Logical perspective on religion...
Submitted by bdog101 on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 10:48in
I have been reading all sorts of religious topics on Daily Paul and decided it was important to give an atheist's perspective on things.
It is imperative to understand the flip side perspective before believing something. Here is an atheist's perspective on things and it is important that you understand both sides of the argument before choosing sides. As a Ron Paul supporter I would think you agree.
Leave your thoughts in a response... only logical rebuttals please. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJxCFa8YmbQ
»
Some of us don't want to hear
Some of us don't want to hear your gospel, but I guess your religion commands you to be an annoying pain in the arse.
Thank god for harassment laws.
D: :D
Those who down voted without providing comment of reason below is hurting the conversation... I propose you do not down-vote unless you provide a comment illustrating your position.
Get ready for a lot of Down-Votes
And very few people willing and able to discuss the topic presented.
To be fair, religion is a
To be fair, religion is a private matter one should keep to himself, and that applies double to those who wish to "share" their beliefs.
I'm willing and able to
I'm willing and able to discuss the topic. Please see my entry below. Please feel free to explain the truth of logic from an atheist perspective without begging the question.
Im not an atheist
But, since you are promoting it Christianity,
can you tell me why you choose to be Christian?
He probably has a wheat
He probably has a wheat allergy which makes him unable to practice Pastafarianism.
Thanks for posting this
Thanks for posting this
Only Xtianity is logical...
These videos prove nothing and certainly do not contain logical thinking. We shouldn't be surprised, its the same song and dance no matter which atheist has the mic. It always starts out the same: "I left Christianity because I realized my beliefs were not based in facts or rational evidence. I finally realized that science and logic should be my guide, not a book of fairy tales." The problem here is that the atheist is putting trust into "logic" without having a basis of belief in logic. Its a common problem of circular reasoning. If an atheist says, "science is the proper method of learning facts", the obvious response is "OK, atheist, where did you learn *that* fact?" If he answers with "science" then he is begging the question (a logical fallacy). If he answers with any other mode or method, then he has just refuted his original claim. Darned it he does, darned if he don't. Either way, his position is self-refuting and thus illogical. Xtianity on the other hand can account for logical absolutes as being reflections of God's mind. We are made in his image, thus think logically as well. The atheist on the other hand simply puts blind faith in logic without having a rational explanation of what makes logic true. No atheist apologist past or present has adequately dealt with this issue, and until they do I'm afraid atheism will continue to be irrelevant.
I wish there was a government
I wish there was a government program to [forcibly] provide you with the psychiatric care you so desperately need so you don't spend your free time harassing brights and trying to start arguments all because your psychosis forbids fun.
again... see my comment below
See my comment below, it shows the principle fallacy that religion shares which is lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is evidence enough not to believe something. If I were to say I can fly what would you say? Probably show me or something along those lines. Your proposing I believe you regardless of whether I prove I can fly or not.....Continued understanding below in previous comment to "FBI_EXPOSER"......
I love we can discuss this and get a better understanding of each others perspectives :D
bdog101, my argument has
bdog101, my argument has nothing to do with Paschal's Wager. Please re-read my original comment. I'm submitting an argument to you, challenging your ultimate presupposition. You say, "Xtianity/religion is illogical because they believe things without evidence." And by evidence you mean something you can see, touch, hear, taste or smell. Fine. SO tell me where your evidence for logical absolutes is. You are only proving my point by ignoring this challenge. I said at the end of my original comment: "No atheist past or present has adequately dealt with this issue" and you are continuing down that futile path. It makes any claim you make about "logic" completely irrelevant. The irony is that you keep saying no one has responded with an intellectual argument. I have, but you are the one side-stepping the issue.
I'll try to rephrase the question: "bdog101, how do human beings know that logic is true? Where in nature can logic be empirically confirmed as the proper method of gaining knowledge?"
