Actually, it's not more logical to be religious. Religion is based on faith, while atheists use science and theory to support their claims. The only difference between the two is that religion is unfalsifiable. Faith doesn't involve logic, it involves believing for the sake of believing, which to many atheists like myself, is just silly.dayarath wrote:
basically being religious is more logic than being an atheist.
and that's actually quite ironic.
And as I pointed out before atheism has a huge flaw, but anyway that makes religion more logical because from a logic viewpoint it's more logic (lotsa logics) to believe in a supreme deity than it is to believe in science.Havok wrote:
Actually, it's not more logical to be religious. Religion is based on faith, while atheists use science and theory to support their claims. The only difference between the two is that religion is unfalsifiable. Faith doesn't involve logic, it involves believing for the sake of believing, which to many atheists like myself, is just silly.dayarath wrote:
basically being religious is more logic than being an atheist.
and that's actually quite ironic.
As I said; religion today is the malformed version of what it used to be, people have been bending it to their own ideals in the years time - I believe jezus was more like aristoteles and plato rather than the son of god.
inane little opines
Fuck religion - blind belief in Communism for victory for the Motherland is what we should have(!).
That is the end of this ironic & sarcastic broadcast.
~~~
'What ever caused people to hate religions?' is more a question to the crux of this discussion.
The answer?: Organised religions.
The solution?: Disband organised religions and let people blindly fumble through the dark ie. to live as if religions had never existed.
It's simple and only my argument as I am in such a light-headed and humorous mood, but can anyone argue against that?
That is the end of this ironic & sarcastic broadcast.
~~~
'What ever caused people to hate religions?' is more a question to the crux of this discussion.
The answer?: Organised religions.
The solution?: Disband organised religions and let people blindly fumble through the dark ie. to live as if religions had never existed.
It's simple and only my argument as I am in such a light-headed and humorous mood, but can anyone argue against that?
Last edited by TheDarkRaven (2007-12-03 13:14:24)
I think all the religion haters are really just afraid.
Also, when people start bashing religion I tend to feel personally attacked, however when they start citing examples of what religious people "do wrong" I find myself thinking: What the hell kind of religious people do you hang out with?
It's too bad people hate so easily. They get afraid of something and hate it.
They fail to see that religion in itself is no basis for evil. It's the people to warp it and use it for their own good. If not for religion, they would have found another way to do bad things.
On a final note, the religion-haters generalize way too much. You say "Religion sucks because of X", where X is most likely a property that only has to do with Christianity or Islam, depending on what you fear most. There are other religions out there. Keep that in mind before you condemn them all, and all who follow them.
Also, when people start bashing religion I tend to feel personally attacked, however when they start citing examples of what religious people "do wrong" I find myself thinking: What the hell kind of religious people do you hang out with?
It's too bad people hate so easily. They get afraid of something and hate it.
They fail to see that religion in itself is no basis for evil. It's the people to warp it and use it for their own good. If not for religion, they would have found another way to do bad things.
On a final note, the religion-haters generalize way too much. You say "Religion sucks because of X", where X is most likely a property that only has to do with Christianity or Islam, depending on what you fear most. There are other religions out there. Keep that in mind before you condemn them all, and all who follow them.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
very much so, my main point being it's people who caused other people to hate religion, not religion itself, which is the main point.TheDarkRaven wrote:
Fuck religion - blind belief in Communism for victory for the Motherland is what we should have(!).
That is the end of this ironic & sarcastic broadcast.
~~~
'What ever caused people to hate religions?' is more a question to the crux of this discussion.
The answer?: Organised religions.
The solution?: Disband organised religions and let people blindly fumble through the dark ie. to live as if religions had never existed.
It's simple and only my argument as I am in such a light-headed and humorous mood, but can anyone argue against that?
solution: bend the religion back in it's original course and well, stop the hate.
inane little opines
I am a christian, go to church every Sunday and everything else belonging to that but now a days people claim they are religous, never go to church and totally make no sense making religon appear as a joke. Many people think that as soon as you say that you believe in Jesus you will be saved but I't doesn't work that way, but I can't explain it w/e.
Science is based on logic. How is it logical to believe something you cannot prove exists?dayarath wrote:
And as I pointed out before atheism has a huge flaw, but anyway that makes religion more logical because from a logic viewpoint it's more logic (lotsa logics) to believe in a supreme deity than it is to believe in science.
As I said; religion today is the malformed version of what it used to be, people have been bending it to their own ideals in the years time - I believe jezus was more like aristoteles and plato rather than the son of god.
Logic deals with inference (coming to a conclusion based upon cognitive evidence or understanding) and the demonstration of said evidence.
Have you ever taken a logic or related philosphy class? My magic 8-ball is leaning towards no.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-03 13:17:58)
It's funny because atheists DO have a religion. They believe with their entire soul that there IS NO GOD. Atheists are often more extreme in their belief than people who follow a religion. And objectively, since you can neither verify nor falsify the existence of God, it is the atheists who are the sillier. They are the ones who believe blindly in something that cannot be proven (that there is no God).
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
But it'd still be organised and inherent human flaws account for the inevitable warping of religion.dayarath wrote:
very much so, my main point being it's people who caused other people to hate religion, not religion itself, which is the main point.TheDarkRaven wrote:
Fuck religion - blind belief in Communism for victory for the Motherland is what we should have(!).
That is the end of this ironic & sarcastic broadcast.
~~~
'What ever caused people to hate religions?' is more a question to the crux of this discussion.
The answer?: Organised religions.
The solution?: Disband organised religions and let people blindly fumble through the dark ie. to live as if religions had never existed.
It's simple and only my argument as I am in such a light-headed and humorous mood, but can anyone argue against that?
solution: bend the religion back in it's original course and well, stop the hate.
Try again?
Y/N
Judging by your post, it's rather pointless to argue with you. Jesus was a carpenter, not a philosopher. The 10 Commandments are a philosophy I suppose, but that was from Moses, not Jesus.dayarath wrote:
And as I pointed out before atheism has a huge flaw, but anyway that makes religion more logical because from a logic viewpoint it's more logic (lotsa logics) to believe in a supreme deity than it is to believe in science.Havok wrote:
Actually, it's not more logical to be religious. Religion is based on faith, while atheists use science and theory to support their claims. The only difference between the two is that religion is unfalsifiable. Faith doesn't involve logic, it involves believing for the sake of believing, which to many atheists like myself, is just silly.dayarath wrote:
basically being religious is more logic than being an atheist.
and that's actually quite ironic.
As I said; religion today is the malformed version of what it used to be, people have been bending it to their own ideals in the years time - I believe jezus was more like aristoteles and plato rather than the son of god.
And enlighten me with the 'huge flaw' of atheism.
I would like to quote a direct segment of your previous post:
I'm sorry, but what the hell is that. You didn't say anything other than circular logic. Don't just say it takes logic to be a believer, show it to me. Give me evidence. I'm not saying you're wrong for believing in a God (because I cannot prove that wrong) but it's just a fact that atheism is more central to logic than religion is.dayarath wrote:
that makes religion more logical because from a logic viewpoint it's more logic (lotsa logics) to believe in a supreme deity
LaidBackNinja wrote:
It's funny because atheists DO have a religion. They believe with their entire soul that there IS NO GOD. Atheists are often more extreme in their belief than people who follow a religion.
The lack of religion is not a religion. I agree that some atheists are extreme, as there are some extreme religious people.Definition of Religion wrote:
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
We're silly for not believing what can't be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, heard, or otherwise sensed? Like I said, I can't prove there isn't a God, but I have seen no evidence to support the idea that there is one.LaidBackNinja wrote:
And objectively, since you can neither verify nor falsify the existence of God, it is the atheists who are the sillier. They are the ones who believe blindly in something that cannot be proven (that there is no God).
Last edited by Havok (2007-12-03 13:26:43)
I have, very much even its one of my favorite and best subjects, but my point being atheists only rely on logic, and as I explained in my wall of text this is impossible if you wish to declare existance, which means it's falsfiable.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Science is based on logic. How is it logical to believe something you cannot prove exists?
Logic deals with inference (coming to a conclusion based upon cognitive evidence or understanding) and the demonstration of said evidence.
Have you ever taken a logic or related philosphy class? My magic 8-ball is leaning towards no.
Logic can't cope with something in which we just have to exist because : if you trail back everything to the point where it all starts logic can't be the answer. ( You can't come to a conclusion if the evidence has no sense. ) in this case it becomes a philosophy, but that's just means of interpretation if you think for example that what I just said I believe is science, be my guest.
I just said in my huge text wall it's more logical to believe in a deity rather than just assuming "it's there and it's coincidence" because in all honesty that doesn't make sense too me (it's too logic to be coincidence)
inane little opines
Jezus indeed was a carpenter but a very bright one at that being able to make whole crowds of people believe in what he did. The ten commandments are, but they were already rules commonly excepted in society back then.Havok wrote:
Judging by your post, it's rather pointless to argue with you. Jesus was a carpenter, not a philosopher. The 10 Commandments are a philosophy I suppose, but that was from Moses, not Jesus.dayarath wrote:
And as I pointed out before atheism has a huge flaw, but anyway that makes religion more logical because from a logic viewpoint it's more logic (lotsa logics) to believe in a supreme deity than it is to believe in science.Havok wrote:
Actually, it's not more logical to be religious. Religion is based on faith, while atheists use science and theory to support their claims. The only difference between the two is that religion is unfalsifiable. Faith doesn't involve logic, it involves believing for the sake of believing, which to many atheists like myself, is just silly.
As I said; religion today is the malformed version of what it used to be, people have been bending it to their own ideals in the years time - I believe jezus was more like aristoteles and plato rather than the son of god.
And enlighten me with the 'huge flaw' of atheism.
I would like to quote a direct segment of your previous post:I'm sorry, but what the hell is that. You didn't say anything other than circular logic. Don't just say it takes logic to be a believer, show it to me. Give me evidence. I'm not saying you're wrong for believing in a God (because I cannot prove that wrong) but it's just a fact that atheism is more central to logic than religion is.dayarath wrote:
that makes religion more logical because from a logic viewpoint it's more logic (lotsa logics) to believe in a supreme deity
The huge flaw is my damn wall of text, a supreme deity is presumably the most logic step inbetween point of no reason and two membranes leading to a perfect universe.
inane little opines
Woah! Jesus was a real person - proof, please? Historical proof, throw some at me.dayarath wrote:
Jezus indeed was a carpenter but a very bright one at that being able to make whole crowds of people believe in what he did. The ten commandments are, but they were already rules commonly excepted in society back then.
The huge flaw is my damn wall of text, a supreme deity is presumably the most logic step inbetween point of no reason and two membranes leading to a perfect universe.
I don't know for sure to be honest, I'm just guessing but let's say what if he was there, then he would be that.TheDarkRaven wrote:
Woah! Jesus was a real person - proof, please? Historical proof, throw some at me.dayarath wrote:
Jezus indeed was a carpenter but a very bright one at that being able to make whole crowds of people believe in what he did. The ten commandments are, but they were already rules commonly excepted in society back then.
The huge flaw is my damn wall of text, a supreme deity is presumably the most logic step inbetween point of no reason and two membranes leading to a perfect universe.
Funny thing is that many religions have a person which is about exactly the same as jezus, especially the egyptians had a very similair one which started their religion.
inane little opines
As far as I can tell, you just made that up. How can you call it logical when you have no evidence to support it?dayarath wrote:
The huge flaw is my damn wall of text, a supreme deity is presumably the most logic step inbetween point of no reason and two membranes leading to a perfect universe.
You're making me think you don't understand the word 'logic'. Logic is not telling yourself that you believe something. That's faith. Logic is using all the available resources to educate yourself so that you may make a presumably more intelligent decision on a specific topic.
EDIT: I will say it again so I don't get flamed. I am not saying there is no God. I cannot prove nor disprove that. I am just saying that atheism is more focused around logic than religion is.
Last edited by Havok (2007-12-03 13:31:49)
And so with no historical proof of a person your religion is the most logical belief? Yes, I'm sure(!).dayarath wrote:
I don't know for sure to be honest, I'm just guessing but let's say what if he was there, then he would be that.TheDarkRaven wrote:
Woah! Jesus was a real person - proof, please? Historical proof, throw some at me.dayarath wrote:
Jezus indeed was a carpenter but a very bright one at that being able to make whole crowds of people believe in what he did. The ten commandments are, but they were already rules commonly excepted in society back then.
The huge flaw is my damn wall of text, a supreme deity is presumably the most logic step inbetween point of no reason and two membranes leading to a perfect universe.
Funny thing is that many religions have a person which is about exactly the same as jezus, especially the egyptians had a very similair one which started their religion.
Thing is, Jesus was most likely a conglomeration of many people claiming to be prophets of the time and many of 'his' doings are those of many people.
it is, but my main point being as said before; eventually when I try to trail back everything starting at strings up to point of no reason I'd say it's the most logic thing to come in between our universe.Havok wrote:
As far as I can tell, you just made that up. How can you call it logical when you have no evidence to support it?dayarath wrote:
The huge flaw is my damn wall of text, a supreme deity is presumably the most logic step inbetween point of no reason and two membranes leading to a perfect universe.
You're making me think you don't understand the word 'logic'. Logic is not telling yourself that you believe something. That's faith. Logic is using all the available resources to educate yourself so that you may make a presumably more intelligent decision on a specific topic.
EDIT: I will say it again so I don't get flamed. I am not saying there is no God. I cannot prove nor disprove that. I am just saying that atheism is more focused around logic than religion is.
Which I call the fatal gap in atheism, I do know it's centered about way more logical and nifty things but the main thought of logic being the answer to everything has a bigger probability of being false than there being a supreme deity.
I'm not flaming you, maybe arguing in an attacking sense so don't take it the wrong way ;-).
And no I didn't make it up, it's something I see as truth for the past two years.
Last edited by dayarath (2007-12-03 13:36:10)
inane little opines
So to youTheDarkRaven wrote:
And so with no historical proof of a person your religion is the most logical belief? Yes, I'm sure(!).dayarath wrote:
I don't know for sure to be honest, I'm just guessing but let's say what if he was there, then he would be that.TheDarkRaven wrote:
Woah! Jesus was a real person - proof, please? Historical proof, throw some at me.
Funny thing is that many religions have a person which is about exactly the same as jezus, especially the egyptians had a very similair one which started their religion.
Thing is, Jesus was most likely a conglomeration of many people claiming to be prophets of the time and many of 'his' doings are those of many people.
Religion = Christianity.
I'm talking about the general idea of a god around which most religions are centered.
inane little opines
What if the conclusion itself is that there is no meaning?dayarath wrote:
I have, very much even its one of my favorite and best subjects, but my point being atheists only rely on logic, and as I explained in my wall of text this is impossible if you wish to declare existance, which means it's falsfiable.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Science is based on logic. How is it logical to believe something you cannot prove exists?
Logic deals with inference (coming to a conclusion based upon cognitive evidence or understanding) and the demonstration of said evidence.
Have you ever taken a logic or related philosphy class? My magic 8-ball is leaning towards no.
Logic can't cope with something in which we just have to exist because : if you trail back everything to the point where it all starts logic can't be the answer. ( You can't come to a conclusion if the evidence has no sense. ) in this case it becomes a philosophy, but that's just means of interpretation if you think for example that what I just said I believe is science, be my guest.
I just said in my huge text wall it's more logical to believe in a deity rather than just assuming "it's there and it's coincidence" because in all honesty that doesn't make sense too me (it's too logic to be coincidence)
There is no 'meaning' to life. We are here to procreate and continue our species. Both can be logical arguments, but one is more analytical than the other.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-03 13:40:32)
I don't know wether life has any meaning or not, I don't think anyone would be able to answer that one but if you start talking about our existance it's possibly argueable.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What if the conclusion itself is that there is no meaning?dayarath wrote:
I have, very much even its one of my favorite and best subjects, but my point being atheists only rely on logic, and as I explained in my wall of text this is impossible if you wish to declare existance, which means it's falsfiable.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Science is based on logic. How is it logical to believe something you cannot prove exists?
Logic deals with inference (coming to a conclusion based upon cognitive evidence or understanding) and the demonstration of said evidence.
Have you ever taken a logic or related philosphy class? My magic 8-ball is leaning towards no.
Logic can't cope with something in which we just have to exist because : if you trail back everything to the point where it all starts logic can't be the answer. ( You can't come to a conclusion if the evidence has no sense. ) in this case it becomes a philosophy, but that's just means of interpretation if you think for example that what I just said I believe is science, be my guest.
I just said in my huge text wall it's more logical to believe in a deity rather than just assuming "it's there and it's coincidence" because in all honesty that doesn't make sense too me (it's too logic to be coincidence)
There is no 'meaning' to life. We are here to procreate and continue our species. Both can be logical arguments, but one is more analytical than the other.
inane little opines
*polite cough*dayarath wrote:
So to youTheDarkRaven wrote:
And so with no historical proof of a person your religion is the most logical belief? Yes, I'm sure(!).dayarath wrote:
I don't know for sure to be honest, I'm just guessing but let's say what if he was there, then he would be that.
Funny thing is that many religions have a person which is about exactly the same as jezus, especially the egyptians had a very similair one which started their religion.
Thing is, Jesus was most likely a conglomeration of many people claiming to be prophets of the time and many of 'his' doings are those of many people.
Religion = Christianity.
I'm talking about the general idea of a god around which most religions are centered.
So... you're getting confused about an argument you started?
You were the one who introduced Jesus into this who I commented on in the first place.
I never said that religion was solely Christianity - this ridiculous and idiotic supposition and presumption of yours only goes to discredit any further point you may make.
And this same sort of argument applies for most religions based around prophets - there is no historical proof, or supposed historical proof is scattered around such a vast range of dates it loses credibility.
Good day to you, sir, if you can't even realise what you're arguing about anymore.
Firstly you said my religion, no I'm not a christian, my whole point was along that believing there is a god is more logical than saying logic is the answer to everything (atheism)TheDarkRaven wrote:
*polite cough*dayarath wrote:
So to youTheDarkRaven wrote:
And so with no historical proof of a person your religion is the most logical belief? Yes, I'm sure(!).
Thing is, Jesus was most likely a conglomeration of many people claiming to be prophets of the time and many of 'his' doings are those of many people.
Religion = Christianity.
I'm talking about the general idea of a god around which most religions are centered.
So... you're getting confused about an argument you started?
You were the one who introduced Jesus into this who I commented on in the first place.
I never said that religion was solely Christianity - this ridiculous and idiotic supposition and presumption of yours only goes to discredit any further point you may make.
And this same sort of argument applies for most religions based around prophets - there is no historical proof, or supposed historical proof is scattered around such a vast range of dates it loses credibility.
Good day to you, sir, if you can't even realise what you're arguing about anymore.
I brought jezus to the light where I meant people probably malformed the religion.
Maybe I should it in a different context for you then let's say "if jezus ever had existed"
There is no solid proof for jezus' existance except for a few roman documents talking about "christ" which was apparently nailed to the cross, moreover I wonder who they nailed to the cross if jezus didn't exist, because surely somebody had been.
The thing you did was pick out that thing which actually totally didn't matter to the whole discussion, I got annoyed.
inane little opines
Okay, apologies about misplacing your faith (got the impression - sorry).dayarath wrote:
Firstly you said my religion, no I'm not a christian, my whole point was along that believing there is a god is more logical than saying logic is the answer to everything (atheism)TheDarkRaven wrote:
*polite cough*dayarath wrote:
So to you
Religion = Christianity.
I'm talking about the general idea of a god around which most religions are centered.
So... you're getting confused about an argument you started?
You were the one who introduced Jesus into this who I commented on in the first place.
I never said that religion was solely Christianity - this ridiculous and idiotic supposition and presumption of yours only goes to discredit any further point you may make.
And this same sort of argument applies for most religions based around prophets - there is no historical proof, or supposed historical proof is scattered around such a vast range of dates it loses credibility.
Good day to you, sir, if you can't even realise what you're arguing about anymore.
I brought jezus to the light where I meant people probably malformed the religion.
Maybe I should it in a different context for you then let's say "if jezus ever had existed"
There is no solid proof for jezus' existance except for a few roman documents talking about "christ" which was apparently nailed to the cross, moreover I wonder who they nailed to the cross if jezus didn't exist, because surely somebody had been.
The thing you did was pick out that thing which actually totally didn't matter to the whole discussion, I got annoyed.
You've put your argument in a pretzel-knot there! To summarise and paraphrase: "The most logical thing is to say that logic isn't the answer to everything."
So... surely that is not answering itself and is thus false?
I really can't be arsed with this now; your argument contains more holes than Swiss cheese.
Last edited by TheDarkRaven (2007-12-03 13:57:52)
Allright then last sentence ;TheDarkRaven wrote:
Okay, apologies about misplacing your faith (got the impression - sorry).dayarath wrote:
Firstly you said my religion, no I'm not a christian, my whole point was along that believing there is a god is more logical than saying logic is the answer to everything (atheism)TheDarkRaven wrote:
*polite cough*
So... you're getting confused about an argument you started?
You were the one who introduced Jesus into this who I commented on in the first place.
I never said that religion was solely Christianity - this ridiculous and idiotic supposition and presumption of yours only goes to discredit any further point you may make.
And this same sort of argument applies for most religions based around prophets - there is no historical proof, or supposed historical proof is scattered around such a vast range of dates it loses credibility.
Good day to you, sir, if you can't even realise what you're arguing about anymore.
I brought jezus to the light where I meant people probably malformed the religion.
Maybe I should it in a different context for you then let's say "if jezus ever had existed"
There is no solid proof for jezus' existance except for a few roman documents talking about "christ" which was apparently nailed to the cross, moreover I wonder who they nailed to the cross if jezus didn't exist, because surely somebody had been.
The thing you did was pick out that thing which actually totally didn't matter to the whole discussion, I got annoyed.
You've put your argument in a pretzel-knot there! To summarise and paraphrase: "The most logical thing is to say that logic isn't the answer to everything."
So... surely that is not answering itself and is thus false?
I really can't be arsed with this now; your argument contains more holes than Swiss cheese.
I don't say all of science is false, I say atheism isn't really logic to assume being truth (saying logic is the only way) <which I found ironic> because logic doesn't seem to be the answer, meaning atheism has quite a flaw there.
Maybe next time I should write down a wall of text properly to make it bullet proof :p anyway apology from my side aswell for acting a bit like a prick
Last edited by dayarath (2007-12-03 14:01:39)
inane little opines
I find it ironic that religious people can believe in an all powerful god that is eternal and has always existed, where there is no proof and this so called god has only revealed himself to a select few and would condemn some to eternal damnation because they didn't believe in him. Yet you say you cannot possibly believe the concept that the universe(s) have just always existed.