![]() |
My latest infatuation with logic.
Ok this post will be part personal story, part Discussion.
Personal side: I have grown up in Christian house hold and have always held beliefs based on my up bringing. On some level, they always felt right and for the most part have been sure of them. Over the last few years I have matured a little and my thought process, while never dependant, has become far more independent (in part thanks to posts made on this board etc...). Anyway lately I went to a Christian book store and picked up a book I have been meaning to grab for a while. "Christian Apologetics". What I found it to contain were a series of logical proofs for many of my beliefs that I have held so dear. Something that I have come out of it with is a new found appreciation of the incredible beauty of logic. It is so moving and powerful. There is something so exciting about gaining understanding, appreciating things that were once abstract. The Critical Thinking Side: Why do we as humans find such a joy and beauty in logic? Can we really ride it off as purely evolutionary? As purely survivalist? I obviously believe that this side of our being is a gift from God, I believe that we are given an ability to understand so that we can appreciate and take awe in the awesomeness in our creator. How can one with out the ability to think enjoy? How can one with out the ability to think praise and love? Clarification: I do not want this thread to turn into a religious thread or a creation versus evolution. I just want a discussion on the joy and beauty in logic. Where it possibly could have came from and why? Yes we will all come into this with our biases but that what makes this a (rational, calm, respectful…) discussion. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Well, as a starter: You can't say something like "I've read a bunch of proof for my religious beliefs and isn't that great" and then try telling us that this can't "turn into" a religious thread. It already is one.
To the point now: I've read such a book, namely The handbook of christian apologetics and while it certainly puts forward "proofs" to support a number of the faith-questions of christianity, there's a wide gap between "setting forward a proof" and "proving" that I hope you take the time to really think about. As for the question about logic. For one, not everybody actually finds beauty and joy in logic. Many people prefer not to think about it. They find that applying logic to something they already find beautiful, basically "takes the fun out of it" But for those who do enjoy logic, and logical proofs, the main reason I suspect, speaking also from personal experience, is that pleasure can be gained from seeing something just -fit- It shows a sense of understanding about the world and the rules it follows. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
If you believe it, you might be able to miss it, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate proof. It's nothing more than a funny way of looking at a belief which fundamentally shouldn't even be proven. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Well the process of apologetics rarely goes so far to say that it has -proven- most of the questions it addresses. Mostly what it does is respond to the usual counter-arguments that tend to be brought up. Think of it as a "Handbook for dealing with criticism of the faith"
In a lot of cases, it will make use of historical information, or various types of informal logical argument in support of the points it makes, but the general purpose is to be able to respond reasonably (if not, in everyone's opinion, correctly all the time) to questions and objections. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
Informal logical arguments? You mean like THIS BANANA. LOOK AT THIS BANANA AND SEE HOW IT FITS MY HAND PERFECTLY. THERE IS NO WAY THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED UNLESS GOD CREATED IT THIS WAY... I wouldn't call that sort of thing logical at all, although the word "informal" sure fits that sort of argument. And again, there is no way to respond reasonably to logical criticisms of faith. The only reasoned response to such criticisms is to say "You are right. It is not logical. That's why it's faith, I have faith in my beliefs even though there is no proof of it." |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
You're treating "informal logic" in the same way that you criticize the religious for using "scientific theory" |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Pointing at historical events that don't require one to believe them on faith don't do anything to "legitimize" beliefs which DO require faith. Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
It's not like I'm sitting here saying "my belief is better than your belief." I'm just pointing out that your belief is unverifiable, and that frankly, that's the point of it being a belief rather than fact, faith rather than reason, religion rather than science. Quote:
Quote:
If you need the "help" of knowing that Jesus was a real man in history, then what the **** are you doing in believing the more outlandish stories of the bible? If you can't even functionally have faith that the guy actually existed, what the ****. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
a) You believe that a man was God who historically walked on the Earth.
b) You believe that a man was God who historically is unknown. If you are a rational person who wants to logically believe things he knows by faith then which would you choose? If you wanted to share your beliefs as more logically believable which would you choose? There is a huge difference. Also science and logic aren't one and the same. Logic deals with things that rationally make sense. Science deals with data that is interpretable. Things in Science are logical, thats the less abstract side of logic. But there is also a side to logic that is not scientific as it is not dealing with materialistic data. Im arguing this case here as you seem to think that anything outside of science is illogical. You seem to be trying to reject any case for logic in anything faith based. You seem to see faith as the ability to shut ones mind off from reason. Where as I believe that faith is only enhanced with logic. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Sure, heres a very basic and badly written cause:
Everything in the universe has to have a cause. If we follow back from now to the very original causes of what we have today, we know logically there has to be some initial cause. Therefore by definition God is the initial cause of the universe. So you could say something had to put that initial "atom" that the universe originally was in place in place. According to the big bang theory. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics
To be honest hardly understood much more then the intro of this wiki, but this is a good outline of the formal name given to the logical thinking of faith. If you really believe that you are open minded about the world go out and try to grab a book of Christian Apologetics. They logically go through and try to prove things through logic, not through bible bashing or what have you. They simply start off with a belief of nothing and logically work there way through to Christian belief. (Yes that means most of this is not simply stating the bible and ignoring all else, including going through and logically looking at the beliefs of other religions.) There is so much crap out there on the net, that I really can't recommend anything on the net off the top of my head. Honestly searching for good Christian material on the web is really hard. Look up Christianity's views on sex in google and read articles of how it is "Biblically advisable to only have anal sex before marriage". |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
If your God made the Universe, then what made your God? If you listen to science at all, you understand that trying to discern the starting point of the Big Bang is absurd, because that's also the point at which time began. There was nothing before the Big Bang. If that's not good enough, please read up on Quantum Physics and how it avoids troublesome matters such as cause and effect, because it will answer your question with a far more logical answer than 'we don't know so god did it'. In Quantum Physics, things just happen. There's no rhyme or reason as to why they happen. These causeless happenings are demonstrable and proven. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
By definition God always is, if God made our universe including time then he does not need a beginning nor an end. Therefore if God has no beginning nor end then he is not created. (Notice no science was needed here, just logic.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument - Check out the objections and their further counter arguments. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Everything in the universe being causally linked is a fair argument to make. Mentally, it might not be entirely correct on the quantum level of the universe, but either way I think there are ample reasons to argue this is in fact the case - everything in our universe has a cause. So, there would have to be an initial cause. There would have to exist some irreducibly complex portion of reality that 1. If reduced further would result in nothing or 2. Would result in the inability to cause anything. However, jumping out and saying "Therefore, God" is a bit of an odd conclusion. The 'cause' could be one of many different things. Does that mean God is an ambiguous concept - a filler word used to describe what we don't know? In that case I won't disagree with you. Scientifically, it's quite clear that the initial 'cause' within our universe was the Big Bang. The big bang was not an initial atom per say - there was no real mass in the original universe. Rather, it was only energy, and the big bang was a rapid expansion of that energy which therein created space and time, and thus space-time. All matter was subsequently created from the big bang (An easy way to understand this is through E=MC^2 - Energy is mass, but manifested differently...they are equivalents but not manifestly the same thing, so they can be exchanged). So, God put the initial cause of the Big Bang into place? That still doesn't tell me what God is. God could be quantum mechanics under this ambiguous definition. Along the lines of what Squeek said, if there was an initial system, it would have by definition some energy associated with it, and also by definition this energy would be subject to indeterminate subtle changes or fluctuations on the quantum level. These fluctuations would happen infinitely in number, all simultaneously in the absence of time to differentiate between quantum events, and if one of these vaccuum fluctuations was large enough, in theory it could cause the energy around it to rush in opposite directions. And thus we have the Big Bang. So, in conclusion - I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just think your argument is empty and unspecific. God could be anything in your argument. It's a classic 'God of the Gaps' argument, where God is some undefined process or thing that explains what we currently cannot explain. Quote:
None of this has *anything* to do with Christianity...and thus my objections. If you want to start talking about Quantum Christianity I suggest you just start studying science instead of ripping off facts from science and twisting them to fit a preconceived world view :P |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
All you are doing is saying "there was something before the Big Bang" and "I believe that something is God". There is no evidence suggesting your conclusion, but your own existing beliefs build the conclusion for you. You know that what came before the Big Bang is unknown and you believe in god, so you draw the conclusion that it was God. If it was logical, it would not be built upon a belief without evidence. Basically, if the idea of God never existed, the idea would never even enter the equation here. No one would be trying to think of what came before the Big Bang and say "I know! A supernatural being who is omnipresent, omnipotent, all-knowing, and invisible did it!" If the concept of God had never been invented that would be looked at as an absurd explanation of what caused the Big Bang. Reason? There is no evidence to point to that being the cause. Quote:
And I'm not even going to bother looking at the thing you pointed to because I don't feel like facepalming at all the stupid crap they put forth that they use to try to prove that a man is a god, even though he's been dead for thousands of years, they've never met him or met anyone who has met him, and they've only read about in a mostly anonymously scribed book that was written hundreds of years after the guy was already dead. I'm annoyed enough by the pseudoscience I've seen from people trying to prove a banana HAD TO HAVE BEEN INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED to fit in a human's hand. There's no way the banana could have coincidentally formed in that size and there is absolutely no way that the plant could have evolved that trait after an extended period of time wherein natural selection would have made the fruit grow at a size where more animals would be more likely to eat the fruit. It really does sound that you have a problem with simply taking things on faith even though that is the point of religion, and if that is the case, religion is probably not for you. Maybe you should have a look at humanistic atheism. That'll give you all the great things religion can without expecting you to believe things which are unverifiable. And best of all, you won't look silly trying to prove to atheists how logical you are being in your unverifiable beliefs. ps Quote:
pps hi rech ur rly smart |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
I can't go through them all, but a book of apologetics can. This was just an example to show how logic can be outside science. And its great to start off with the fact that there is something outside of materialism to kill off this Science word contradicting faith. Now to start with Afro's post.... |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Afro, alot of your post seems to be rather close minded and an attack at religion in general and an attack at my credibility and the credibility of what is at hand. I don't see why this argument has to be personal.
Quote:
Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument. It's just simple logical look at the need for there to be something outside of the universe. You don't need to tie it to Christianity. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
I've read all of this material, and the vast majority of books and arguments on these topics before. It was an obsession of mine for years when I was a Christian. I understand where you're coming from. I think the problem here is this: If you wanted to objectively show that Christianity was the one and only universally true world view, you've got a hell of a lot more problems then simply dealing with the origin of the universe. Even if you could objectively show the prime mover in the origin of all creation was something equivalent of a mind with processes differentiating it from simple laws of mechanics, this has very little connection with Christianity. The entire foundation of Christianity is based on Jesus and his teachings and the LORD and the word he has laid out for mankind through his son - most of which is contained in the bible (NT, since Christianity shares the OT or Torah with Judaism). And you're going to run into problem, after problem, after problem trying to logically demonstrate any of this as being literally true. Metaphorically or allegorically true, sure, you could argue that creation is allegorically true, but how that relates to reality remains ambiguous and unexplained. You'll run yourself into circles forever. Anyway, I don't want to get too into specifics here, since this isn't a religious discussion per say, but all of my points made from the previous post stand. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
I get what you are saying until you started on the foundation of Christianity.
What will I have problems explaining as literally true? Creation is one of the few examples I can understand your point of view. I mean creation to me is defiantly a grey area. Personally I black and white I can logically know that God literally created the universe. I have trouble trying to discern how much of Genesis is literal. However I do feel that the main point of Genesis is not lost to much on the literal meaning. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
If you interpret that as an attack, then I submit that you do not understand your faith or the difference between the function of faith and the function of reason. If you see me calling creationism psuedoscience as an attack on religion, you really don't get it. The closest thing to an attack against religion was when I tried to point you to humanistic atheism. But I was being totally sincere. You seem to desire something out of religion but still want to adhere to logic and reason. That would allow you to do so and would also not leave you in a position such as this, trying to claim how reasoned your position is when the fact is that all that you argue for is based on a foundation of unverifiable faith. Build logic around it all you want, but it all starts with faith in the unverifiable. Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
How is trying to think about faith logically against religion? I think logic is incredibly important to religion. How can I fully engage in a relationship with a God that I do not logically understand? Dosn't a belief with logic behind it mean so much more then an empty belief? Obviously belief in a faith can not come purely from logic, but in no way do I believe that true faith should be illogical. My original topic of discussion was the idea that we are created with the ability to comprehend logic for a reason. I wanted to hear what you guys think of that notion. I am curious if you see the ability to discern logic as just evolutionary. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
The problem is you can show almost nothing in the bible to be empirically true. The original Hebrew texts have been translated and re-translated numerous times, so to begin with it's hard to even identify what pieces of scripture could be considered the word of God and which are man made manipulations. Not all of the original Hebrew is understood to begin with. Also, there is no way to differentiate between which parts of the bible are allegorical and which parts are literal. The only way you'd be able to demonstrate anything would be to take a literal interpretation of the ENTIRE bible, but obviously you can't do that because you can empirically demonstrate numerous claims in the bible to be false, so if it were true it can't be literal. And thus begins the endless circle I described. The very reason people continue to debate this issue. There is no way of demonstrating Christianity to be correct and attempting to do so leads to problem after problem. That's not to say we can't continue to deepen our understanding of the universe around us, whether it be through an entirely scientific perspective or a theological one. I know for me personally, it is the understanding of the universe and the truth it contains that is important to me, not which criteria this truth happens to meet. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
As for the old testament original texts I know not all that much. The new testament though is incredibly hard to refute from an authenticity of sources point of view and is incredibly easy to understand. Quote:
The only real problem I can see is where the Bible claims an empirically measurable fact as a belief and is wrong. I mean the bible describes the Earth as flat, but it in no way was claiming to be correct about it, it is just a consequence of it being written in a certain context. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also if our logic is accidental how can we believe what we obtain from the logic to be true? Therefore a belief in accidental logic is illogical. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
"Why do we as humans find such a joy and beauty in logic? Can we really ride it off as purely evolutionary? As purely survivalist?
I obviously believe that this side of our being is a gift from God, I believe that we are given an ability to understand so that we can appreciate and take awe in the awesomeness in our creator. How can one with out the ability to think enjoy? How can one with out the ability to think praise and love?" Sure, I can ride it off as evolutionary, why not? I like logic because it's another form of problemsolving, to me, that aims to unveil truth and understanding about various things in our world. You need to be careful though when it comes to proofs, since it's easy to fall into the trap of using assumptions we don't necessarily know to be valid/true/sound/whatever. I'll just add though that just because we are able to think/appreciate/understand/enjoy things, it does not mean it had a purpose or that it was with the intention of "seeing the awesomeness of our creator." I can just as easily argue that they're all the results of physical/evolutionary processes and necessary conditions, and with plenty of evidence. Be waaaryyyy of the loooggggiiiccc |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Rubix, I put the question out there and a potential answer. I never said I was right. Im wanting to see your "arguments that they're all the results of physical/evolutionary processes and necessary conditions, and with plenty of evidence."
It honestly dosn't strike anyone that as far as we empirically know we are the only ones in the universe who have a sense of beuaty? We are the only ones who find delight in pondering about how our universe works? Where we came from and why? Making fun of Creationists....errr, opps. Does anyone want to show me how pretty paintings have helped our survival? |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
@OP: Because being logical is better than being illogical. There's really no critical thinking involved here...
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
You're looking too much into end-case specifics and disregarding them as purely survival and therefore unreasonable. Anything can be argued or broken down into evolutionary subcomponents from what I can tell. There can still be advantageous OR adverse side functions to a given evolutionary trait, and as long as they don't have any direct impact on the evolutionary process itself, there's no reason for them to change. In this case, an appreciation for art.
For example, why do humans sense beauty in the first place? What things tend to be beautiful, and what things tend to make us turn away? I would argue that it could be entirely linked to evolution. We tend to see beauty in vitality, in good health, happiness, etc. We can look at a lush forest and see "beauty" because we know that such forests are full of life and good health. Good for survival? Of course. We see "beauty" in certain humans when they appear to be "prettier," where "pretty" tends to be a combination of things that indicate the presence of genetically-favorable, healthier traits. Survival trait? Sure. We see "beauty" in problem-solving when we gain understanding of things around us, which can be a function of evolution, as intelligent beings are better equipped to survive than non-intelligent beings given a certain environment (as is the case in all evolution). Survival trait? Yes. So we can derive this notion of "beauty" from many evolutionary factors, since we tend to find favorable notions beautiful and unfavorable notions not as beautiful or even ugly by comparison. So, we have these preferences/affinities/inclinations for various things, and art can be seen as an "outlet." It's not strictly the notion that "we evolved to like pretty paintings which helped us survive," but rather that the paintings are pretty because we've evolved to find certain attributes beautiful, and a painting is a good way for us to relay that beauty. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Blah I want to edit that post to improve the eloquence but I tend to get lazy and type things very stream-of-consciousness style without really caring about how I've structured it. I hope you understand what points I'm trying to relay, here.
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Yeap, I can completely agree with that. While it dosn't disprove a higher cause for beauty it certain weakens its argument for it.
Damn it, im trying to find some form of a counter example where a sense of beuaty dosn't help survival. Perhaps the beauty of contemplating the vastness of the universe isn't really survivalist. I guess even inner beauty can be seen as a genetically favorable. I might sleep on this one and see if I can help myself out here. The best argument I can see here is that if beauty is a form of survival then it will point back to the one who created survival. It feels like a pretty secondary argument though. Edit: haha, MUSIC! what is survivalist about music? Does music really lead itself to the wanting of desirable evolutionary traits? |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
"God" is something we can't disprove, especially when most people use "God" as something to explain what we don't know. Unless we somehow knew everything there is to know about our universe/origin/etc, there will always be this notion of a "God" that could "potentially be behind everything." But, like Reach said, what exactly, then, are you calling "God," and why even call it that?
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
For example, there is no 'a priori' way of knowing if the bible was being literal about the Earth being flat. The only way to see whether or not this is true is to...well, figure out if the Earth is flat or not. Of course it isn't, so then it becomes IN HINDSIGHT glaringly obvious that it was written in the bible as a reflection of the times, in context etc. However, prior to this knowledge you have no sound way of demonstrating which parts can be taken seriously and which ones cannot. You can say what you want about the intent of the author, and this is true to some extent, but it doesn't change what I just said on a more general level. There is still no way to demonstrate anything faith based in this context. Also, since you bring up the New Testament and describe it as easily understood (Which is, I suppose true compared to the OT), I present to you these passages: James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. And again in the OT: Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. So, how do you deal with passages like these? It's quite clear they lead to numerous contradictions, which bring us back to exactly the points I was trying to make - Religion is a system that is set up such that you cannot demonstrate it is true nor falsify it. Quote:
You're taking something very complex and offering, what appears to be a simplistic explanation for it that you do understand because you personally cannot find any other explanations as to why this could be. If you study evolutionary psychology you will find numerous examples of things that are byproducts or consequences of other developments, and thus they help our survival in an indirect way. This would be one of them, stemming primarily from cultural development. I could write an entire essay on this, but I won't. I suggest you research it on your own. However, appreciation of beauty and the appearance of beauty stems from both our genes and cultural development, and their intricate interactions from the time we are born. Our genes prime us to find certain things attractive, and our cultures shape and transform this into its ultimate form. If you want to know where these innate predispositions come from and the development of our culture, you'll want to look towards evolutionary psychology. Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Reach how do those scriptures contradict? Call me slow but I have read them before and I feel as if I understand there meanings fairly well but I hardly see the contradiction...
As for the evolutionary psychology I defiantly can see how that would work. Rubix sort of touched on it but I can see there is even more to it. Quote:
I can see what you are saying. [Generic statement without a given basis] But logically looking through some of the evidence for and against the major religions of the world and Christianity certainly stands up to the test. [/] But religion will never be agreed on by logic alone. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
At one point, human's discovered ways to communicate with each other. At the time, language probably helped with creating strategies for hunting and whatnot. As time goes by, Ben Franklin discovers electricity and through the "magic" of language, he informs us what, why, and how to use this awesome discovery. Nowadays, every time a human discovers something, it is immediately sent through the earth's proverbial circulatory system of human brains, and through the many discoveries and inventions of man, we have evolved into a species where as long as one human learns something, all humans learn it. When a baby is born in the year 2010, he will be born into a world that contains all the knowledge that has ever been developed by any person that was born before him. I'll try to be the only one to use this thread the way you wanted it to be used, rather than go off on how illogical many of your beliefs are, even though that is what I believe. I will say this one thing though: how is it logical to understand that "God always was" and not think beyond that? It's logical to say the Big Bang couldn't have happened on its own, because there is always a catalyst for everything; however you read that God has always existed, therefore he's an exception... I need a little help with that one. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Edit: 3am and sleepy time. Thanks for the discussion all, I will look forward to picking it up tomorrow. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
The contradiction ties into what I was saying earlier. All of these passages are claiming that, aside from the bible being the word of God, it is his literal word from which all must be followed (with nothing added or subtracted from it, from Deuteronomy). If these passages are not true then they are direct contradictions (since they claim everything in the bible is the true word of God which must be followed). So, are these passages true? How could they possibly be literally true after what I just discussed? How could these passages possibly be true if there are things in the bible that are demonstratively false? Further, how can these passages be true if we cannot properly discern PRIOR TO having more knowledge on the matter which passages are literal and which passages are allegory? Thus they become direct contradictions, and the problem of internal consistency arises. My point comes up again - where is the consistency and continuity between allegory and literal meaning within the bible? There is no empirical way to find it, and thus no empirical way to ever 'prove' Christianity as objectively the moral foundation of our universe. I don't want to continue to get into this, since it falls into the category of religion, which as you stated, wasn't the initial intent of the thread. I suggest you continue your search for the answers to the biggest questions the universe posses to us...why are we here, how did it all originate, etc. However, you might want to leave Christianity as your rubric aside for the moment, unless you want to get lost in the logical tangle forever. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Indeed those statements would have some sort of logic, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Since you're away for several hours, let me sum up a lot of key points I think you may have overlooked.
1) Quote:
In religious science, you begin with the 'facts' and work your way backwards. However, instead of applying thousands of tests, you apply slippery-slope logic that makes assumption after assumption to "PROVE" that God exists. 2) I think Reach went into far too great of an explanation when it comes to pretty pictures and music benefiting our survival. First of all (and this is going to be a huuuuuuuuge assumption), let's assume that not every culture on Earth speaks English. I know, it's a leap of faith, but bear with me for a second. Now, let's assume other cultures actually want to communicate with each other. Hmm. They don't all speak English! How do they communicate with each other? Oh. Another way to look at this is to understand that cultures tend to look at their culture and think it is great and worth passing on. Clearly worked for the Renaissance folks, since everything they painted has been idolized to this very day. Pictures are a way of passing on your culture long after it has been destroyed, or communicating with people you have no hope to communicate with. You can describe with thousands of words what you're trying to describe, but since our cultures are so vastly different, we will probably not pick up on what exactly you mean by bright multicolored round disappearing object, even if we do understand the translation, whereas drawing a simple little circle in the sky with small lines coming out from it clearly shows you mean the Sun. 3) Quote:
That wasn't good enough for me. And clearly, it's not good enough for you if you're reading apologetics. How can Jesus be his own father? If Jesus and God are the same person, why does Jesus ask God for forgiveness? If Jesus is his own father, then does that mean he committed a sin by impregnating his mother with himself? You don't have to answer any of that, because I'm sure you can come up with some convoluted answer to all of it. That's not the point I'm trying to make here. The point is that none of it makes sense, and it's not supposed to. Trying to explain miracles takes away the fact that it's supposed to be a miracle. This same phenomenon happened on the anti-Bible episode of Bullshit. A guy tries to explain how Moses could have parted the Red Sea by stating that they probably crossed the Reed Sea during low tide. But that removes the fact that it was a miracle! When you remove miracles from religion, then it's no longer a faith. Just stop trying to prove that God exists and take everything at face value. But since that won't work, please post these "proofs" of Christianity. Not just the Big Bang one either, though that was fun to debunk. I sincerely hope there's more than just "we don't know so God did it" in all of them. And I sincerely hope none of them are as dumb as the only other one I've heard, which is that the Great Flood carved the Grand Canyon. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Sounds pretty sequential to me. The only way this could avoid using the concept of time as we know it is if, along with the creation of the universe, God also made 'time', which, by virtue of it suddenly coming into existence, retroactively had to include God's previous presence in the timeline. However, this brings up the issue of how long God had existed before the creation of the universe. If God was never created, and had always existed, that means that there is an unquantifiable—but, notably, non-zero—length during which God existed before the 'creation' of time which, again, doesn't jive with the entire scenario. The other option is that 'time', like God, has always existed, which seems far more likely, if you're going with that conception of God. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
The problem is that you're still using God to fill in gaps with the "God outside of time" argument.
"I don't know how this would be possible, but God is so awesome that he just MAKES it possible." I mean, how can you disprove something like that? "God is so powerful that if we don't have an answer to something, we must assume it's beyond human comprehension and that it's something God did." I just fail to see why people use "God" as a way to describe what they don't know. WHY must it be some sort of magic man behind the fabric of spacetime? Instead of using evidence to support or reject a hypothesis, it's as if the hypothesis is assumed to be true, and the evidence needs to be reworked and warped until the hypothesis seems reasonable, or evidence is simply made up altogether for the sake of insisting the hypothesis is true. Then again, plenty of theists I talk to aren't really concerned with truth. Pick their claims apart with physics/evolutionary processes/etc, and it's almost always the same: "That makes sense but I still believe in God," which either means "I can't really explain to you why I believe in God despite your claims" or "I don't actually understand your claims." Usually people can't elaborate on the former because it's always something like "I've just believed it my whole life and it 'feels' right" without really considering the implications of such a statement. When pursuing a higher level of understanding or truth, sometimes we have to put aside what we think we know and critically put old evidence against the new, and bridge the gaps where possible, revise where things were mistaken, and so forth. Does this mean I am open to an entirely new view of the universe? Potentially -- but it would be if new evidence presented itself that made something else overwhelmingly clear, while still being consistent with all the other evidence. My question is why people choose to rely on "faith" in things like Christianity... but I digress. (I don't really care, either, if this goes against the "no religion" request in the OP -- feel free to disregard this post if you want, then) |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, this all falls apart when you consider that there are multiple religions, many of which think the other religions are wrong, and will condemn you to fiery punishment if you picked the wrong one. Oh well. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
So, the real comparison is: Living life for yourself not caring about invisible space men. Living life in fear of going to Hell, making sure you don't piss off invisible space men. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Actually, the real truth is that if you don't worship me as the Almighty Creator, you go to a fiery hell for all eternity.
Skeptical? If you don't believe me, why believe anyone else? What have you to lose by believing in me, now? You're going to be sorry when you go to Hell forever because you didn't take my warnings seriously! What I am about to say will come across as extremely presumptuous, narrow-minded, and disrespectful to most people, but it's something I know to be true: Everyone in this world who is religious is going to be in for a surprise when they die and find out there's nothing. Unfortunately, they won't realize it. Depressing and bitter, perhaps, but I do feel some power in "knowing" what will happen to us in death. The thing is, plenty of religious types feel just as strongly and believe in afterlife with the utmost sincerity. However, I sadly think the evidence leans heavily away from their views. I wonder, Reach, if you fear death at all? I understand it's an "illogical" fear to some extent, since a death leading into nonexistence means you no are no longer able to even care once you stop functioning. However, as a living human right now, who is able to think, breathe, and experience emotion, I feel fear in the fact that time is short and our lifespans are unpredictable. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I digress. The reason we are the only one we know of is that the closest Earth-like planet is simply too far away. There could well be intelligent life on other planets, they could even be venturing out into space, but we are only barely getting out into our own solar system. Forgive the pun, but the chances that we'd stumble across each other any time soon are astronomical. It could also be that other intelligent life in the universe may be far behind. In science fiction, aliens are often portrayed as more advanced than we are, but if we're only just barely reaching out into space, I think it's even more likely that other life forms in the universe haven't even begun reaching out into the vastness of the universe. Quote:
And it's turtles all the way down. ps on the topic of fear of death and the religious beliefs of the afterlife, I've always found it really funny that a religious person would be afraid to die. If I believed the sorts of things that religions tell about an afterlife, I'd be excited to die. You know those crazy extremists blowing themselves up in the middle east? That makes sense to me. They believe in this amazing afterlife, and they're getting themselves a quick one-way ticket there (or... they believe they are getting a one-way ticket there). But people elsewhere, no, they're afraid to die. It's as though they don't truly believe the stuff, because if they did, they should be in a hurry to get there. If Heaven is so great, why doesn't everyone go enlist in the military and volunteer for dangerous missions? Why doesn't everyone become a firefighter, constantly entering extremely dangerous situations to save others? Even the Christians who have had the "near death" experiences of their brains beginning to shut down aren't like this. No, they write books and live out a long life profiting from their experience. If they believe so readily, what are you doing sitting around here. If what you believe is true, this life doesn't mean ****. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Ok, so this has boiled down to a full blown religious debate. I orginally wanted to avoid this as there is so much being said and it makes really hard to sort of give quality replies to every point made, which is sad because part of me would love to try and properly answer them. The fact is I don't have the time to do so, nor do I personally have all the answers.
