal Aristotalian deductive logic.

because your view isn't based upon reason, it is based upon a faith

This is a false dichotomy. Submit your formal proof that reason excludes faith, or vice versa.

This is Randian cant, without a hint of common sense to it, much less any demonstrated proof. Preachers and professors of theology reason all the time--way too much for my tastes, in fact. Just as scientists commit acts of faith all the time. Are you under the impression that any of our great scientists were driven by logic to found new branches of science? Sciences are founded by acts of faith--logic only comes along after the fact to aid in determining the accuracy and scope of the miraculous insight. Before Newton's synthesis in "The Principia", the laws of classical physics were not available for examination using the tools of logic. Only after Newton's insight could bench-checking and verification be performed.

Logic does not ride bicycles, logic does not have empathy, logic cannot remember what it felt like to go to school for the first time, logic does not engage in dream-state visual tone poems about apples falling from trees, or elevators falling in gravity wells, and derive laws of the universe from them.

Only inexact, fuzzy-brained, mathematically uncompliant, logically indifferent creatures such as ourselves can do that.

I rest my case,

I'll believe that when I see it.

it is the Faith of donh. Fine. Weave and dodge and dance all you want. There is nothing I can say logically that will convince you, because your view isn't based upon reason, it is based upon a faith. What you are saying is you believe what you believe because you want to, it is an act of faith.

Once again we are in total agreement, at a high decibel level. Outside the domain of formal proofs, anything you believe requires a measure of faith in something. If you don't have deductive proof, you have faith. Worse still, you believe in deductive proof because of faith founded on successful examples in use ie. induction. To my knowledge, no one has ever submitted a proof that wasn't inductive, of the principal that A=A.

Any time you wish to make me eat my words, just submit the non-tautological, formal deductive proof that A=A, or of the law of gravity, or of the law of entropy, or any other natural law.


1,346 posted on 12/05/2002 1:59:05 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1343 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
When a religion declares a political agenda as a fundamental tenet, as does Islam, then it can no longer claim righteousness. By this definition, Islam is not a religion of peace, but a religion of aggression.

I agree, transforming a Mosque with women and children into a war inciting place means that it is not a religion but a political force desguised with pseudo-religious tenets. There is no church like sanctuary in Islam, all is fought between mosques and churches.

1,347 posted on 12/05/2002 2:07:27 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: donh
This is getting boring.

Your "common usage" differs from the dictonary usage (which I posted and you ignored) and any usage that I grew up with in my Protestant family. It would seem your "common usage" is not so common.

Your "encycopedic evidence" contradicts rather than supports your view as anyone able to read can tell. Your evidence from some apparently Catholic publication states "...Pharisaism became practically synonymous with Judaism" NOT 'Pharisaism is synonymous with Jusaism'. Even if this source had said what you claim, you'd have to convince me to accept it as an authority on the definition of "Pharisee". I can't remember that last time I referred to a Catholic encyclopedia for matters of fact rather than Catholic dogma.

How long will you stand on this petifogging issue before you manage to think of something meaningful to say?

Until my fascination runs out with someone who can deny 1+1=2, metaphorically speaking.

1,348 posted on 12/05/2002 3:57:24 AM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1306 | View Replies]

To: donh
You treat Venn diagrams like geographical markers, when in fact they are conceptual markers. You can conceptually "draw a line" around the concept of a buckyball and this "line" is not violated by a 2-slit experiment.

Apparently you are supposing that there are somehow 2 buckyballs created out of one, which, if true, may be construed as a violation of identity I suppose. However, quantum physics does not say that a 2nd bucky ball is created. It merely describes the properties of the buckyball as being such that under the right conditions, it (as a single 'identifiable' entity) passes through both slits. This isn't unique to buckyballs, but is property of all matter, easily demonstrable only with very small particles, and with photons.

The way matter interacts on a quantum level may seem different than the world of classical physics that we commonly experience, but it is most definitely not a violation of any logical precepts.

It's an interesting spin, but you are definitely in a class of your own to interpret the wave nature of matter as violating the law of identity.

1,349 posted on 12/05/2002 4:16:20 AM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1307 | View Replies]

To: donh
lifetime thesis out of the supposedly exclusive exacting definition of a word

From this day forth, on the wise advice of donh, I will delete the word "practically" whereever it is found.

"Doctor, he's practically dead" now equals "Doctor, he's dead." Cremate him.

"Captain, we're practically to port" now equals "Captain, we're to port." Disembark.

"Sir, the enemy is practically in range" now equals "Sir, the enemy is in range." Fire!

"Mr. Vice President, you've practically won this election" equals "Mr. Vice President, you've won this election." Victory speech!

"Bob, you're practically a father" now equals "Bob, you're a father!" Change its diaper.

"Donh is practically a mule, he's so stubborn" now equals "Donh is a mule, he's so stubborn." Hee haw.

1,350 posted on 12/05/2002 4:27:09 AM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1311 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,251-1,3001,301-1,3501,351-1,400 ... 1,501-1,550 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson