Logic vs Religion

[Dunemeister]

Dunmeister claims,
"There are Christian, pagan, and Jewish documents all of which attest to his [Jesus's ] existence. So once again, right back at you: WRONG!"

Do you honestly think if there were a shred of evidence that Jesus ever set foot on our planet (as god or man) that it would not be the greatest find, next to the existence of aliens on the planet? I'm reminded of words from John Lennon's Nowhere Man,.."just sees what he want to see..."

If such evidence existed, there would not be such a fuss over the Shroud of Turin to prove that JC existed. Such nonsense makes my head spin.

Josephus, Celcus, and Rabbinic writings all refer to Jesus. There is also, of course, the New Testament, which, if one uses normal historiographical standards, pass muster easily. To deny this is willful ignorance.

The Shroud of Turn, if it were authentic, would be further evidence. But it's not needed to establish the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth. One might dispute that he's quite the sort of person the gospels portray him as, but nobody who is taken seriously in professional historians' circles seriously says that there was no real Jesus of Nazareth who at least stands behind the gospels.

 

[MoonWater]

I wish to reassure you and all your religious friends, that once you open the door to reason and begin the process of cleansing your mind of the superstitions passed on by a handful of ancient Jews, a whole new world full of possibilities and beauty will greet you. Conspicuously absent in this natural world are vengeful gods, devils, evil, guilt, sexual repression, eternal damnation, dreary sermons, ten commandments, sin, swear words, church, bible study, condemnation of homosexuality, prayer, kneeling, original sin, irrational beliefs, religious authority, saints, prophets, self delusion, penance, fear of knowledge and science, and many more afflictions. It's a world with no gods to bow before. I highly recommend it.

Funny, I already live in that kind of world... and yet I'm still religious, go figure. I guess that's what you get, Andys, when you think that everyone who is religious follows the Christian tradition and follows it to the most extreme extent possible. Andys I think if you kept an open mind and really took the time to get to know us religious types you'd find that those extremist Christians are actually a minority within the religious group and that most of us are very loving and very thoughtful people. The extremists are just a minority that happen to scream the loudest and as a result get the most attention.

 

[andys]

Dunmeister
I just giot bacck from a funeral from a good froend and I'm ******. But when in the mornigng lest's talk man to man without insults which I am guilty of.

 

[GadFly]

Funny, I already live in that kind of world... and yet I'm still religious, go figure. I guess that's what you get, Andys, when you think that everyone who is religious follows the Christian tradition and follows it to the most extreme extent possible. Andys I think if you kept an open mind and really took the time to get to know us religious types you'd find that those extremist Christians are actually a minority within the religious group and that most of us are very loving and very thoughtful people. The extremists are just a minority that happen to scream the loudest and as a result get the most attention.

MoonWater I admire the patience you have in discussing religion with so many unbelievers on these threads. You are good at logic and you demonstrate a lot of compassion for others. What experiences you have had to learn all these great qualities at such an early age, speaks well of your parents. On a thread like this that ask a question on logic vs. religion, do you not have the feeling that we are dealing with the emotional and psychological needs of people who are reaching out to others who seem to have a stability in their lives due to logical religious beliefs?

As you point out it is the minority of the religious fanatics who do the shouting and abusive things in religion and who get a lot of attention. When it comes time for atheist and unbelievers to vent their frustration with life, they do not chose crazy religious people, but rather they talk to and vent with people who have solid religious beliefs.

Clearly there are several, if not all, participants on this thread, which has become very large, that have a good understanding of philosophy; but the discussion has become as much emotional as it has been logical. The hostility, ager, name calling, insults, and slap downs have at times been intense and at a high pitch. Yet, the participants have remained on this thread.

Do you get the sense that you are meeting the emotional needs of others who need to vent, who are not really seeking intellectual satisfaction, but are seeking a type of love and recognition that can only be provided from people who really believe in religion and practice their faith? I believe this explains the hostility that has existed on this thread and I also believe the thread should discuss the relationship of psychological needs vs. logic and religion. This sounds like a new thread, also.
GadFly

 

[MoonWater]

MoonWater I admire the patience you have in discussing religion with so many unbelievers on these threads. You are good at logic and you demonstrate a lot of compassion for others. What experiences you have had to learn all these great qualities at such an early age, speaks well of your parents.

Thanks

On a thread like this that ask a question on logic vs. religion, do you not have the feeling that we are dealing with the emotional and psychological needs of people who are reaching out to others who seem to have a stability in their lives due to logical religious beliefs?

Not really but then I don't see religion as something everyone needs to have period, let alone to "have a stability in their lives." I think I'm just dealing with some people who like to over-generalize and believe in the current stereotypes. I have no idea what sort of emotional or psychological need this may speak of, if it speaks of one at all. Besides everyone's life goes through periods of stability and instability regardless of whether or not they possess "logical religious beliefs."

As you point out it is the minority of the religious fanatics who do the shouting and abusive things in religion and who get a lot of attention. When it comes time for atheist and unbelievers to vent their frustration with life, they do not chose crazy religious people, but rather they talk to and vent with people who have solid religious beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that the religious fanatics have rather solid religious beliefs as well. They're just more fervent in them than most other religious people and as a result are often used by others as an example to categorize the rest of us. But yes most often I find that when people do that sort of thing they are speaking to people who are nothing like that at all.

Clearly there are several, if not all, participants on this thread, which has become very large, that have a good understanding of philosophy; but the discussion has become as much emotional as it has been logical. The hostility, ager, name calling, insults, and slap downs have at times been intense and at a high pitch. Yet, the participants have remained on this thread.