These sort of threads have generally gotten me down as it is kind of overwhelming, but from them I have left with questions and all I can do is trust God that the answers are out there and in general over time I seem to come across them. Yes, I can see how can that be seen as starting off with an answer and trying to find evidence to fit the answer and not looking at the evidence and finding an answer. I think the biggest factor to how any of these arguments play out is simply whether or not you are willing to believe in anything beyond materialism. Just as many Christians will try and say they are willing to look at the physical evidence, many skeptics will try and say they believe miracles are possible. If you are unwilling to believe that there is potentially more in this world then protons nuetrons and electrons then please do not bother posting again. You will simply stop any potential progress this thread can make. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Watch this. Quote:
Aside from that, the entire time you're talking in Universal terms, you're under the assumption that humans are IT. That there's nothing else in the Universe. There are billions of planets and an uncountable number of stars, but Earth is the ONLY PLANET with intelligent life, mirite? I know there's absolutely no proof that there are any other forms of intelligent life in the Universe, but there's also no proof against it. This is the standard "does god exist" result, but I'm purely speaking statistics here. Statistically speaking, with all the possible sources of life, it is beyond my comprehension that humans are the one and only form of intelligent life in the Universe. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Quote:
Also is there not a point to be made that out of all our species we seem to be the only ones with any real sense of self awareness? Does a Gorilla see himself as I? I can see that we in many ways have evolved from apes or what have you, but there is something that just seems special. Or is there nothing that we can't explain through evolution? Quote:
Christianity would argue that your barely even living on this Earth until you are in relationship with God. Jesus came so that we could have an abundant life, why would we wish to leave quickly? Whats the rush to get to a party that wont end, if you want to use that analogy. Quote:
Squeek, two things regarding point 3 of your post. Judging concepts through the people who try to convey them is like trying to judge a car through someone's description. Someone may know a Ferrari is a good car but they may not know how. They may not be able to explain how, but it dosn't mean its a bad car. Secondly, I agree that trying to rationalize miracles through science or discounting them completely ruins the point of faith. But if you can believe that someone created the universe then it isn't much of a stretch to believe that he could alter the natural laws that the something created. That in no way proves Chrisitan miracles but it certainly helps start the process. I guess the word prove does not mean physically show that xyz happened or how xyz happened, just demonstrate that its possible and likely given proper assumptions. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Squeek, whats the point in discussing things of a spiritual nature if you refuse to belive that spiritual things could exist?
Thats what I am trying to say. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Luke 18:18-30 summary: Sell everything you own. If you don't, you can't get into heaven. Oh also, you have to follow me (aka be my disciple, you'll see where I'm going with this next). Luke 14:26 summary: Hate everybody. Hate your parents, hate yourself, etc. Hate everything and everyone. If you don't, you can't be my disciple (and, by proxy, you can't get into Heaven. This couples well with the next one!). Luke 10:25 summary: Love everybody. Love god, love your neighbors, etc. Love everything and everyone. If you don't, you can't get into Heaven. Hmm. Jesus is making this hard already. But it gets worse. Matthew 5:20 summary: Unless you're better than the Pharisees, you can't get into Heaven. Now this is a fun one. Pharisees are always talked about in churches despite the fact that nobody has a damn clue who the hell they are. So, let me just paste their laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot Pharisees obeyed these laws religiously (if you'll ignore the pun). If you can't obey those laws and more, you can't get into Heaven. People cite John 3:16 all the time as if it's the only time Jesus ever mentioned how to get into Heaven. I'm not surprised, since the other 7 times he mentions getting into Heaven are absolutely insane and do not coincide with this "one" way at all. But this is the word of God, after all! Not only that, but Jesus himself! Why do so many people ignore the other 7 rules? Nobody's getting to Heaven at all! It's kind of depressing. If only people would read the Bible, they would see that they're not obeying the word of God. But I digress. This has gotten far too outside of the confines of this thread. As for the rest of your post, I'm not a scientist nor do I follow science. I practically failed science in high school and college. I don't really know a damn thing about quantum physics. I just cite actual scientists who have explained these things. I'm not a good philosopher either. I really can't wrap my head around things like cosmology and infinitely expanding Universes. It doesn't make sense to me. However, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than just filling in the gaps of science with "God did it", especially when those gaps are constantly filled with better explanations, leaving less and less wiggle room for "God". Look, you've already confined him to the start of the Big Bang. How much more ground do you have to lose before you think critically and examine the facts without the bias of trying to fit "God" into them all? Now onto the next post. Quote:
That's what I am trying to say. Neither side of a Christian/Science argument is going to listen to the other side. You think we're stupid for blindly following science, we think you're stupid for blindly believing in religion. The only difference is that science is not closed-minded. Anyone and everyone can disprove anything they want to. If you don't like the Theory of Evolution, then find evidence that disproves it. It's that simple! But if I don't like the idea of Intelligent Design, no amount of evidence will convince you that you're wrong. It's kind of a double standard in your favor, but the funny part is that science still has never lost to religious claims. I would still love to see more apologetics since my google searches are only turning up pages that link to books and not actual examples. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Just because evolution gives us something accidentally doesn't mean it's not a fundamentally good thing. Actually, that's the whole ****ing point of evolution. Random mutation creating useful traits that get passed on to progeny. The fact that a trait's origin is random chance doesn't mean it's not a good trait, not just in the case of human's logical nature, but for all evolved traits. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Especially when you're talking about LOGIC, something is not PROVEN just by explaining a way in which it is POSSIBLE or LIKELY GIVEN OUTLANDISH ASSUMPTIONS. Something being possible DOESN'T MEAN ****, and REQUIRING AN OUTLANDISH ASSUMPTION for something to just be considered "likely" is ****ing stupid and NOT a proof of ANYTHING. Holy ****, man, really? To prove is not to merely show it is possible. What the ****. It is possible that I am actually an alien from Jupiter. Therefore, it is proven I am an alien. WHAT Ok stop. Let's start again with an outlandish, unverifiable assumption. I was born in the year 1800. Therefore, I am over 200 years old. Am I 200 years old really? No, because the outlandish assumption is in fact TOTALLY ****ING WRONG and HAS NO BASIS IN REALITY. Seriously, I am just totally losing my mind here. How the hell can you seriously say "the word prove does not mean physically show that xyz happened or how xyz happened, just demonstrate that its possible and likely given proper assumptions." I really want to know what makes you think that pointing out the possibility of something is in ANYWAY comparable to proving it. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
Alternatively, he practices favoritism by tinkering to help certain people and not others. Hell, sometimes really bad things happen! Does he purposely tinker to make bad things happen? Why would he do that? When a plane crashes and everyone dies except one why does he tinker to save only one person? Does he like them more than the others? He is too weak to save the others? Was killing everyone else part of his plan, and if so, isn't that cruel? This is a logical disaster you've gotten yourself into. The physical laws of the universe can never, ever be broken. This severely limits our choices in this scenario. Assuming God exists, he can 1) only be revealed through what is natural, so God is the universe itself, or 2) God cannot possibly reveal himself directly - He created the universe to do exactly what it has always done and does not intervene. To expect anything else is to throw your new found infatuation with logic out the window. Quote:
It's that gigantic piece of neural tissue that makes us special. Obviously that much more tissue allows us to take our self awareness to an entirely new level. Also, to support this why don't we look at what happens when our brains don't develop properly or don't develop into the right size (Too small). If it doesn't develop properly: See: http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/fas-brain.jpg FAS - the child is mentally retarded with very little mental capacity, very little self awareness of cognitive abilities we consider normal. Too small: See microcephaly. Same thing. As brain size decreases, so does intelligence, and so does self awareness and other human like traits. Also, as an interesting exercise, note the similarities between the human skull and the chimp skull. Note the recession of the mandibular jaw, and the compression of the maxillary jaw to decrease biting power and increase skull space available for brain. Also, check out this picture of an ape without hair: http://www.boingboing.net/hairlessmkb0416.jpg |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
I cringe when I see the word "random" in these debates.