There is never an absolute to
There is never an absolute to knowledge... I believe I answered this in a previous post. Knowledge is the collective understanding on the way things are thought to be true. The difference between religion and science/atheism is that religion is based on "we know the answers" and science is based on "this is what we can predict with the knowledge we have". It was logic/knowledge that the world was flat in the olden days. If it were up to religion, you would keep that assumption and never adjust with the progress of understanding.
I think it's safe to say we do not have all the answers, and the answers we have now will probably change in the future, wouldn't you agree? This is why science creates theories. Religions biggest flaw is that it feeds off the people that want all the answers right now and are too ignorant to understand otherwise. Wouldn't you agree that it is better to leave a question you don't know blank, rather then to fill it in with something wrong?
Bdog101, I appreciate your
Bdog101, I appreciate your response but you have dug yourself deeper into the incoherent mess that is atheism. You talk alot about science and logic. That has been your foundational defense against religion this entire time. When we talk about "logic" we are referencing the tools of knowledge that help determine if statements are true or false. These tools or standards must themselves be true, or else we have nothing to work with. For example, the law of non-contradiction says that a thing cannot be that which it is not in the same way. In other words, if two statements contradict each other, they can't both be true. They might both be wrong, but they can't both be true. You believe in this principle as all humans do whether we realize it or not. We couldn't communicate without it. It is integral. So when you harp about "logic" I assume we are on the same page about these principles. Then, just as all atheists do, you violate the law of non-contradiction in order to hold on to your lack of belief. Tools of logic *must be* true if we are to use them to gain knowledge, yet when I challenge you to account for logic you resort to "there is no absolute certainty in knowledge." Do you not see the contradiction? That statement alone is self-refuting. You are saying that you are absolutely certain that absolute certainty doesn't exist. You're in a trap. You're only hope now is to turn to Christ, repent and submit to him. Its the only way to escape the futile, incoherent path you are on.
"You're only hope now is to
"You're only hope now is to turn to Christ, repent and submit to him. Its the only way to escape the futile, incoherent path you are on."
....wow very sad.
The main difference between religion and atheism is that religion claims "we have all the answers" while atheism claims we can't possibly have all the answers but this is what we can predict with the knowledge we have. Wouldn't you agree that we don't have all the answers in the universe? Don't you think it is a little naive to say we have the answers to everything? Which would you rather believe, the one that says we have all the answers or the one that is willing to admit we don't have all the answers but will continue to learn?
Bdog, this will be the 4th
Bdog, this will be the 4th time I've directly written to you to answer a very simple question. Three times so far you have completely ignored my challenge, not even acknowledging it. Do you not know the answer? Do you not understand the question? Either way, man up and acknowledge the substance of my comments. You're giving me no other choice but to think that you are being intellectually dishonest. You defend your rebellion to God by hiding behind words that sound smart and sophisticated, but in reality you aren't prepared for a rational discussion. I'll be waiting in the hopes that you prove me wrong. If not, I won't waste my time. Before I go, I want to clarify that Xtians do not think they have answers to everything. Where you get such an idea is unknown to me. The whole point of Xtianity is to obey Christ regardless of your circumstances, regardless of how little we may know about any particular issue. I don't have the answers to everything, no one does. But I do know the one who does (Christ) and that's what is most important. Because we believe Christ made the world for a purpose we have a motivation to discover the world and uncover his creation. Xtianity embraces mystery. We aren't obsessed or worried about having answers to everything.
(sigh) this is quite sad
(sigh) this is quite sad because you are still stuck on the basic flaw in your thinking. In your mindset anything I make up in my mind can be proven reality. As long as you can not prove that what I see in my head is fake than I guess it is real, is your thinking. Your trying to bring on looping arguments that can be neither be proven nor disproven. In your paradox, god can not be proven as well. The only thing you bring to the table is a simple looping of the mind where the only exit loop would be to stop looping. This is a simple mind game and is easy to overcome if you understand it. Your argument does not prove the existence of a god. Please illustrate how your argument relates anything to do with something creating everything and listening to people talk to themselves everyday and going to a happy place when you die or a bad place? I would like to know how your argument above proves anything of real substance in regards to an actual existence of a god rather than a mind game on basic looping.
