Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1056/2150
Donated $5.00
(28-Jul-2005 at 03:05)


The illogic of religion

Scientifically, religion does not hold. It's not quantifiable, or even qualtifiable for that matter. It can't be measured, or examined, or weighed. It doesn't hold to the scientific process, and our system of logic.

It's illogical to believe in God, because we are then constrained in our actions. It is illogical for a new believer to believe in God because it's a long road ahead of them, as temptation gets placed in their path.

It's illogical to believe in God, because His church has done so much wrong in the world.

When an agnostic looks at religion, it's hard for them to see any logical process in the belief. It's even harder for an atheist. So why does Christianity still convert so many people? Particularly in the modern age of reason?

With all this illogic evident, is there something in religion which transcends logic, or is it that to believers, religion makes perfect logic? There's a couple of theories in international politics that spring to mind. Realism, and Liberalism (I'm going to simplify them).

Realism - he who has the power always wins.

Liberalism - those that work together will win, even if power lays against them.

By and large, it seems that Realist theorists usually win the day, and I suspect the same is with God, which why it is logical to believers. God does what He likes because He has the power. It doesn't matter if we don't like what He does sometimes, we just have to live with it.

So the bottom line is - Atheists view religion as illogical, yet if religion is correct, it holds perfect logic. I used to be 100% sure that religion was in error. I knew that it was a fallacy and a biproduct of the mammalian mindset. Yet, now I know the exact opposite. Perhaps, in these types of arguments, logic has no importance.

Just some thoughts on logic and religion. I'd like to hear your views on logic.

Where has my avatar gone?

The true meaning of silence
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gus Mackay Add Gus Mackay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 179/213
(28-Jul-2005 at 05:05)
Hehe whoever typed that pin pointed Religion 100%

I don't have anything to add but, what a champ lol

~Albert Einstein~
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by H3ctor Add H3ctor to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 420/842
Donated $6.28
(28-Jul-2005 at 05:24)


I think you missed the point entirely H3ctor...

I think for me it doesn't really matter if some of it doesn't make at lot of sense at the moment. I may figure it out latter on down the track, or I may not. Ultimately the important bits do seem to hold water for me, and thats what matters in the end.

My Band
How many bass players does it take to change a light bulb?
5. One to change it, and the other 4 to hold the guitarists back who are trying to hog the light.
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Zelun Add Zelun to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 903/1288
(28-Jul-2005 at 06:37)


What I still have never had anyone answer me is why God would give man logic to accomplish all he has yet that same logic is fallible when it comes to the most important aspect of his existence and happiness, his salvation.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1057/2150
Donated $5.00
(28-Jul-2005 at 06:39)


I ultimately believe the same. I don't know all the answers now... It's like a cryptic crossword with no starting point.

H3ctor... huh?

MAPS, nice point. Our standard answer would be that our logic is entirely fallible, and that often fails us in the simplest of problems. Therefore, it's fallible on this subject too.

Where has my avatar gone?

The true meaning of silence
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gus Mackay Add Gus Mackay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 5326/8194
(28-Jul-2005 at 07:16)
Re: The illogic of religion

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gus Mackay)
It's illogical to believe in God, because we are then constrained in our actions.
If there is no God then we make up the rules ourselves and thus aren't really constrained. Looking at real religious people they seem to do what they want most of the time. All they have is this soft cushion "knowing" they will go to heaven after they die. For people who accept the flawed logic of Pascal's wager or something similar, belief in God is logical.
Quote:
By and large, it seems that Realist theorists usually win the day, and I suspect the same is with God, which why it is logical to believers. God does what He likes because He has the power. It doesn't matter if we don't like what He does sometimes, we just have to live with it.
This argument only makes sense once you believe in God, while you claimed you were trying to explain why people became religious.
Quote:
So the bottom line is - Atheists view religion as illogical, yet if religion is correct, it holds perfect logic. I used to be 100% sure that religion was in error. I knew that it was a fallacy and a biproduct of the mammalian mindset. Yet, now I know the exact opposite. Perhaps, in these types of arguments, logic has no importance.
Religion is based on faith, not logic. You don't need any evidence, you just "know" God exist. This doesn't mean logic doesn't work, only that you don't use it, which most people don't most of the time.
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 180/213
(28-Jul-2005 at 08:24)
Quote:
It's illogical to believe in God, because we are then constrained in our actions. It is illogical for a new believer to believe in God because it's a long road ahead of them, as temptation gets placed in their path.

For the slow ones, this is what i agree to.

There's no explanation, To your question,
because you're miss interpreting your own statement.

You can't be logical if you believe in God because there's nothing logic about it, it's simply impossible, why believe in a fictionary character that has never appeared on the planet and been eye witnessed. How can you say it's logical to believe in him, you don't make sense.

I on the other hand don't deny something bigger than the universe but WE as humans not knowing the unknown do not have the right to make assumptions, it's so fucking illogical, Religion is stupid, why are you still believing in something that has been disproved over and over again.


The reason religion existed 2000 years ago was because we weren't as advanced and were too curious about what makes this planet work.

So fair enough i think i'd believe back then, but fucking hell guys why are you all so dumb

I can easily say the population back then if they lived in our day would most likely follow logic than the church. My proof is.

We have more atheists these days

~Albert Einstein~
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

Last edited by H3ctor, 28-Jul-2005 at 08:33.
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by H3ctor Add H3ctor to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 123/439
(28-Jul-2005 at 08:25)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Zelun)

I think you missed the point entirely H3ctor...

I think for me it doesn't really matter if some of it doesn't make at lot of sense at the moment. I may figure it out latter on down the track, or I may not. Ultimately the important bits do seem to hold water for me, and thats what matters in the end.
The latter part I agree with, but later on we will just find out religon is more wrong and illogical then we think now. Or are you talking about after-life
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by wswordsmen Add wswordsmen to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 29/564
(28-Jul-2005 at 09:21)
Nicely put Gus

Just a side note - regardless of whether god exists or not, imo it is illogical to believe in him. Right now, there is no evidence that conclusively shows that he exists. This means that even if He does exist, there is no logical reason to believe in him. Follow me?

The converse argument is true as well. There is no conclusive way to disprove His existence, so it is illogical to state categorically that He does not exist. This is why I hold the view that atheism is in itself a kind of religion.

Quote:
yet if religion is correct, it holds perfect logic.
This statement is in itself a fallacy. "a is correct if a is correct" is again the sort of circular reasoning you tend to resort to. Either the statment you are making is logical or illogical - if it is logical and wrong, then the premises you based your logic on were wrong. If it is illogical and correct, then you needed to find a better way to argue your point.

Quote:
It's illogical to believe in God, because we are then constrained in our actions.
How is believing in god more constraining than obeying the laws that govern our country? They have a lot in common. I think religion at some times has had a very important role in teaching social morals that are now codified in our legal system. (This is just a general opinion, I haven't researched this one that far - feel free to contradict me)
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 5332/8194
(28-Jul-2005 at 10:04)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dantendo)
The converse argument is true as well. There is no conclusive way to disprove His existence, so it is illogical to state categorically that He does not exist. This is why I hold the view that atheism is in itself a kind of religion.
It's easy to create an infinite number of hypothesis that are impossible to disprove. If you are going to in any real sense keep your mind open to all of them it's going to drive you crazy. We have to make some simplifying assumptions about how reality works. For example, I can make a theory that gravity will stop working tomorrow. It is impossible to disprove, yet few would call it a religion to believe gravity will keep working.

Few atheists claim to be able to prove that no God can exist, although many claim, truthfully, to be able to show that widely held religious beliefs are illogical and therefore impossible. You may choose to call of of these agnostics if you wish, but then you really should call all religious people who don't believe they can prove the existence of their God(s) agnostics too. Myself, I prefer to reserve the word 'agnostic' for people who are genuinely uncertain.
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 222/477
(28-Jul-2005 at 10:10)


Quote:
(Originally posted by dantendo)

How is believing in god more constraining than obeying the laws that govern our country? They have a lot in common. I think religion at some times has had a very important role in teaching social morals that are now codified in our legal system. (This is just a general opinion, I haven't researched this one that far - feel free to contradict me)
Law is a perfectly logical construction. At least, basic law is. The idea that humanity as a whole will do better if individuals accept certain constraints has been proven throughout history, as humans have accumulated more laws and a better standard of living over time.

Religion has provided an important means of creating and enforcing laws over history, but modern society now does much the same. You can be religious or be atheistic and still go to jail if you steal something.

With the logical part of the religious system have been supplanted, it can be concluded that the part of religion that differs from society is illogical.

And I believe in God anyway, because I have nothing to lose and much to gain from doing so, and because I believe that my actions require redemption. The latter belief cannot be backed up by logic, but I hold it anyway.

R.I.P. Kirby Puckett 1960-2006, a true champion and credit to his team and community.
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Sir Agaratar Add Sir Agaratar to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 5333/8194
(28-Jul-2005 at 10:42)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Sir Agaratar)
And I believe in God anyway, because I have nothing to lose and much to gain from doing so, and because I believe that my actions require redemption.
Pascal's wager is based on flawed logic. You do potentially have something to lose by believing in God, namely if you believe in the wrong God or if God doesn't want to be believed in. Maybe God prefers atheists to christians, muslims or hindus? Unless you know something specific about God you really have no reason to believe either way. You seem to believe the choice is to either believe in the Christian God or no God at all, but that is false.
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2827/5486
Donated $11.20
(28-Jul-2005 at 16:40)


I find it highly illogical to believe that life, as we know it, is mere coincidence. I also find it illogical that energy (some might call what I refer to as a 'soul') could possibly completely cease to exist simply because we can't observe the transference that occurs at death.

I also find most writings by man regarding religion are frivolous, but then I don't have much higher regard for organized religion than I have for secular humanism.

Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.-- Mark Twain
#13  
View Public Profile Visit Michael1's homepage Find more posts by Michael1 Add Michael1 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 30/564
(28-Jul-2005 at 17:03)
Quote:
It's easy to create an infinite number of hypothesis that are impossible to disprove. If you are going to in any real sense keep your mind open to all of them it's going to drive you crazy. We have to make some simplifying assumptions about how reality works. For example, I can make a theory that gravity will stop working tomorrow. It is impossible to disprove, yet few would call it a religion to believe gravity will keep working.

Few atheists claim to be able to prove that no God can exist, although many claim, truthfully, to be able to show that widely held religious beliefs are illogical and therefore impossible. You may choose to call of of these agnostics if you wish, but then you really should call all religious people who don't believe they can prove the existence of their God(s) agnostics too. Myself, I prefer to reserve the word 'agnostic' for people who are genuinely uncertain.
If you had your theory that gravity would stop working tomorrow, I would wait to find out As an agnostic, I am always willing to test theories that make predictions.

I also think that anyone who holds a belief that they cannot prove is a religious person. To simply say 'I cannot know (at this point in time, to satisfy Bernel)' is the heart of agnosticism - to believe one way or the other is to be not agnostic. I am perfectly happy for people to come up with theories that I cannot prove or disprove. In fact, I generally just ignore them until they show me some real evidence. However, I tend to argue with individuals from certain groups, simply because otherwise they may indoctrinate people who may not know any better.

Also, I might point out that illogical does not necessarily mean impossible. Hence my agnostic position.

Quote:
Law is a perfectly logical construction.
Is it? I think this depends on what you hold to be valid premises to those laws. Laws simply reflect societal values. These are not necessarily logical.
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 31/564
(28-Jul-2005 at 17:07)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Michael1)

I find it highly illogical to believe that life, as we know it, is mere coincidence. I also find it illogical that energy (some might call what I refer to as a 'soul') could possibly completely cease to exist simply because we can't observe the transference that occurs at death.
Whoops, forgot about this one when writing my last post.

1) So you find it logical that life isn't a coincidence? give me your full reasoning here.

2) You make the assumption here that there actually is a 'soul' or 'energy' apart from the matter that makes up a living creature. Care to elaborate on how you know there is one?
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 224/477
(28-Jul-2005 at 20:36)


Quote:
(Originally posted by dantendo)

Is it? I think this depends on what you hold to be valid premises to those laws. Laws simply reflect societal values. These are not necessarily logical.
The valid premise used in this case is that humanity as a whole has always done better with law than without it. Since that is true, we can conclude that it is logical to adopt a system of certain laws (property rights, protection of life and liberty, freedom of speech, thought, creed, etc.)

R.I.P. Kirby Puckett 1960-2006, a true champion and credit to his team and community.
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Sir Agaratar Add Sir Agaratar to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 124/439
(28-Jul-2005 at 21:55)


Quote:
(Originally posted by dantendo)

Whoops, forgot about this one when writing my last post.

1) So you find it logical that life isn't a coincidence? give me your full reasoning here.

2) You make the assumption here that there actually is a 'soul' or 'energy' apart from the matter that makes up a living creature. Care to elaborate on how you know there is one?
I just have to respond to this.

1) Life (or early organic molocules) develop as the random yet not coincidental interactions of gases in the atmosphere of early plants that will develop life.

To explaine think about a tank with 1000 grains of sand 1000 grains of salt, and 1000 peices of iorn and aluminum the same size as the other 2 objects, all mixed together. What are the odds of an iorn being next a salt in 1 direction aluminum in another direction and sand in another. The odds are 100% yet it is still random that it happens.

2) Energy is a vital part of living things and besides all matter is just super consontrated forms of energy.

On topic religon is illogical it was written by people who did not understand the things around them because they needed an explination. Christianity is little diffrent the Greek Mythology except we know there is no one on top of mount olimpus
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by wswordsmen Add wswordsmen to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 32/564
(29-Jul-2005 at 03:16)
Quote:
The valid premise used in this case is that humanity as a whole has always done better with law than without it. Since that is true, we can conclude that it is logical to adopt a system of certain laws (property rights, protection of life and liberty, freedom of speech, thought, creed, etc.)
You are correct (I have never had any beef with the fact that there are laws, just individual laws in particular). I was reffering to individual laws here. If we take it that it is logical to have a set of laws (which it is to a certain extent), we don't then have to take any of the laws actually written as logical. For example (this could start a fire):

How is it logical to make abortions for social reason legal up to the foetal age of 18 weeks but not after, while at the same time not allowing stem cell research using embryos a few days old?

How is it logical that for one crime (drink driving, say), their is a certain penalty, but for the same crime resulting in different circumstances (like running a little girl over while drink driving), there are completely different penalties? Don't you think we should punish the error, not the end result? If not, then why should our legal system be based on retribution?

I don't expect you to write in answers to this (waaaaay off topic). I am simply illustrating how certain things in society don't actually reflect logical reasoning.

What I am trying to say is that imo it makes perfect sense to have a system of laws. What often doesn't make sense is the laws themselves. Many laws are created simply to win votes, and reflect unfounded/illogical values in modern society (e.g the treatment of refugees arriving in Australia). In the past many law were due to illogical religious concepts - and this is still true in many countries.

Also, just as a thinking point (I don't really think this is ideal so don't jump up and down about this one - just writing it for interests sake): Just because we have functioned well with laws in the past does not mean that we need them to survive. If everyone was nice to each other, we would get along just fine.

wswordsmen, I was making the same points as you are trying to, but trying to get Michael1 to explain how he came to his conclusions. Your ramblings are only going to confuse the issue. in 1), I was asking for a disproof of what you are saying. In 2), I was using the term 'energy' because Michael1 had, and in using it I was not reffering to the types of energy that you would normally refer to in physics.
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 175/262
(29-Jul-2005 at 15:12)
Back to topic:

Quote:
So the bottom line is - Atheists view religion as illogical, yet if religion is correct, it holds perfect logic.
I think what Gus meant (pls correct me if I'm wrong, Gus), is that, taking the kind of data that most atheists as many agnostics accept as starting points for reasoning, there is no way of proving the existence of God using a logic (aristotelic deduction) reasoning. But that, once you accept God's existence, a coherent system of thought (logic) develops, without any internal contradiction. I would add that this coherent system also includes the natural (sensitive) knowledge, aka Science.
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Viriatus Add Viriatus to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 126/439
(29-Jul-2005 at 19:37)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Viriatus)

Back to topic:



I think what Gus meant (pls correct me if I'm wrong, Gus), is that, taking the kind of data that most atheists as many agnostics accept as starting points for reasoning, there is no way of proving the existence of God using a logic (aristotelic deduction) reasoning. But that, once you accept God's existence, a coherent system of thought (logic) develops, without any internal contradiction. I would add that this coherent system also includes the natural (sensitive) knowledge, aka Science.
But their is internal conter-dictians.

I just don't know any. Not very religous by the worlds standered
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by wswordsmen Add wswordsmen to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 06:01.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.