Again, as I said in another thread, evolution IS. NOT. RANDOM. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Windsurfer your "religious logic" falls apart because you're simply making illogical jumps that aren't supported by anything. Yes, I am "me," but why does that make me eternal? Why jump to the "logical" conclusion of a God when most of your reasoning is gap-filling? Why are you taking in the Bible when, as Reach said, much of it is demonstratively false?
It feels like, to me, you're taking an approach of "It doesn't matter how much evidence against God you find, there's always that chance everything else that you can't disprove is true and so God must exist." "I guess the word prove does not mean physically show that xyz happened or how xyz happened, just demonstrate that its possible and likely given proper assumptions." Neither of those views are "logical." A "proof" does not rely on something that is "likely," because a proof means something is necessarily true. Even at that, if we are to go by what is likely, it's like saying science has a near-100% chance of being right, and religious types have a near-0% chance of being right. I don't quite think religious types understand how much evidence is blasting back against them. For any claim or "logical linkage" you make in favor of God, you can't get upset when people bring up evidence against it. If there's evidence against something, you can no longer say it's a proof. Using God to fill in the gaps of everything has absolutely no logical basis. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
This thread is just too much now.
So... Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Alright, at the very top of this thread in big letters I wrote "I do not want this thread to turn into a religious thread or a creation versus evolution." When it started out this way, naively and egotistically I thought, its cool I can handle it. As it has been made clear I can't.
As I have said earlier though, an unbiased thinker will not take my lack of ability to properly demonstrate the validity of Christian beliefs as a sign that they are invalid. I am happy to keep aiming for the moon and falling short. The fact is I can potentially handle trying discussing a single front of discussion at a time. I can't handle an all out assault from every direction. Thats why I asked for this not to turn into a religious thread. I still think there is truth in what I believe and I am very interested in critically thinking about it. I would love to make some more threads in the future on very small and narrow topics in the hope that we will not get things out of hand. Should I bother doing so? Are people actually interested in being open minded and discussing the validity of certain thoughts? Edit: Would I be wrong in saying that most of the posts in this thread have not tried seeing any validity in what has been discussed? It does feel like there has been next to no effort to try and think about things from the other point of view (mine), no effort to try and find some positives in my arguments. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
To be fair, asking for this not to become a religious thread is like shouting "THERE IS NO GOD" and asking for people not to tell you that you're wrong.
And asking us to see things from your point of view is rather... odd. I mean, you're telling us to assume "ok WHAT IF there was an omniscient omnipotent invisible being in the sky" when, to us, that's a rather large assumption to make and is outside of our scope of reasoning. For those of us who operating in the world of logic and proof, even making this huge assumption is like giving you an 'in', if you will. It's the same problem I was having with the Metaphysics thread, though I didn't post it. The person there is trying to make an argument wherein you cut two people's brains in half and split them among each other in trying to argue that your sense of self is lost when you do this. When you keep forcing yourself to use "what if"s in order to try to win an argument, it sounds to me like you're grabbing for straws at that point. But I'll play your game regardless. What if it were God? Then anything and everything can be God. Then there's no point in doing any scientific examinations of anything anymore, because it's easier to just assume it's God's doing. It's the same as the slippery slope legal argument. If you make one thing illegal, you can make anything illegal. If we say God did one thing, then God can do everything. Which is why we'll never admit, even in assumptions, that there has ever been a God doing anything. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Don't walk into a house of logic and tell us that we need to take unverifiable stated assumptions as a given. We will eat you. Then throw words at you until you give up. Quote:
Again, I want to point you to humanistic atheism, also called secular humanism. Give it a look see. Gives you all the good points that a religion can give you, without unverifiable claims that must be accepted without proof. There is no invisible man in space controlling anything or creating anything, but it still can give your life structure and meaning... except that in fact, it is yourself giving your life structure and meaning. I guess the real point is not to worship some external, invisible, unmeasurable being that easily doesn't even exist, look internally at yourself and decide what is right for yourself. Basically, it is religion minus the affront to reason. Religion itself is not fundamentally bad, but when it makes a person question reason, when it makes a person do illogical things, when it makes a person use fault logic to uphold their beliefs, it is. ps squeek is right, you cannot make a thread saying "I love logic and god is logical but dont make this a thread about religion." If you say "god is logical" I will be there to throw words, and you better believe that others like Squeek or Reach will be there to throw good, reasoned arguments at you as well. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
This thread just sploded my mind.
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Alright, with some thread formalization out of the way, lets give some more attempts at rebuttals. I would like to start of with Squeaks biblical attacks.
