In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

Dean197 Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 1:37 PM
They're not assumptions, they're conclusions. Inference is a form of logic, too. We observe that nature has been reliable so far, and conclude in the absence of a good reason to think otherwise, that it will continue to do so. So far, so good. The brain's ability to interpret reality can be checked against reality, in fact, you could argue that one of the main services that science provides is a way to check our brains against reality, and the best that can be said for our brains and reality, is that they do a pretty good job at the scale they operate on, considering. As you say, logic is consistent by its nature, if it weren't, it wouldn't have rules that we can discover. Science's only assumption is that reality is real.
Last week the New York Times published an opinion piece that offered atheism's response to the evil/tragedy in which 20 children and six adults were murdered at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut.

What prompted Susan Jacoby to write her piece was a colleague telling her that atheism "has nothing to offer when people are suffering."

She wrote the piece, "The Blessings of Atheism" ("It is Here and It is Now!" screams the subhead) to prove her colleague wrong by offering a consoling atheist alternative to religion's consoling belief in an afterlife. Atheists cannot believe that there is any...

Thursday, May 23 | 08:26 AM ET
Thursday, May 23 | 08:26 AM ET
Thursday, May 23 | 08:26 AM ET
Thursday, May 23 | 08:26 AM ET