Do you get the sense that you are meeting the emotional needs of others who need to vent, who are not really seeking intellectual satisfaction, but are seeking a type of love and recognition that can only be provided from people who really believe in religion and practice their faith?

I do believe there are some people here who aren't really interested in intellectual satisfaction but I don't see how there could be nor do I believe that there IS "a type of love and recognition that can ONLY be provided from people who really believe in religion and practice their faith?" Everyone is capable of both giving and receiving all possible types of love and recognition regardless of whether or not they are religious. There is no type of love and recognition that is exclusive to and can only be accessed and given by religious people. Non-religious people are not lacking in anything simply because they choose to not be religious. And turning to religion isn't necessarily the cure for someone who feels there is something lacking in them, though it very well could be there are numerous other ways for people to "fill the voids" that they may find within them. Whether or not a person is unable to provide or receive any particular type of love and recognition has nothing to do with their particular religious affiliation or lack there of.

I believe this explains the hostility that has existed on this thread

You might, I don't.

and I also believe the thread should discuss the relationship of psychological needs vs. logic and religion. This sounds like a new thread, also.
GadFly

That would indeed be another thread since this one is limited to the area of logic and religion rather than psychological needs and logic and religion.

 

[GadFly]

MoonWater that was not the reply I anticipated but it was probably better than my anticipation. It will certainly help me rethink the post that just came up on new threads listings. I am glad to have read your answer before offering any replies to my new thread just posted.
GadFly

 

[Autodidact]

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

Well, since you asked...
because religion is illogical.

 

[pray4me]

IMO Order out of Caos is illogical

 

[MoonWater]

Well, since you asked...
because religion is illogical.

*sighs*

You do know that logic has nothing to do with truth right? If you do and you meant illogical in sense of the actual definition of logic then just how prey tell is religion in general illogical. Certainly there are some beliefs within different religions that are or at least seem illogical but those are only certain aspects of certain religions and as such should not be used to categorize the whole, or at least not used alone when one wishes to categorize religion. One must take all aspects into consideration when categorizing religion or it will be categorized incorrectly. I can assure you that there are at least just as many but most likely more logical aspects to religion than illogical.

 

[MoonWater]

IMO Order out of Caos is illogical

A messy room is chaotic no? Can you not clean said room and bring order to it? An explosion is chaos, does not an explosion eventually dissipate? In my view order out of chaos is natural.

 

[Magic Man]

A messy room is chaotic no? Can you not clean said room and bring order to it? An explosion is chaos, does not an explosion eventually dissipate? In my view order out of chaos is natural.

I think the point was that it's useless to try to make the chaotic nature of the universe orderly. For instance, the room in the analogy is inherently chaotic, so "cleaning" it to make it orderly only makes it something it's not naturally.

 

[MoonWater]

I think the point was that it's useless to try to make the chaotic nature of the universe orderly. For instance, the room in the analogy is inherently chaotic, so "cleaning" it to make it orderly only makes it something it's not naturally.

hmm, I think I understand, I guess I just view order and chaos differently. For I don't see them as inherent natural traits within anything but rather see everything as naturally progressing from chaos into order.

 

[pray4me]

I think the point was that it's useless to try to make the chaotic nature of the universe orderly. For instance, the room in the analogy is inherently chaotic, so "cleaning" it to make it orderly only makes it something it's not naturally.

you understood what I was saying YAY!!! :clap

 

[pray4me]

A messy room is chaotic no? Can you not clean said room and bring order to it? An explosion is chaos, does not an explosion eventually dissipate? In my view order out of chaos is natural.

Someone has to step in to bring order to the caotic, it doesn't happen on it's own. The room will not clean itself. The explosion (caos) causes debris (also caos) which cannot naturally become order again without intervention.

 

[MoonWater]

Someone has to step in to bring order to the caotic, it doesn't happen on it's own. The room will not clean itself. The explosion (caos) causes debris (also caos) which cannot naturally become order again without intervention.

hmm, okay, I think I see your point now.

 

[Autodidact]

IMO Order out of Caos is illogical

1. In what way?
2. How is this relevant?

 

[Autodidact]

*sighs*

You do know that logic has nothing to do with truth right? You mean do I agree? No, I don't. Correct premises + logic = true (correct) conclusions.

If you do and you meant illogical in sense of the actual definition of logic then just how prey tell is religion in general illogical.[/quote] Well, the word "religion," like "God" is so broadly defined that you can hardly make a true statement about it in general, but I was thinking about faith-based belief systems. The whole idea that you're going to believe something without evidence or in spite of the evidence defies logic.

Certainly there are some beliefs within different religions that are or at least seem illogical but those are only certain aspects of certain religions and as such should not be used to categorize the whole, or at least not used alone when one wishes to categorize religion. One must take all aspects into consideration when categorizing religion or it will be categorized incorrectly. I can assure you that there are at least just as many but most likely more logical aspects to religion than illogical.

And why would your assurance satisfy me? I don't know you from Adam. Maybe you wanted to cite some instances?

 

[Magic Man]

1. In what way?
2. How is this relevant?

1. Order is something intelligent beings give to the universe. It's not inherent in it. Order is something that makes it easier for us humans to function. Chaos doesn't allow much to get done, so we try to force it onto some things unnaturally.

2. It's relevant in that trying to "order" the universe by explaining it in terms of religion to make it make sense is illogical. Then again, doing the same thing by way of science would have to be included in that too. The difference would be that science allows for the possibility that it's wrong, and doesn't presume to assert any ultimate truths.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Order is something intelligent beings give to the universe.

This is only true if one uses a value-laden definition of order.

 

[Magic Man]

This is only true if one uses a value-laden definition of order.

Which definition of order do you use?