Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

[devonin]

Being "relevent" doesn't matter. Thinking that it would be good for him to exist also doesn't matter. I think it would be good if I had telekineses, but does that mean I do?

The statement to which I was responding claimed that belief in God was irellevant, nonsensical and pointless. Thus my response that to some people it is actually relevant, sensical and pointful. Your objection here gets the same response. I'd also suggest that the religious arguments in support of there being a God are actually more valid than any arguments you might put forward that you have telekenesis, especially since it is much more clear and obvious when you fail to demonstrate your power when called upon.

It is a logical fallacy to believe in something just because it can't be proven wrong. It is also, again, a logical fallacy to believe that something exists just because it would be good or feel "right" for it to exist. If there is no evidence why believe in it?

It is not a logical fallacy to believe in something on the grounds that it hasn't been disproven. It is a logical fallacy to claim your belief is -correct- solely because it has not been proven incorrect. I can believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and even though that has not been proven correct, I'm not committing a fallacy to say "I believe there is intelligent life on other planets" It would only be a fallacy if I said "You can't prove there is NO life on other planets, therefore there IS life on other planets"

The whole point of having -faith- in the existance of God is that you are only claiming to believe it, you are not claiming that you know for a fact it is true. if you claimed to know for a fact it was true, you woudln't be demonstrating faith.

Are you saying that people who believe in God are more likely to be right than those who believe in Russel's Teapot? Do you honestly think this is true? All are equally (un)likely due to the lack of any sort of evidence in either camp.

I'm saying that generally speaking, intelligent religious people have reasoning and logic behind their belief in God. You can and many do disagree with their logic, but very few people believe in God "Because, and you can't prove otherwise" whereas with Russell's Teapot, the whole basis for claiming it is just as likely to exist is because it is just as impossible to disprove. And that's far less by way of reasoning.

What about the pseudoscience of intelligent design and all the hogwash they try to concoct to "prove" religious things "scientifically"? Are we not allowed to talk ill of their ilk? "OMG LOOK AT THIS BANANA IT FITS MY HAND PERFECTLY there's no way the banana could have developed this characteristic through evolution"

For what now, the fourth time? I direct you to the disparity in usage in my posts of the phrases "Intelligent religious people" and "religious people" Anybody who is religious and tries to "prove" their faith through science is doing it wrong.

The unlikeliness of said chance is irrelevant. The Universe and life exist, so the intensely small chance of it happening randomly doesn't matter. It's like... if someone had a one in a million chance at winning the lottery, and won it. You wouldn't look at this guy's winnings and think "wow, there's no way he won the lottery; he must have gotten that money in some other way because the chances of him winning are simply too low!"

You really love this line of reasoning, and unfortunately it doesn't actually work. For one, the odds of winning a lottery are so dramatically better, that if you reduced the odds of the universe forming in this exact way by pure chance to the same odds as winning the lottery, the odds of winning the lottery would probably be somewhere on the order of 1 in 2. For two, the more accurate comparison would be something like "If he won ten seperate lotteries, ten weeks in a row. Would you be more likely to think "Wow, what a lucky person to randomly select the correct numbers that frequently" or would you be more likely to think "He's cheating or otherwise doing something outside the bounds of the game"?"

Which is actually the Occam's Razor brand simplest explanation for someone winning the lottery 10 weeks consecutively? Is it "What a lucky stiff" or "He has inside info" What if he wins 20 seperate lotteries consecutively? At some point the sheer unlikihood of the accomplishment lends credence to the idea that an outside agent is at work.

Religion says: god created man in his image from dirt
Science says: we evolved from apes

I'd suggest that most intelligent religious people understand that Genesis and other old testament stories are allegorical and don't refer to literal events. When the Catholic Pope freely suggests that evolution is almost certainly correct, though guided by God's Divine Plan, you really can't insist that "religion says" man==dirt.

Religion says: Jesus was crucified, died, then rose from the dead.
Science says: It is not possible to be dead for that long of a time, then miraculously revive for "no reason".

They could even agree that you can't miraculously revive for no reason. The reason this particular person miraculously revived was that he was the Son of God. So I don't see a fundamental issue with these statements either.

Religions attempt to define the physicial world in one way or another. That's where it overlaps with science.

Religions tend more to want to explain the way the world is, rather than define the things in the world.

why was my post deleted?

Because it failed to meet the standards of posting in this forum. You made one random, off-topic unsupported statement, and then said that you like to stay out of these discussions, so I granted your preference.

The old testament was written by a king so that he could control his kingdom better by telling them he was a representative of god.

That's actually not true at all. The Old testament, at least according to those who believe in it, was written by th Anshei Knesset HaGedolah which was a group of several dozen scribes, rabbis, theologians and sages.

Maybe Jesus did in fact exist, but perhaps he wasn't as miraculous as people believed him to be.

There is absolutely no question at all that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. There's also absolutely no question at all that he was a prophet who spent much of his life travelling and preaching to people. Really the only question is about the validity of his claims.