outhouse
Atheistically
What is it I am not able to grasp ? What part of religion do you have knowledge of, that I do not?????
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?
- Thread starter cambridge79
- Start date
What is it I am not able to grasp ? What part of religion do you have knowledge of, that I do not?????
I agree that it is for many of them beyond their grasp.
Well now I have already named three but no one has taken me up for they lose before they can even begin.
As you say they "believe" which is rather subjective, and which you will no doubt see their subjectivity falls under -puerile.
(I did a Google search - puerile define - and quote the result
*****quote *****
pu·er·ile
ˈpyo͝orəl,ˈpyo͝orˌīl/
adjective
adjective: puerile
childishly silly and trivial.
***** unquote *****
Gee how quaint flaunting your limited knowledge on the subject and ignoring my personal experience. There is so much more research into the matter.
One dubious source does not support your feelings on the matter. Researches dating back to the 1920' and earlier and modern researches using, for instance, bio-feedback techniques to produce alpha waves - i.e get two people on the same wavelength has proved it. Your beef appears to be that it is not repeatable on the general public. Subjectivity by many such as you exhibit already precludes you from the scene of research subjects. Another massive stumbling block is fear of the unknown, which we find in people from all walks of life.
An open mind is a prime requirement for an open mind is more capable to view the complete picture, the possibilties and the impossibilties are taken into consideration. It is like an agnostic who not only sees the black and white but also the shades of grey and acknowledges that more research is required and not unsubstantiated opinions that pooh pooh it and try to rule the day.
Last edited:
Reflex
Active Member
Why religion matters.
outhouse
Atheistically
Why would that be beyond my ability to grasp, if it did matter?
Atheist are not all anti theist.
Reflex
Active Member
Because you are an atheist. (It cannot be understood from the outside.)
I think it is fair to say that the OP is more of a challenge than a genuine question,
So, FYI, I posted in another thread an excerpt from Alan Watts' Behold the Spirit. It's not so much an argument, in my opinion, as a statement allowing theists to summarily dismiss atheism as nothing more than a superstition. The only attempt to rebut it was so juvenile that I didn't bother responding. The same is true for books attempting to make a case for atheism—even those written by former evangelists. Even the title of this thread implies that religion is about arguments. And that's just ridiculous.
Last edited:
Logic and reason can't explain Love, compassion, empathy, or natural disasters, life, death, or road rage, drunkenness, drugs, murder, rape, etc. Any act committed though passion can't be explained by logic and reason. The mind is very conning and conniving, it can rationalize any atrocity against his fellow man, from throwing millions into gas chambers or blowing themselves up as martyrs.
No, the atheist who co-ops Logic and Rationalism tries to make them solely their own, as if the rest of Humanity is lacking this mental acumen. Logically the atheist can rationalize the need to exterminate all religious believers; he can reason that he is saving Humanity, whilst conveniently forgetting that some madman can push a button and destroy all life on Earth.
An appeal to logic and rationalism always fails when faced with violence. Then he is most likely to drop the facade, say "The hell with logic and reason," and lash out at his attackers, reverting to his basic animal nature, the survivalist instinct. Logic and reason are what elevates man beyond his animal nature, but they are not inherent qualities which govern his whole personna, they are merely facades because humans are sensate animals, and when push comes to shove, the animal will over rule logic and reason. Logic and Reason are merely appeals, hardly different that the religionist appealing to a God, as he did from the very dawn of Humanity. Logic and Reason are social constructs, hardly any different from the 10 Commandments, upon which Western Society built their Laws.
So, start with the 10 Commandments. Dismantle them with Logic and Reason. I'll even allow you to start from conclusions - what the world is like today. Show me how doing away with each and every Commandment (made then) would have made a different and better world today. Prove to me how never having had the 10 Commandments would have directly led to the Revolution of 1776 and the world as it is today, staring with the world as it was some 10,000 years ago. Logic and Reason will not allow you to manufacture "what-if" scenarios, as that would be imagination run amok.
Chances are that all you will be doing is making a case for license, the license to do anything we want regardless of whether or not it hurts another - and if truth be told it must hurt another. So through the logical advocation for License you will ultimately make the case for animal instinct.
I doubt that you can start the argument by saying that since animals don't have religious rituals (assumptive conclusion on your part) that we as Humans don't need it. The fact is that some animals mourn their dead, which is a prelude to religious ritual, like the ritual for the dead. The fact is that most mammals "seem to" have consciousness, exemplified by their knowing when they are about to die. We've all seen elephants giving respect to their dead, no? Cats have been known to go be with their owners right before they die, for example.
Using logic and reason, without co-opting the argument (for example, saying, "Everyone knows that one should not kill, so that's not religious" - which begs the question, "If everyone knows not to kill, then why did it need to be written down?") refute the 10 Commandments.
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What about the God of the Gaps and/or arguments from ignorance that so many religious people here on RF spew. These are obvious logical fallacies without any real merit, yet I continually see them here. If an argument is logically fallacious, that doesn't mean that the atheist isn't able to "grasp" it. It means that the argument is severely flawed.
