Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Religion and Logic

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Ugh, this is so ridiculous. You could justify literally anything like that. You're simply deciding that the thing you're making up doesn't require evidence. I struggle to believe that you actually think that to be sane.
    For me it's true and that's all I need. If I'm proven a lunatic, so be it. When I die I shall turn to dust.

    If I'm proven right... you're in for flames
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katyness)
    For me it's true and that's all I need. If I'm proven a lunatic, so be it. When I die I shall turn to dust.

    If I'm proven right... you're in for flames
    Don't threaten me with your imagined sanction for not accepting your lunacy and then smile at me.

    It is true or it isn't. If it is not true for others, it is not true "for you". Besides, you dodged the entire issue. You really are just deciding that you don't require proof, and then attempting to justify it by deciding (also without any proof) that you will be rewarded for not requiring proof. At all times you assume your conclusion to be true. This is insane.

    edit: if you're implying that threats should change what conclusions one draws from evidence you're displaying a gross lack of intellectual integrity.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    mfw religion and logic hahaha
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katyness)
    For me it's true and that's all I need. If I'm proven a lunatic, so be it. When I die I shall turn to dust.

    If I'm proven right... you're in for flames
    Oh ****! She's right! :eek:
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Don't threaten me with your imagined sanction for not accepting your lunacy and then smile at me.

    It is true or it isn't. If it is not true for others, it is not true "for you". Besides, you dodged the entire issue. You really are just deciding that you don't require proof, and then attempting to justify it by deciding (also without any proof) that you will be rewarded for not requiring proof. At all times you assume your conclusion to be true. This is insane.

    edit: if you're implying that threats should change what conclusions one draws from evidence you're displaying a gross lack of intellectual integrity.
    What? OK. First of all, I recognise your display name so I'm sure we talked about religion before.

    Second of all, I wasn't threatening you. I meant what I said: I believe, I do not need proof and I don't give a toss if you believe or if you think I should require evidence. If I do believe and I'm proven wrong, that's my problem. If you don't and you're proven wrong that is also your problem. I'm not the one to judge you, in the end. If you and all other atheists are proven right, then that's the way it is. My ulterior intentions was to say that there is nothing wrong in me believing there is a god because, should I be allowed to enter heaven, if I'm right then I'll go to paradise and if I'm wrong there's a small price to pay.

    Third of all, I don't get into arguments/discussions with atheists so... laters!


    (Original post by green.tea)
    Oh ****! She's right! :eek:
    Yeah... I scared you! Follow the Ten Commandments right away!!!

    (I know you were being sarcastic)
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katyness)
    What? OK. First of all, I recognise your display name so I'm sure we talked about religion before.

    Second of all, I wasn't threatening you. I meant what I said: I believe, I do not need proof and I don't give a toss if you believe or if you think I should require evidence. If I do believe and I'm proven wrong, that's my problem. If you don't and you're proven wrong that is also your problem. I'm not the one to judge you, in the end. If you and all other atheists are proven right, then that's the way it is. My ulterior intentions was to say that there is nothing wrong in me believing there is a god because, should I be allowed to enter heaven, if I'm right then I'll go to paradise and if I'm wrong there's a small price to pay.

    Third of all, I don't get into arguments/discussions with atheists so... laters!
    Clearly you don't, otherwise you'd have some idea of the arguments against your position. I could bore you with an explanation of why Pascal's wager is nonsensical, but David Mitchell captures the essence of it here:

    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Clearly you don't, otherwise you'd have some idea of the arguments against your position. I could bore you with an explanation of why Pascal's wager is nonsensical, but David Mitchell captures the essence of it here:

    I know the arguments used though. I just don't think I should be wasting my time on arguments that won't lead us anywhere. Plus, I don't believe everything that's on the bible and I don't spread the word of god so many of those arguments are not even relevant to me :dontknow:

    That video was funny!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katyness)
    For me it's true and that's all I need. If I'm proven a lunatic, so be it. When I die I shall turn to dust.

    If I'm proven right... you're in for flames
    There's some nice christian words right there.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    There's some nice christian words right there.
    I know. Religion does bring the caring side of you.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katyness)
    I know. Religion does bring the caring side of you.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    I was obviously messing with you. I know you were being sarcastic.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    To concentrate for a moment on the "ethics", if the person who is entering the religion approves of those ethics anyway, what role is the religion performing? I can't see how one can be said to be religious without believing a core doctrine of the religion they purport to follow -- in Christianity the divinity of Jesus and, even before this, the existence of god.
    Well, there are many aspects to religion, and doctrine is only one of them; a person may choose to join a religion for the community, or the ritual, or the culture, or the social teaching, and not believe in God, but still practice the religion. I guess it's because people can get different things out of religious practice, and so people may feel it's worthwhile to practice in spite of not believing.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Clearly you don't, otherwise you'd have some idea of the arguments against your position. I could bore you with an explanation of why Pascal's wager is nonsensical, but David Mitchell captures the essence of it here:

    But the thing is, everyone has motivations other than logic for decisions they make in everyday life. There are motivations besides logical argument that drive us, and which are a part of the way in which we think as human beings. On matters of metaphysics, why shouldn't these count? If Pascal's wager is part of a core belief that results in a benefit to someone, why *in principle* is that a bad thing?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Yes, clearly I didn't understand your argument. And you expected me not to because you're oh-so-clever and everyone who might disagree with you is a little bit simple. :rolleyes:
    Well that's not intrinsically true, but in this example it appears to be the case. Sarcasm and rolly-eye smileys isn't going to get you back into this argument either. Countries other than France may produce wine, but no religion I am aware of has ever come up with any knowledge that is both useful and original.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ignoramus)
    Well, there are many aspects to religion, and doctrine is only one of them; a person may choose to join a religion for the community, or the ritual, or the culture, or the social teaching, and not believe in God, but still practice the religion. I guess it's because people can get different things out of religious practice, and so people may feel it's worthwhile to practice in spite of not believing.
    ^Thats a good point. Perhaps a good way for religion to modernize would be to keep the philosophy but drop the belief in the way the old testament has been dropped. As it stands i doubt youd get a great reception at church if you told them you thought god and jesus were made up and were just there for the singing and tea and biscuits.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Well that's not intrinsically true, but in this example it appears to be the case. Sarcasm and rolly-eye smileys isn't going to get you back into this argument either. Countries other than France may produce wine, but no religion I am aware of has ever come up with any knowledge that is both useful and original.
    I hadn't really intended to "get back into" this argument because you're simply not understanding where your argument is totally bogus.

    You repeat it here. You will concede, I'm sure, that religions have made plenty of statements that are original, i.e. not made by science or observation. Yet you consider none of these to be useful. Why? Only because none was made by science or observation. So in effect you are saying nothing at all.

    To go back to the example - how do you know that eating pork is not a bad thing to do? Perhaps that is something religion has made known to the world that science hasn't?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I hadn't really intended to "get back into" this argument because you're simply not understanding where your argument is totally bogus.

    You repeat it here. You will concede, I'm sure, that religions have made plenty of statements that are original, i.e. not made by science or observation. Yet you consider none of these to be useful. Why? Only because none was made by science or observation. So in effect you are saying nothing at all.

    To go back to the example - how do you know that eating pork is not a bad thing to do? Perhaps that is something religion has made known to the world that science hasn't?
    I understand that you think my reasoning is circular. I can see why you might naively think that. However it is a rather silly mistake, there is nothing circular about my claim, in fact it is entirely linear and straighforward. I am simply making a specific claim about the usefulness of religious doctrine. You appear to be confused by the term "useful", perhaps?

    For example, for the instruction not to eat pork to be useful, then we might reasonably expect that bad things will happen if we disobey this instruction and eat pork. Otherwise what is the use in this "knowledge" exactly?

    Well thousands of years of eating pork later, and we may reasonably conclude that such things do not happen. Pork is both a tasty and healthy food source and has led to no untoward effects. Therefore the advice is invalid and added to the second of my lists. Furthermore, "knowledge" must be justified (by definition), and the instruction not to eat pork was not... so even if the advice had turned out to be useful, it would not have been knowledge, it would just have been a lucky guess.

    The same argument can be applied to every other piece of "original knowledge" that religion has furnished us with. That is all I am claiming. If its not true, its not knowledge. If its not justified, its not knowledge.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sheep)
    ITT: Say something about religion (theism) that is logical (actually makes sense), it can be any religion, it can be something in your holy book or just a general, logical reason as to why people should take up your religion

    is easier than making a thread about all the things that just aren't logical (don't make sense)
    I know the Bible stated the world was spherical before scientists all agreed on that fact. In the Quran they talk about a hormone in young boys that has been scientifically proven to exist.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    I understand that you think my reasoning is circular. I can see why you might naively think that. However it is a rather silly mistake, there is nothing circular about my claim, in fact it is entirely linear and straighforward. I am simply making a specific claim about the usefulness of religious doctrine. You appear to be confused by the term "useful", perhaps?

    For example, for the instruction not to eat pork to be useful, then we might reasonably expect that bad things will happen if we disobey this instruction and eat pork. Otherwise what is the use in this "knowledge" exactly?

    Well thousands of years of eating pork later, and we may reasonably conclude that such things do not happen. Pork is both a tasty and healthy food source and has led to no untoward effects. Therefore the advice is invalid and added to the second of my lists. Furthermore, "knowledge" must be justified (by definition), and the instruction not to eat pork was not... so even if the advice had turned out to be useful, it would not have been knowledge, it would just have been a lucky guess.

    The same argument can be applied to every other piece of "original knowledge" that religion has furnished us with. That is all I am claiming. If its not true, its not knowledge. If its not justified, its not knowledge.
    Yeah, sorry, your argument is entirely circular.

    Religious knowledge claims to be revealed truth. That is, truth that would not be available from mere observation of the world around us. Truth given by God. As such all of its unique claims will by definition not be justifiable through observation and sins don't have repercussions that are observational either.

    That is why your argument is circular. When Islam says that it is wrong to eat pork it is not claiming that it is bad for the body in a predictable and observable way. It is making a statement about something outside our realm of observation. About the soul and afterlife.

    So when you demand to know what religion has taught us that science cannot and then dismiss any claim that science cannot teach us as being not "knowledge" then this is circular. How you fail to see that is a little baffling but not really my problem.

    Its like you have a book in front of you with lists of statements and then lay down a challenge: Find me a true statement that doesn't appear in this book. Oh and by the way, I only consider statements to be true if they appear in this book. That's circular. That's what you're doing. I hope you will realise that. But if you can't, then I hope others will and won't be impressed by your challenge.
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (1) The statement that religion gives us no knowledge that science and/or secular morality cannot is simply an expression of the conclusion that the dogmas of the religions are false, or at least not such as to constitute "knowledge".

    (2) Your argument about this isn't that relevant to anything.
Updated: July 3, 2012
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.