Logic vs Religion

[andys]

Dear Charity,
If Dunemeister's friends are CHRISTIANS then they are religious—this term applies to anyone who worships a God. As for what I would like to call you all—you don't want to know.

Both sides have certainly NOT done a good job defending their respective positions. Only one understands how to argue and appreciates the requirement for evidence to support an argument. The other can only rant on and on, claiming that personal experiences that FEEL TRUE, are evidence that they ARE TRUE. Conveniently, this "evidence" is private and cannot be shown to anyone else. Here's an example of how it works: One fine morning Dunemeister suddenly feels certain that 1+1 = 3. Well, it must be true, because he feels certain that it is true. What's his evidence? Golly, he feels certain, that's what. Wee! What a fun little game. Can I play too? It's past childish. It's plain stupid.

And you want to be associated with this lunacy in the name of Christianity? Be my guest.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

- Wrong! The Theory of Evolution accounts for all life on the planet without any need for a mysterious supernatural intervention.

No. It accounts for the diversity of life as it changes over time.

 

[Charity]

Dear Charity,
If Dunemeister's friends are CHRISTIANS then they are religious—this term applies to anyone who worships a God. As for what I would like to call you all—you don't want to know.

Both sides have certainly NOT done a good job defending their respective positions. Only one understands how to argue and appreciates the requirement for evidence to support an argument. The other can only rant on and on, claiming that personal experiences that FEEL TRUE, are evidence that they ARE TRUE. Conveniently, this "evidence" is private and cannot be shown to anyone else. Here's an example of how it works: One fine morning Dunemeister suddenly feels certain that 1+1 = 3. Well, it must be true, because he feels certain that it is true. What's his evidence? Golly, he feels certain, that's what. Wee! What a fun little game. Can I play too? It's past childish. It's plain stupid.

And you want to be associated with this lunacy in the name of Christianity? Be my guest.

You repeated what I had previously said in my post "anyone who serves a God can be called religious"

You sound like a child having a temper tantrum, ranting, raving, and name calling, must you resort to that type of reasoning. (vain babbling)

Is our religion a threat to you, or if not why do you have to go to such lengths to try and disprove what we believe? Is this Logic that you are using?

If we are so insignificant then why even bother with us? Evidently we seem to cause quite the controversey.

Everytime we get attacked, it just makes me stronger for then I know I must be doing something right or I wouldn't be getting opposition.

 

[Dunemeister]

Dear Charity,
If Dunemeister's friends are CHRISTIANS then they are religious—this term applies to anyone who worships a God. As for what I would like to call you all—you don't want to know.

Oh, we know.

Both sides have certainly NOT done a good job defending their respective positions. Only one understands how to argue and appreciates the requirement for evidence to support an argument. The other can only rant on and on, claiming that personal experiences that FEEL TRUE, are evidence that they ARE TRUE. Conveniently, this "evidence" is private and cannot be shown to anyone else. Here's an example of how it works: One fine morning Dunemeister suddenly feels certain that 1+1 = 3. Well, it must be true, because he feels certain that it is true. What's his evidence? Golly, he feels certain, that's what. Wee! What a fun little game. Can I play too? It's past childish. It's plain stupid.

It's not convenient, it's the nature of the case. You can't blame the Christian for the nature of her experience. And experiencing God is nothing like experiencing 1+1=3. For the latter is logically impossible, but experiencing God isn't.

And you want to be associated with this lunacy in the name of Christianity? Be my guest.

This lunacy is far superior to your "logic", at least insofar as you're an example of it. You are insulting, rude, proud, bigoted, and a jerk. If my Christian "delusions" provide me a serenity, stability, peace and joy that is obviously lacking in you, I'll take it any day of the week. However, luckily for me, I get all that and rationality thrown in as part of the package.

 

[Michel07]

Dunemeister
I already responded to your attempts to provide evidence that a god exists (on page 25).
Since you repeated your 'evidence", I shall repeat my rebuttals:

Cosmolo"1.gical argument: God is the best explanation for the existence of the physical world".
- Wrong! The Theory of Evolution accounts for all life on the planet without any need for a mysterious supernatural intervention. For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The focus of science today is finding which path was followed to produce the first cells. The history of science shows that what may have appeared to be a metaphysical problem (like this one) may yield the answers, given the fortitude to discover new facts and increase our knowledge. To reject this rational approach in favour of postulating a Creator—for which there is no need nor proof—serves only to self-destruct the problem-solving process by trading it in for a host of forever unanswerable questions. Postulating a "god" only raises more questions than it answers, and thrusts us back into the Dark Ages. A natural, evidence-laden explanation, William of Ockham would note, is far superior to a metaphysical evidence-lacking explanation.

"2. Personal experience. I've experienced God. That proves his existence to me, but of course cannot be evidence for you".
- Correct! One's personal experiences are precisely that, personal; they defy external testing and therefore do not constitute evidence. You seem to see this point, so why are you bothering with it? Save your personal feelings for Dr. Phil.

"3. Historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The gospel accounts of the event are the best explanation for it, and those accounts imply the existence of God".
- Wrong! In fact, there is NO historical evidence whatsoever to support the belief that Jesus ever existed. Indeed I have more than enough (real) historical evidence that "Jesus" is a variation of an age-old myth. It is comical that you use accounts in the Bible to justify the historicity of Jesus! One might as well use "The Night Before Christmas" to justify the existence of St. Nick! I love it when I hear, "The Bible is the word of god, therefore there is a god!" (Look up "petitio principii")

You provided the following two arguments in your earlier post: (Have you "seen the light" and retracted them?)

"4. There are moral truths, and the existence of a God who created the universe with a moral purpose (including creating us with a capacity to be responsive to moral truths) is the best explanation for that".
- Wrong! Moral truths do not entail a god. The existence of any truths, mathematical, scientific or moral does not begin to suggest the existence of a dust ball, never mind a supernatural being. Unfortunately for you, moral truths are the best argument I can imagine to relegate god into obsolescence. Moral truths would be absolutely true, which would make a god rather redundant. Once you have the message, say "bye" to the messenger, and hang up the phone.

"5. I'm rather old-fashioned, so I actually take the ontological argument to be stronger than its critics admit".
- Wrong! This antiquated rationale is long dead. St. Anselm's infamous argument (that the idea of God's existence entails God's existence) was refuted for being a "logical" smoke and mirrors. If this line of reasoning were permitted, practically anything you can imagine could be "proved" to exist.

All of these stale arguments fail in one very important respect. They fail to provide evidence. Worse, they reveal an unforgivable lack of appreciation for what constitutes evidence. This is clearly your problem as well. Evidence IS NOT a private feeling of certainty. If it were sufficient, there would be no end to a shouting match: "I'm right, I feel the truth inside me!" "No you're wrong! I've experienced the truth within me!" We'd be like two kids bickering in a sandbox. The only "adult" way to settle arguments is to provide EVIDENCE. Evidence that is observable by all, testable by all, and verified by all.

What part of this do you and all your religious friends not understand?

Evolution is taught in most schools and accepted by most believers in God but it does not define cosmology. You need to broaden your narrow understanding of what creation is. You really do need to grow up.

Most believers have the evidence they need. Even so , absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so your argument is irrelevant on a scientific basis. Not to mention no one needs to prove anything to you . Try to learn a bit of respect . That might be " Religious Education " lesson # 1.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Even so , absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so your argument is irrelevant on a scientific basis.

Boy that was bad ...

 

[MoonWater]

Oh, we know.

It's not convenient, it's the nature of the case. You can't blame the Christian for the nature of her experience. And experiencing God is nothing like experiencing 1+1=3. For the latter is logically impossible, but experiencing God isn't.

This lunacy is far superior to your "logic", at least insofar as you're an example of it. You are insulting, rude, proud, bigoted, and a jerk. If my Christian "delusions" provide me a serenity, stability, peace and joy that is obviously lacking in you, I'll take it any day of the week. However, luckily for me, I get all that and rationality thrown in as part of the package.

Exactly if being religious helps us lead better lives and doesn't hurt anyone than what of it? Why are you so bent on painting religion and the religious in a negative light, Andys? What threat do we pose to you?

 

[MoonWater]

Boy that was bad ...