Here are some examples:
Something from nothing? We don't know yet. Life from non-life? We don't know yet. Science is limited in certain ways? We have no way of knowing that yet.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Thanks ... understood.
Shad
Veteran Member
Dust is a general term in which many types of materials form it, some which are not found in the human body at all and are toxic to us. You are equivocating a general term as if was a specific which is just post hoc rationalization. It is no better than me says QM is made of "stuff" then have an actually physicist discover what QM is made of just to have me inject my unspecific "stuff" is really the specific the physicist discovered. Also I can argue that since the human body decomposes letting people to assume that since we appear to become dust after death that we are made of dust.
You confused my parody rejection of his opinions based on his own method for rejecting other opinions with an actual rejection. I have made numerous rejections of his view with justification
No as Mo's stance is against objective conclusion with a subjective opinion, namely evolution. Followed by tinfoil hat rants about "science".
Shad
Veteran Member
The golden rule can be very subjective due to the internal judgement regarding how we wish to be treated. For example I would want to be corrected if I held a incorrect, fallacious or weak argument based belief. Lets say the geocentric model. Since I am open to being corrected I extend this to other people. So the Golden rule to you could be different for me. You seem to hold that comfort and happiness is important while I think knowledge and truth are.
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
You could not be further from the truth.
Religion instills a belief system built on faith, not evidence and education.
Due to this faith system, a barrier has been built between reality and theology created in mythology, in my opinion.
The fundamentalism, and fanaticism of the religions is not up for debate here. If you would like to talk about he differences in each religion and how specific we can generalize this negative aspect. We have severe levels of pseudohistory and pseudoscience in all religions that do negatively impact society as a whole, many embarrassing humanity.
outhouse
Atheistically
Non sequitur.
You seem to assume with a great deal of imagination.
When you get to higher levels of biblical education, you wills see the line between theism and atheism grow smaller, in these academic circles.
Its never been about the theism or lack of, it is about the quality of the conclusions provided.
And you don't have any evidence at all, I have shown any bias what so ever, so therefore my statement regarding your imaginative claim remains substantiated.
Religion is not above criticism, religion must evolve forward and change with society as it used to do with common frequency.
Society is growing around the mythology, and as it stands, religion is starting to be even more of a global embarrassment.
This does not mean anti theism, or complete removal. Its setting the balance back into place.
outhouse
Atheistically
I dream of the day, that is all we could call some theist characteristics.
They will never be anywhere near the same level of intellect or maturity as atheism "as a whole" in my lifetime.
Many theist are equal, but when you look at the reality that 40% of the USA refuses facts in favor of mythology, theist have a lot of catching up to do.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What is this argument called '10 commandments' ?
I am afraid I am unaware of any argument that goes by this name.
outhouse
Atheistically
You don't have the education or credibility to criticize my knowledge, with such an obvious weak personal attack.
You have been promoting pseudoscience and pseudohistory.
Reflex
Active Member
Quite right, and religion must ever be its own critic and judge because it can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside.
As for your other comments...Oh, jeez.
You've been reading too many of the "new atheists" and not enough real philosophy.Consider this, Outhouse. I can argue that your claim to atheism is due to a lack of understanding on your part: i.e., The very notion of an observer and an intelligible universe implies and presupposes a unifying principle that transcends yet includes both the observer and the observed. By any other name or howsoever dressed, that “principle” is what human beings call “God.”
In other words, you cannot employ reason without invoking God.
Last edited:
cambridge79
Active Member
is this really your best argument?
Do you realize that the 10 commandments are nothing special at all? I mean, really, if religions present them as one of their best results it's an argument more to prove religions are a waste of time. Here are some simple points about the 10 commandments:
1 - if god wasn't explicitly forbidding you to kill people would you go around killing whoever you feel to kill, only cause no supreme being is gonna punish you? If the answer is yes, you're a vile and evil person. If the answer is no, the commandment itself is useless.
2 - you really think in the world before the 10 commandments everyone was doing what they pleased? So how do you think egiptians for example handled thieves and murderers? do you think they weren't punished in those civilization that predates the 10 commandments? how do you think it was even possible to build civilizations if that was the case?
3 - the whole part of the exodus where the commandments are presented is just a copy&paste of laws already in place in other civilizations. Ever heard the code of Hammurabi? it predates the 10 commandments by centuries. Do you think God tought that the jews were so dumb and stupid that they needed to be given by god himself rules that people had come up by themselves centuries before in other civilizations?
It's like if in today's time god open the sky and gives his prophet the gift of electricity, two centuries after the world have come to it by its own.
4 - do you realize that after the ten commandments, just a couple of pages after, god gives other commandments telling the Jews how to deal with slaves? telling them they could be hit, and sold for example? Do you personally feel entitled to own slaves and beat them since God himself allow you to do that?
please tell me your faith is not all based on this poor kind of arguments
Last edited: