Logic - Religion's mortal enemy

[purpleronnie]

So with the size of the universe being so big surely it's also possible for something else to exist that we haven't proved yet? Maybe something more powerful and older than ourselves?

Besides, lets say this God created the universe, what makes you think they'd be in the actual universe? What's the beyond the universe?

Nottingham.

[Finnegan]

There's something remarkably odd about militant atheist's determination to convince religious people that their God is not real.

Do these same people run around telling children that Santa isn't real, attend magic shows just to tell everyone how the tricks are done, stand outside the cinema shouting spoilers to the people queuing?

A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion but a lot of evil has been done in the name of money, too, and territory, tradition, races, fear and general bigotry. The message here is that people are going to go to war and abuse each other whether or not they have an imaginary friend to talk to when they're scared. You can combat violence and abuse in the world without having to target religion. You can promote common sense without having to attack someone's faith.

Not every religious person wants to blow up a shopping center, have creationism exclusively taught in schools or ban gay marriage. Plenty of them are just decent folk who keep their religion to themselves.

What exactly is the difference between this thread and some barmy twat standing at the clock tower shouting "don't be a sinner!" at everyone?

I'm not religious but my mother is and I'd never take it away from her. She suffers from multiple sclerosis and lives her life in a fantastic amount of pain. It's destroyed her family, her marriage, her happiness, it's taken away her mobility and it's essentially blown her mind to bits. But she genuinely feels that Jesus is numbing her pain at times and if her mind can turn that faith in to a working placebo then who am I to call it stupid?

Given how limited the medication is to put an MS sufferers' life back together I'd almost go so far as to say that church legitimately brings her more comfort than medicine these days. Not that I'd actively encourage her to abandon either for the other.

[BoneDog]

Big post soz yo. It may sound like a pile of nonsense but it makes total sense to me This was supposed to be a bit of an arguement type thing but I've come to me senses.

First off Al, I'll say what my beliefs are. I only have two and don't think that they are illogical in any way.

Belief 1. Everything around us as far as the eye can see (and further), did not appear by some random miraculous accident out of nothing. Everything we see was perfectly calculated to run as it should (before mankind started meddling and poisoning). Organic creatures of all kinds, as one example, are in my opinion far too complex (which I believe science proves) to have been put together randomly.

So to recap, belief number one is in a Designer or whatever you'd like to call it. Not a belief in some man with a beard in the sky, but of some unknown force that is more intelligent (if that's the right word) than any of our best could dream of being. None of the religious books talk of a man with a beard, but rather of an unknowable (to mankind) and unimaginable force.

I really don't see why that belief would be illogical. It is neither provable nor unprovable, but to me it is the more logical of the two options - random or designed.

Belief 2. When we die we will have a continuous life of some form. Could be horrendous (as is this one sometimes), could be glorious (as also is this one sometimes).

That's it with core beliefs and both seem logical to me.

To those of you who say that religion is a comfort blanket I would say that you are wrong about that, the opposite is true. In many ways, I would much rather be like you lot and believe that when we die we know of nothing else ever again. That would be far less scary than believing in a continuous life.

An example of 'continuous life' to try and make my point. I don't believe in reincarnation as some religions do, but imagine if it were true and that we came back to Earth in another body. That would be f*&king scary and would be in no way a comfort blanket. You could end up anywhere in any situation.

POST EDIT : Al, I'd now started responding to points you made in the first post, but it was massive, and people probably don't want to hear it, plus I've just remembered it's Saturday night so want to have a bit of a party. Bit of Wham, Agadoo and all that. I've saved the text and will respond tomorrow....or maybe later on a bit pished. I do agree/understand some of the things you say and can see why some people think the same, but put all that down to hijackers of religion and some stupid people, and not the actual religions themselves. There is much knowledge to be had in old religious texts no matter how much they get misinterpreted or corrupted.

[Zingari]

there's only one way to find out !!

[The Doctor]

I disagree. It's not justification for saying something is definitely true, but it's exactly the justification for having ideas. Not everything is black and white. What you think you know about the universe and life is really only your perception of it as a human. The real truths may be far more unbelieveable than you can imagine.

It's justification for having ideas - but not for them to be accepted. We don't accept cold fusion for the basic reason that it's not been proven, why should magic sky pixies be different?

How is it irrational to accept that we actually know very little about the universe and life?

It's not, it's irrational to fill those gaps with a concept that has absolutely no supporting evidence.

There doesn't need to be any evidence for it, if there is a God, he's not necessarily leaving clues to make himself be believed in. Maybe he (or she, or it I suppose) doesn't give a shit what people think. If there is a God, they're most probably smarter than you and I, and if they didn't want to make it obvious they existed, you wouldn't have any real evidence because they'd make it that way.

And that is precisely the problem - no matter how many arguments are put against the existence of a deity, no matter how sound those arguments are, people who want to believe will just say that perhaps god didn't want people to have evidence. Usually accompanied with the words "You just have to take it on faith", because these people are foolish enough to think that faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue.

However, if we're expected to take serious the idea of it's existence, then evidence has to be provided - it's as simple as that.

Thousands of years may well be a very short space of time in the scheme of things, why do you presume that's a significant amount of time for the human race to have provided sufficient evidence?

Overall it is a very short time period - but let's look at other prominent ideas:

evolution: 153 years ago it was first suggested, now the evidence is so conclusive it might as well be considered fact.

Heliocentricity: first put forward 300 years before the arbitary christian year zero (not going to use BC because there's very little reason to believe Christ ever existed) - by the 1500's it had an entire mathematical model behind it (Thanks to Copernicus) - that's 1,800 years. 3 Centuries more (1920's) and we'd shown that the sun was only the centre of our solar system and not the entire universe.

Gravity: First suggested by Galileo in the late 1500's, by the early 1900's and Einstein there was a complete mathematical proof and explanation for it. Between 300-400 years.

Of course there are still people who disagree with these - but they are limited to the stupid, the ignorant and the insane. If those can be proven fairly quickly, why should we not considered the approx. 8000 years since the dawn of monotheism sufficient time to provide some sort of evidence.

I'd wager there are many things science hasn't proved yet but are still true. Maybe they will be proved in the future. It's naive to think something's more likely to be untrue when there's no real evidence to prove or disprove it.

True, however those things are not considered to be true because there's no reason to think that they are. The exact same should apply to any form of magic sky pixie that people worship (another thing that amuses me actually - the idea that something so cruel, insecure and vicious as the Abrahamic god is worthy of worship).

I don't see what evidence has to do with it, even the most committed believer would admit there's no real scientific evidence. But that isn't the point is it? You can't just dismiss something because you can't comprehend it or think it farfetched.

No - but you can dismiss it for being illogical, irrational and without any form of evidence to support it.

So with the size of the universe being so big surely it's also possible for something else to exist that we haven't proved yet? Maybe something more powerful and older than ourselves?

Yes, but there's no reason to think that there is. If that's justification for believing in a god then it's justification for believing that The Doctor from Doctor Who is real.

Besides, lets say this God created the universe, what makes you think they'd be in the actual universe? What's the beyond the universe?

Well - there's the issue of all these appearances to people, right up until the dawn of photographic equipment, upon which it limited it's appearances to images on toast. It may not exist within the universe, certainly the definition given to God would put it outside of the universe, but there's one simple thing here - either it's capable of appearing to people, in which case why has there been no sign of it, or it's not - in which case it's both not omnipotent and almost all major religions are wrong.

[The Doctor]

First off Al, I'll say what my beliefs are. I only have two and don't think that they are illogical in any way.

Belief 1. Everything around us as far as the eye can see (and further), did not appear by some random miraculous accident out of nothing. Everything we see was perfectly calculated to run as it should (before mankind started meddling and poisoning). Organic creatures of all kinds, as one example, are in my opinion far too complex (which I believe science proves) to have been put together randomly.

Because they weren't, but that doesn't mean a god was involved. Evolution is not random, and covers the life we see nowadays.

So to recap, belief number one is in a Designer or whatever you'd like to call it. Not a belief in some man with a beard in the sky, but of some unknown force that is more intelligent (if that's the right word) than any of our best could dream of being. None of the religious books talk of a man with a beard, but rather of an unknowable (to mankind) and unimaginable force.

I really don't see why that belief would be illogical. It is neither provable nor unprovable, but to me it is the more logical of the two options - random or designed.

The only way it could be "random or designed" is if you've misunderstood science, and come to the idea that the opposite of design directed by some sort of deity is origins from random occurrences.

Belief 2. When we die we will have a continuous life of some form. Could be horrendous (as is this one sometimes), could be glorious (as also is this one sometimes).

That's it with core beliefs and both seem logical to me.

How exactly is it logical? In a way it's true in that atoms are constantly recycled throughout the universe (stars died so that we could be here today), but I'm assuming you mean in a metaphysical way - some sort of lasting consciousness (like a soul). How would that be logical?

To those of you who say that religion is a comfort blanket I would say that you are wrong about that, the opposite is true. In many ways, I would much rather be like you lot and believe that when we die we know of nothing else ever again. That would be far less scary than believing in a continuous life.

How so? Religion is a comfort blanket - for instance it's a consolation for those afraid of death. I imagine if you're afraid of death then the idea of life after death would be far more comforting than seeing the end of your life as the end of your conciousness forever.

POST EDIT : Al, I'd now started responding to points you made in the first post, but it was massive, and people probably don't want to hear it, plus I've just remembered it's Saturday night so want to have a bit of a party. Bit of Wham, Agadoo and all that. I've saved the text and will respond tomorrow....or maybe later on a bit pished.

Fair enough, it wasn't for that worst of all illnesses, a chronic lack of money, I'd be out down the pub as it was.

I do agree/understand some of the things you say and can see why some people think the same, but put all that down to hijackers of religion and some stupid people, and not the actual religions themselves. There is much knowledge to be had in old religious texts no matter how much they get misinterpreted or corrupted.

The hijackers of religion is usually followed by the suggestion that they aren't real religious people, please say you aren't going to say that? Otherwise I'm going to have to give Finners and the ilk a bucket-load of ammunition by calling out the no true Scotsman fallacy.

What knowledge? On a science basis it's bunk, utter bunk (e.g. people do not come from blood clots or gushing fluids, sperm does not come from the spine, animals do have 6 legs...) and as far as morals go, much of it is stuff that was in the general perception at the time of the religion's beginning. What does it really have to offer?

[sphericalfox]

There's something remarkably odd about militant atheist's determination to convince religious people that their God is not real.

Do these same people run around telling children that Santa isn't real, attend magic shows just to tell everyone how the tricks are done, stand outside the cinema shouting spoilers to the people queuing?

A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion but a lot of evil has been done in the name of money, too, and territory, tradition, races, fear and general bigotry. The message here is that people are going to go to war and abuse each other whether or not they have an imaginary friend to talk to when they're scared. You can combat violence and abuse in the world without having to target religion. You can promote common sense without having to attack someone's faith.

Not every religious person wants to blow up a shopping center, have creationism exclusively taught in schools or ban gay marriage. Plenty of them are just decent folk who keep their religion to themselves.

What exactly is the difference between this thread and some barmy twat standing at the clock tower shouting "don't be a sinner!" at everyone?

I'm not religious but my mother is and I'd never take it away from her. She suffers from multiple sclerosis and lives her life in a fantastic amount of pain. It's destroyed her family, her marriage, her happiness, it's taken away her mobility and it's essentially blown her mind to bits. But she genuinely feels that Jesus is numbing her pain at times and if her mind can turn that faith in to a working placebo then who am I to call it stupid?

Given how limited the medication is to put an MS sufferers' life back together I'd almost go so far as to say that church legitimately brings her more comfort than medicine these days. Not that I'd actively encourage her to abandon either for the other.

I have to agree with you here, but to a point. I have a fair number of relatives who are religious, some deeply, including my own mother. I wouldn't disparage her with logic about religion, as it gives her comfort, and who am I to destroy whatever keeps her sane, and positive.

I don't think discussing it here will do anyone any harm, as I'm pretty sure my relatives and mother don't frequent FT, which probably a good thing.

[Kitchandro]

It's justification for having ideas - but not for them to be accepted. We don't accept cold fusion for the basic reason that it's not been proven, why should magic sky pixies be different?

It's not, it's irrational to fill those gaps with a concept that has absolutely no supporting evidence.

And that is precisely the problem - no matter how many arguments are put against the existence of a deity, no matter how sound those arguments are, people who want to believe will just say that perhaps god didn't want people to have evidence. Usually accompanied with the words "You just have to take it on faith", because these people are foolish enough to think that faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue.

However, if we're expected to take serious the idea of it's existence, then evidence has to be provided - it's as simple as that.

Overall it is a very short time period - but let's look at other prominent ideas:

evolution: 153 years ago it was first suggested, now the evidence is so conclusive it might as well be considered fact.

Heliocentricity: first put forward 300 years before the arbitary christian year zero (not going to use BC because there's very little reason to believe Christ ever existed) - by the 1500's it had an entire mathematical model behind it (Thanks to Copernicus) - that's 1,800 years. 3 Centuries more (1920's) and we'd shown that the sun was only the centre of our solar system and not the entire universe.

Gravity: First suggested by Galileo in the late 1500's, by the early 1900's and Einstein there was a complete mathematical proof and explanation for it. Between 300-400 years.

Of course there are still people who disagree with these - but they are limited to the stupid, the ignorant and the insane. If those can be proven fairly quickly, why should we not considered the approx. 8000 years since the dawn of monotheism sufficient time to provide some sort of evidence.

True, however those things are not considered to be true because there's no reason to think that they are. The exact same should apply to any form of magic sky pixie that people worship (another thing that amuses me actually - the idea that something so cruel, insecure and vicious as the Abrahamic god is worthy of worship).

No - but you can dismiss it for being illogical, irrational and without any form of evidence to support it.

Yes, but there's no reason to think that there is. If that's justification for believing in a god then it's justification for believing that The Doctor from Doctor Who is real.

Well - there's the issue of all these appearances to people, right up until the dawn of photographic equipment, upon which it limited it's appearances to images on toast. It may not exist within the universe, certainly the definition given to God would put it outside of the universe, but there's one simple thing here - either it's capable of appearing to people, in which case why has there been no sign of it, or it's not - in which case it's both not omnipotent and almost all major religions are wrong.

I never said you should accept it. I said you should acknowledge that is perfectly plausible, not through 'logic' as you call it, but with the simple point that that so called logic is only a human invention and perception.

Yes it would be irrational if people filled those gaps and demanded they be accepted as the truth (as some people do). But I'm not asking for that. You can fill those gaps with whatever you want, it would be just be another theory like there being a God is. But it would be a reasonable theory in any case.

That's not a problem, it only becomes a problem when people try to shove it down other people's throats, which I'm not doing. I welcome your belief that God doesn't exist, but I question you if you can't accept that it's potentially true and as good an explanation as any. Which leads me to ask, what's your explanation for the creation of the universe? What's your explanation for anything existing? And you can't just say 'there was a big bang', because something would have had to exist to create this.

You seem to be talking about the 'convenience' that the existence of God can't be disproved, but it's irrelevant that it's 'convenient', that's not evidence to say a God doesn't exist.There is nothing wrong with speculating about things beyond our understanding or beyond our ability to prove/disprove. Personally I find it quite interesting, but as I'll never know (probably, almost certainly I won't before I die) I don't fret about it.

As for 'it should have been proved already if it was true' argument; not really a good enough point. There may be no evidence of God on earth. We may be clever enough to discover gravity (well, what humans percieve as gravity anyway )but too stupid to discover God. You seem to be very arrogant about the human race, we are great beings yes, but what makes you think we are so great that we couldn't possibly have failed to prove something that is true? Which leads me back to aliens - you accept there is a good possibility that there is life outside of our planet, but thats not been proven.

There is no 'reason' to think God exists, you either do, you don't, or you sit on the fence, or you lean slightly to one side or whatever you believe. As I've said, it's stupid to think God existing is definitely true and there is no other explanation. And I'm not saying that if you believe in God you should worship them either (I've never said anything about God's personality, he may well be cruel). It's just a theory that has been suggested by many, many people. Everything that has been proved has started out as a theory, some people laughed off the earth being round but now they look a bit stupid. My point being that saying crazy theories are ridiculous just because they havent been proved yet is a foolish thing to do.

Of course it's illogical to human science, but you can't base everything on logic because humans aren't perfect. Some things are bigger than us. And if you want to believe in Doctor Who, that's fine as well. It's got nothing to do with reason, but reason isn't the be all and end all.

I don't get your last paragraph either. So some people said they saw God, maybe all of them were lying, or crazy. So what? They're just other humans. What's what they say got to do with anything? And this is where you and I will actually agree, because organised religion is just a load of humans with theories telling other humans to believe what they believe. Of course, these theories may well be spot on, but if you're believing in so many specific things because somebody else told you to it's not real belief.

Which was my original point. Don't confuse organised religion with believing in God. All major religions may well be wrong, I certainly don't think so many people should believe so many of the same specific things. Just because religions are wrong about what God is, doesn't mean there isn't a God.

[Happy Fox]

Perhaps science and religion go hand in hand now their is a thought.

[Tielemans63]

There's something remarkably odd about militant atheist's determination to convince religious people that their God is not real.

Do these same people run around telling children that Santa isn't real, attend magic shows just to tell everyone how the tricks are done, stand outside the cinema shouting spoilers to the people queuing?

A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion but a lot of evil has been done in the name of money, too, and territory, tradition, races, fear and general bigotry. The message here is that people are going to go to war and abuse each other whether or not they have an imaginary friend to talk to when they're scared. You can combat violence and abuse in the world without having to target religion. You can promote common sense without having to attack someone's faith.

Not every religious person wants to blow up a shopping center, have creationism exclusively taught in schools or ban gay marriage. Plenty of them are just decent folk who keep their religion to themselves.

What exactly is the difference between this thread and some barmy twat standing at the clock tower shouting "don't be a sinner!" at everyone?

I'm not religious but my mother is and I'd never take it away from her. She suffers from multiple sclerosis and lives her life in a fantastic amount of pain. It's destroyed her family, her marriage, her happiness, it's taken away her mobility and it's essentially blown her mind to bits. But she genuinely feels that Jesus is numbing her pain at times and if her mind can turn that faith in to a working placebo then who am I to call it stupid?

Given how limited the medication is to put an MS sufferers' life back together I'd almost go so far as to say that church legitimately brings her more comfort than medicine these days. Not that I'd actively encourage her to abandon either for the other.

Brilliant post. I'd give you a lovely applause icon but I'm on my phone.

[Guest]

I've posted your bollox.

[Carl the Llama]

Okaay.... there is no good evidence to suggest that it is more likely that there is a god than ghosts and monsters etc..

And the point I was making was that you'd be seen as an idiot for thinking they exist. Don't see much difference myself

Then you're about on a par with all the religious nuts. Congratulations.

I'm not religious, I just realise that there's no proof either way on the 'god' issue, although as El Empty has alluded to the more 'realistic' supposition is that there's some 'force' that we can't understand. I repeat: that is my position until definitive proof either way is found. You're just an ignorant man who's made up his mind on something that there is no proof for. And we're back to my opening statement.

[skinnydipper]

I've posted your bollox.

I'd prefer it if you kept away from my bollox

[Trav Le Bleu]

There's something remarkably odd about militant atheist's determination to convince religious people that their God is not real.

Do these same people run around telling children that Santa isn't real, attend magic shows just to tell everyone how the tricks are done, stand outside the cinema shouting spoilers to the people queuing?

A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion but a lot of evil has been done in the name of money, too, and territory, tradition, races, fear and general bigotry. The message here is that people are going to go to war and abuse each other whether or not they have an imaginary friend to talk to when they're scared. You can combat violence and abuse in the world without having to target religion. You can promote common sense without having to attack someone's faith.

Not every religious person wants to blow up a shopping center, have creationism exclusively taught in schools or ban gay marriage. Plenty of them are just decent folk who keep their religion to themselves.

What exactly is the difference between this thread and some barmy twat standing at the clock tower shouting "don't be a sinner!" at everyone?

I'm not religious but my mother is and I'd never take it away from her. She suffers from multiple sclerosis and lives her life in a fantastic amount of pain. It's destroyed her family, her marriage, her happiness, it's taken away her mobility and it's essentially blown her mind to bits. But she genuinely feels that Jesus is numbing her pain at times and if her mind can turn that faith in to a working placebo then who am I to call it stupid?

Given how limited the medication is to put an MS sufferers' life back together I'd almost go so far as to say that church legitimately brings her more comfort than medicine these days. Not that I'd actively encourage her to abandon either for the other.

Brilliant post. I'd give you a lovely applause icon but I'm on my phone.

Done Agree entirely about the miltiant atheists not being any different from fire and brimstone preachers denouncing any passerby in the town centre - that they don't see it completely undermines them.

[The Doctor]

Done Agree entirely about the miltiant atheists not being any different from fire and brimstone preachers denouncing any passerby in the town centre - that they don't see it completely undermines them.

Excuse me but there's a massive difference. I'm using my hands, they use their mouths.

[Voll Blau]

The arrogance of anyone living who can claim to prove or disprove the existence of a God is frankly astounding.

What's even more astounding is the fact people have spent their precious Saturday night arguing the toss about it rather than attempting to drag a 6/10 out of Fan Club and into a taxi.

[ousefox]

Then you're about on a par with all the religious nuts. Congratulations.

I'm not religious, I just realise that there's no proof either way on the 'god' issue, although as El Empty has alluded to the more 'realistic' supposition is that there's some 'force' that we can't understand. I repeat: that is my position until definitive proof either way is found. You're just an ignorant man who's made up his mind on something that there is no proof for. And we're back to my opening statement.

Monsters and ghosts are a fair comparison. You can't prove that they don't exist, but you can say that about everything. I've made up my mind personally in the same way i don't believe in monsters and ghosts..

[The Doctor]

The arrogance of anyone living who can claim to prove or disprove the existence of a God is frankly astounding.

What's even more astounding is the fact people have spent their precious Saturday night arguing the toss about it rather than attempting to drag a 6/10 out of Fan Club and into a taxi.

I can't imagine anything that would interest me less. Even on the days when my motivation is so low getting out of bed seems like too much I still think I'd have more interest in doing stuff than I would in doing that.

[Vacamion]

If you believe in God and you are certain that you will spend an eternal life in heaven, why bother wearing a seatbelt when you travel by car???

[Carl the Llama]

If you believe in God and you are certain that you will spend an eternal life in heaven, why bother wearing a seatbelt when you travel by car???

Because a dead person can't be a decent person. Don't need to be religious to figure that one out.

[BlueSi13]

Perhaps science and religion go hand in hand now their is a thought.

They do already, as someone from a scientific background i can safely say that a huge number of scientists hold faith very dear to them, and the Catholic church at least takes science very seriously. With each question answered, twenty more arise in its place. The real truth is that we have never been further away from understanding our own existence and how it has come to pass, and whilst this is fundamentally the case, it is simply impossible to disprove the notion of their being a supreme power to ourselves, be it in whatever form.

I am open to all sides of this argument, however I really can't be bothered to read or listen to yet more bluster from the church of militant atheism, they have become far louder, far less tolerant, and far more obnoxious than your average religious individual that its not even funny anymore, so much so that i can barely stand to listen to their insulting, self-important, god-complex, bollocks for more than five minutes anymore.

[bmt]

I wish people wouldn't confuse religion with believing in God.

The idea of organised religion to me is retarded but only an idiot would say they are sure there is no god.

It's a bit sad you've written all that nerdy stuff about logic vs religion when actually, all the 'logic' in the world wont be any evidence to disprove the existence of God.

Fixed

[Kitchandro]

The arrogance of anyone living who can claim to prove or disprove the existence of a God is frankly astounding.

What's even more astounding is the fact people have spent their precious Saturday night arguing the toss about it rather than attempting to drag a 6/10 out of Fan Club and into a taxi.

I'll have you know that was my Friday night! Hanging today.

[Finnegan]

The arrogance of anyone living who can claim to prove or disprove the existence of a God is frankly astounding.

What's even more astounding is the fact people have spent their precious Saturday night arguing the toss about it rather than attempting to drag a 6/10 out of Fan Club and into a taxi.

You aim a bit low dontcha?

[purpleronnie]

I'll have you know that was my Friday night! Hanging today.

Things aren't that bad surely......we'll get better.