You should really learn to elaborate a little more on your posts Jay. If you think something is bad then say why. Otherwise you contribute nothing to the debate and your comment may as well not even be there.

 

[Magic Man]

...and doesn't hurt anyone than what of it?

I think this is the problem. Religion does do some good in the world, that's for sure, but it definitely also causes some bad things too. The question is, is it worth it?

 

[MoonWater]

I think this is the problem. Religion does do some good in the world, that's for sure, but it definitely also causes some bad things too. The question is, is it worth it?

Your blaming religion for the actions of people. If your insulted by what someone says do you lay the blame on the words they spoke or on the person who spoke them? When someone stabs a person with a knife do you lay the blame on the knife or on the person who did the stabbing? Religion, just like words and knives, is a tool and like any tool can be used as both an aide and a weapon. Words do some good, they allow us to communicate. But words also do some bad, they insult people and cause wars. Should we get rid of words because of the bad they cause, are words "worth it"? And what about knives, they do good by helping us to prepare and eat food, but they also are used for bad, they kill people. Are knives "worth it" or should we get rid of those too? Just because a tool can be used as a weapon does not mean it should be gotten rid of and just because some people use religion as an excuse to hurt others does not mean religion is inherently bad. I assure you that we would find plenty of other excuses to bicker and fight even if we did do away with religion.

 

[Magic Man]

Your blaming religion for the actions of people.

If you can attribute good things to religion, then you can attribute bad things to it, too. If religion didn't exist, then there are some babies who would still be alive. There's another thread with a story of how at least one set of parents let their baby die due to a lack of medical care, because they believed God would save their baby. The parents in that case might not have been the brightest, and they are at fault, but it's due to what religion told them.

EDIT: Of course there are many other reasons people do bad things, but that doesn't lessen the impact of each one.

 

[Starfish]

If you can attribute good things to religion, then you can attribute bad things to it, too. If religion didn't exist, then there are some babies who would still be alive. There's another thread with a story of how at least one set of parents let their baby die due to a lack of medical care, because they believed God would save their baby. The parents in that case might not have been the brightest, and they are at fault, but it's due to what religion told them.

EDIT: Of course there are many other reasons people do bad things, but that doesn't lessen the impact of each one.

If you bring up babies dying, then you have to include all the abortions that didn't happen because of religion.

One flawed religions give them all a bad name. One item of bad press, totally overshadows all the tremendous good done in the world by churches, that seldom gets mentioned.

 

[Magic Man]

If you bring up babies dying, then you have to include all the abortions that didn't happen because of religion.

One flawed religions give them all a bad name. One item of bad press, totally overshadows all the tremendous good done in the world by churches, that seldom gets mentioned.

Again, you're only seeing what you want to. I said that religion is responsible for many good things in the world too, but you don't see that. You only see the part where I talk about the problems it causes.

I believe that you personally don't drink among other things. You have said that you don't do it because of the harm it can cause. You also have to admit, though, that it can cause some good, including giving people the courage to talk to that person they're interested in, or getting up on stage when they're nervous, or just feeling good for a while. You get rid of it completely just to get rid of the bad effects. That is what the proposition of getting rid of religion because of the bad stuff it causes is all about.

 

[GadFly]

If you bring up babies dying, then you have to include all the abortions that didn't happen because of religion.

One flawed religions give them all a bad name. One item of bad press, totally overshadows all the tremendous good done in the world by churches, that seldom gets mentioned.

Also, because of the absence of religion millions of babies have died in the former USSR and China. Would adding a kind thoughtful religion to the world add to suffering? I think not. Any religion seems to have worked better than no religion at all. That seems to be the world's testimony. Good job Starfish.
GadFly

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Also, because of the absence of religion millions of babies have died in the former USSR and China.

That is a stupid statement.

 

[Magic Man]

Also, because of the absence of religion millions of babies have died in the former USSR and China. Would adding a kind thoughtful religion to the world add to suffering? I think not. Any religion seems to have worked better than no religion at all. That seems to be the world's testimony. Good job Starfish.
GadFly

How exactly did the absence of religion in those areas (assuming there was one) cause the deaths of millions of babies? Please explain how the world testifies to your statement. It seems to me that the deaths of millions of people in wars like the Crusades, and acts like the Inquisition are testimony to the opposite of your statement. Can you explain using facts how religion has outdone those atrocities with good?

 

[MoonWater]

If you can attribute good things to religion, then you can attribute bad things to it, too. If religion didn't exist, then there are some babies who would still be alive. There's another thread with a story of how at least one set of parents let their baby die due to a lack of medical care, because they believed God would save their baby. The parents in that case might not have been the brightest, and they are at fault, but it's due to what religion told them.

EDIT: Of course there are many other reasons people do bad things, but that doesn't lessen the impact of each one.

That reminds me of this one joke I heard awhile back(and yes it's relevant). A town is flooded and a young man gets trapped on the roof of his house. As the water rises a rescue raft comes by.
People on raft: "Get in, we'll take you to safety."
Man on roof: "There's no need, God will save me."
So the raft floats on by and leaves him. Time passes and the water continues to rise. A small boat comes by.
People on boat: "Get in, we'll save you."
Man on roof: "There's no need, God will save me."
The boat goes on by. More time passes and now the water is up to the man's toes. A helicopter flies by and lowers a ladder.
people in helicopter: "Climb up, we'll save you."
Man on roof: "There's no need, God will save me."
So the helicopter flies away. More time passes and eventually the water rises up and drowns the man. When he reaches heaven he stands before God:
Man: "God, why didn't you save me?"
To which God replies: "I sent you a raft, a boat, and a helicopter What more do you need?"

Perhaps those parents never considered that God's way of saving their child could be through medical treatment. I personally know of no passage in the bible where one should forgo medical treatment in favor of "faith alone". I am aware however that some religious leaders do teach their congregations that they should do such things due to their interpretation of scriptures. The thing about religion is that it is always open to interpretation and different people will interpret it in different ways. Should we get rid of all religion simply because some members of a few religions choose to use their religion as an excuse to do bad things, or because a few people misinterpret and make a bad choice?

 

[MoonWater]

Again, you're only seeing what you want to. I said that religion is responsible for many good things in the world too, but you don't see that. You only see the part where I talk about the problems it causes.

I believe that you personally don't drink among other things. You have said that you don't do it because of the harm it can cause. You also have to admit, though, that it can cause some good, including giving people the courage to talk to that person they're interested in, or getting up on stage when they're nervous, or just feeling good for a while. You get rid of it completely just to get rid of the bad effects. That is what the proposition of getting rid of religion because of the bad stuff it causes is all about.

Well I can't speak for Starfish but I know that I personally avoid alcohol first off because I am not of the legal limit and second(and most importantly) I recognize the potentiality in myself to easily become an alcoholic. So for me personally the bad outweighs the good. The thing is anything can be bad when it is abused, taken to the extremes or used for a purpose other than what it was intended for. The original purpose of religion was to help us explain that which we could not understand. Again take my examples into account(if you even read them) Shall we get rid of words simply because they cause some bad? What about knives? Just like words and knives religion is a tool. Whenever any other tool is used by a person to do bad things we blame the person not the tool. Why do you suddenly reverse that when it comes to religion? Do you see the double standard?

 

[Magic Man]

Well I can't speak for Starfish but I know that I personally avoid alcohol first off because I am not of the legal limit and second(and most importantly) I recognize the potentiality in myself to easily become an alcoholic. So for me personally the bad outweighs the good. The thing is anything can be bad when it is abused, taken to the extremes or used for a purpose other than what it was intended for. The original purpose of religion was to help us explain that which we could not understand. Again take my examples into account(if you even read them) Shall we get rid of words simply because they cause some bad? What about knives? Just like words and knives religion is a tool. Whenever any other tool is used by a person to do bad things we blame the person not the tool. Why do you suddenly reverse that when it comes to religion? Do you see the double standard?

OK, my original point was to point out that religion isn't something that only does good, and doesn't hurt anyone. That is all. I'm not saying we need to abolish it completely or anything, just keep in mind that it's not perfect, and causes possibly as much harm as it does good.

 

[yirme]

Why do religion and logic not go hand-in-hand?

they do if you follow the religion taught by the prophets.

peace