What do you base your belief on tho?
And
What is logical about believing in superstition?
I base my belief on the Bible
I base my belief on the Bible as the revelation of Christ Jesus. As I said in my original post, Xtianity is the only worldview that is logical and internally consistent with itself. Superstition has nothing to do with it. Please, explain to me how you know the law of non-contradiction is true?
I thought it was the
I thought it was the revelation of St. John on the island of Patmos?
Or was it Moses Hussein Christ?
Or Joseph Smitty?
law of non-contradiction?
dunno about all that.
But, How do you know the Bible is true?
I know the Bible is true
I know the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. For something to be true it must be non-contradictory; meaning it must be internally consistent with its own terms and premises. No other worldview can do this other than Xtianity. The original poster has all but proved my point. He just said there is "never absolute certainty" about any knowledge or claim of fact. If that were true, then how could he even make that claim itself? Let alone harp on people for not being "logical". He doesn't even believe logic is "absolutely" certain. It's a contradictory mess and is as clear as day.
I know invisible pink
I know invisible pink unicorns are real because I saw one!
LNC..
"It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction
"There are only two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword, the other is by debt." - John Adams
see very bottom
see my response below in relation to belief and lack of belief based on reasonable measurement. The response was to "FBI_EXPOSER"
See below....
....was Blaise Pascal not a scientist?
Was he not logical?
Without regard to the emotionally charged subject of his wager, can anyone disprove the pure LOGIC of it?
Nope.
If you can find someone with perspective....
...who is more accomplished and intelligent than Blaise Pascal, I'd love to look at their material.
Until then, I'd direct you to him. When you have someone or something that exceeds his intelligence and accomplishment, I'll be more than happy to review it. But I don't think you can beat it. Nor has any of the material you have provided yet done so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
reponse...
Your proposing I offer a alternative before you let go of your previous belief? are you not? Shouldn't insufficient proof be a directive? EXAMPLE: If I were to say I believe a unicorn on the moon that shoots candy out of its butt exists (not being spiteful just illustrating the unrealistic existence of it) would you believe me if I said this? What question would you fall to?
"where is your proof?..."
"how did you come about believing this?"
these are viable questions I would expect one to ask.
If you could not prove what I was saying was wrong, would what I was saying be true?? No, because lack of evidence is evidence enough not to believe something. Obviously we can probably prove that there is no unicorn on the moon by going there and examining the planet, but what about something we can not exam? The belief in god is one of those. Religion is based on appeals to emotion and desire to believe something rather than the realistic reality of it. You can not physically show that this invisible non examinable or measurable entity does not exist. Therefore you must understand that lack of evidence is sufficient.
This brings to mind the Salim witch trials... and started the whole aspect of thinking "innocent until proven guilty" rather than "guilty until proven innocent".
Not at all!
I am asking you to examine Pascal's Wager and identify any weaknesses in the logic.
It is a logical proof. As such, if you are able to assail it, by all means do so!
If you are unable to then how can you comment on it or what would your logical comments be.
Again, I am not addressing your emotional response to the content of the proof. I am asking you to logically assess the proof and see what you can come up with.
Is not the subject of this thread "A logical approach to religion"?
If that's what this thread is about then be logical and approach it.
If you haven't even bothered to read the wager from one of the greatest (and as yet unassailed) mathematicians and philosophers in pure logic in the history of the world, well then, you really don't have any thing to say about his wager at all, now, do you?
Here is a test to see if
Here is a test to see if wager is correct, replace God with any other mystical thing that you can make up. If his logic still stands with something that you can determine is not real (because you make it up like the unicorn reference) then you can determine that Pascal Wager's logic is really just a play on words and the mind. Replace God with Bigfoot or the Locknes monster. This might help you out.