:sarcastic
mr.guy said:
Yes...that they were unquestionably illogical.
The definition of "cookie" makes no claim or plea to logic. Am i to suppose that they're illogical as well?
Oops! you're first dictionary diving was to support "supernaturalism", not "religion". Religion need not be based on what is supernatural; as a cultural or meditative expression, any given religion can be devoid of ontology. That is partialy reflected in some the definitions you've cited for "religion".
I state otherwise. Who wins?
What did i say specifically that was illogical instead of lumping it all together.... and the second definition was of religion... i never said they always MUST be supernatural... although that is the most widely used definition of the word religion... you asked what made them illogical...
from answers.com again the definition of logic (clearest one i could find anyways which is cited from wikipedia)
Logic, from Classical
Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning
the word, or
what is spoken, (but coming to mean
thought or
reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of
arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious
inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments.
evaluation of arguments... determining between fallacy and validity... all I am saying is there is no validity in religion because it is all based on faith alone .. IMO.. that means you must have something solid to base the argument on... without that it is not logical... faith is not a reason... it is a belief... a belief is not proof and it is not based on logical thought...
and nobody wins... thats not the point... the point is the debate ... thats all