Luke 18:18-30 summary: Sell everything you own. If you don't, you can't get into heaven. Oh also, you have to follow me (aka be my disciple, you'll see where I'm going with this next). Quote:
Luke 18:18-30 "A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"" Then Jesus instructed him to sell everything. That does not need to apply to anyone else. Jesus later goes on to say "When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." This is called an analogy, as you would never get a camel to enter eye of a needle but he is using it as an illustration not as a black and white rule. If you want I could try and delve even deeper and find the root words that were used to describe the rich man if you are super concerned about it, it seems to be obvious that Jesus is not setting an income limit on heaven entry but more of a heart thing about valuing money more then God. Where did you get this you have to be a discple thing from? Because I don't see it and it ruins your proxy argument for the next bit. Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Pretty strong words. The term hate here is a hyperbole meaning to love Jesus more then this his Father, mother etc.... A command I certainly have no problem with, my Mother and Father have let me down where as biblically speaking at least Jesus hasn't. Luke 10:25-29 "On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself." "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." You raise an interesting point, but it does seem to say "love God as much as you can". God made us, he knows we are not perfect and he knows how much love we can give. I hardly see this as an impossible task. God is a loving God he won't tease you into thinking your doing good enough to then pull the rug out from under you. Lastly, the Pharisees were compared to brooding vipers by Jesus. (I am really out of time here and will happily fill out this argument later, I do enjoy going through and reading the word.) |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Squeek, scientific experimentation help us deal with the physical world, why would a relationship with God take away the need for that?
As for your slippery slope point, that to me is close mindedness. Afro, there is logic associated with faith. Eg. discussing the validity of the four gospels, how historically accurate they are, how the people could believe such claims, why they have spread so far. I came here and asked if there was anything more then evolution behind our ability to think. People took this elsewhere. As much as I like the emphasis on positive outcomes of human secularism, to me it looses its power if you are doing things for the sake of hypocritical people (which is all of us). The fact that atheists get pissed off to me shows a weakness in their arguments, emotion is not a good thing to get in the way of logic. Christians are always blamed for bringing it into a debate but atheists aren't. I'll keep trying to patiently go through this thread, but if Dev or others decide this has gone on long enough with out enough potential for some good old crit thinking then feel free to lock. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
The problem is that you're trying to apply logic to a case where your underlying assumptions are without logical basis. Your initial post was about the beauty of logic, and yet you're disregarding certain answers. You don't seem to like answers of "Logic can be enjoyed by humans due to certain evolutionary processes" because then that becomes a religious/evolutionary debate, even though it's answering your question. Or would you prefer "Humans enjoy logic because it's a function of fun problem-solving"? On a practical level, you're going to have a lot of difficulty restricting this thread away from religion as it applies to logic, especially when your religion is specifically tailored such that it rapes logic in the face without even buying it dinner first. It's like you're trying to say "Hey, just assume the possibility that there's a God, and then let's talk logical proofs" when such a claim isn't logical. Logical proofs don't revolve around conclusions that "may be possible," as that would no longer make them proofs.
The fact that atheists get "pissed off" doesn't mean they are letting emotion get in the way of logic, and I'd even argue that we aren't even getting pissed off here. Frustrated, sure. Something that is true will be true, and something false will still be false, no matter what state of mind you're in. The reason behind the frustration is mainly because every time we try to address your question, you either shove it aside as "part of a religious/evolutionary debate" or you simply make claims about logic that are incorrect, or you ignore certain crucial arguments altogether. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Using logic, it's much easier to assume that Jesus doesn't know what he's talking about or that he really, really hates rich people. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And how do you know your God is a loving God? Your God killed a bunch of people, man. He killed innocent children. Repeatedly. He told other people to kill people. Repeatedly. I would not call that a loving God. Quote:
Now let's get to your next post, which is chock-full of goodness! Quote:
Religion has successfully stopped (at least temporarily): Cosmology (THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE), Biology (GOD MADE THE WORLD STOP INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT SHOW OTHERWISE), Stem-cell research (USING UNBORN FETUS MATERIAL THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE THROWN AWAY THAT CAN CURE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IS WRONG!), and numerous other scientific advances. Religion has successfully spread: Disease (CONDOMS ARE BAD!), Misinformation, Bigotry (HOMOSEXUALS ARE GAY), and Sexism, among other things. Quote:
Quote:
It's very, very interesting to ask why people believe such claims, especially when not a single person outside of the Bible wrote about any of these people! I'm extremely interested in this too! But then again, as they say, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Quote:
Quote:
And, as they say, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. You are the one telling us there's an invisible space alien governing over our lives. We are saying "That's illogical." Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." -The God Delusion, page 31
I always found this passage to be hilarious :P |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
:) *raises the white flag*
I could keep trying but I'm fighting a loosing fight here. As always if people have questions on the topic and are generally interested in what I believe then feel free to message me or hit me up on IM. As shown I may not have the answers but try ;) Forgive the smilies too, there pretty lame. Forgive me on finishing a CT argument with such "dribble": If you can fill that emptiness inside of you which I can never fill with anything from this world you are a better man then I. God Bless: my good intentions from the the man diluted enough to believe in something greater :) |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
And the only reason anything in the bible is recognized as historically accurate is if it is confirmed by secular sources. The bible is not a source of historical accuracies even if does contain a few; a source of historical accuracies would be secular and entirely historically accurate within the ability of the scribe who penned it. Quote:
But it doesn't matter if a lot of people believe something, that doesn't mean that it's valid. Everyone used to be certain that the Earth was flat, that everything in the cosmos revolved around it. These ideas lasted for a very long time. That doesn't add any validity to the beliefs. An incorrect idea that's held by many, across generations would still be an incorrect idea, not just in the case of religion, but in ALL things. Quote:
And if this life means jack squat (as would be indicated by disagreeing with the basic ideals of humanism), then my previous argument about getting on the fastlane to Heaven is valid. The two ideas cannot both be wrong. Either this life has meaning and humanism is a good thing, or this life has no value of its own and the afterlife is all that should be considered as worthwhile. Quote:
And as has already been pointed out, YOU brought religion into this. You said your piece about it then immediately turned around and said "ok now no one else can say anything about it." What the ****. No. If you make wild claims they are going to get smacked the **** down. ps When you're fighting a losing battle, the word "losing" only has one 'O' in it. Normally, I'm not the type to rag on bad spelling, but I noticed you made the same mistake somewhere else as well, so you probably just don't know any better and you seem like the sort of person who would appreciate knowing if you were making a mistake such as this. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution