Well, to tell you the truth, there’s plenty of atheists and more than a few believers that would say that’s the jist of the original one. 
Oh.
Anyway, do you agree that religion is not logical?
Check this out:
Religion is logical. 
Just make a thread like that & see how people react.
People are just gunnu say the opposite of what you say anyways…
Is religion logical? No more or less than history. I mean to say, it can be done logically, or else not. There’s nothing automatic about the nature of religion that forces it to be one way or the other.
I mean, what religion does not contradict itself or observable evidence? I’m not saying they’re worthless, I’m just saying they’re not logical.
Thezeus quote -Christianity contradicts observable evidence:
Why is there suffering if god is all good?
Why does the world seem older than you said it was, god?
Why are there fossils?
Why doesn’t everything orbit us?
1 -The Earth is a Proving Ground to sort the men from the boys and the bible doesn’t try to pretend we’ll get an easy ride - “All creation groans in pain from the beginning til now” (Rom 8:26)
2 - Time has no meaning to God - “With God a thousand years are as one day” (2 Pet 3:8 )
3 - Fossils, shmossils, so what?
4 - Why should anything orbit us?
The zeusquote - religion is not logically valid
But the thing is, we didn’t “invent” christianity,a young carpenter guy came and dumped it in our lap.
The ball is now in our court…
Any religious thinker cannot claim to be a rational thinker as its very fundamental idea (the existence of God) cannot be proved or disproved. It is beyond the limits of human reason. Rationality demands agnosticism.
As Nietzsche said, “if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire”.
Free-thinkers will use rationality in search of the truth, taking nothing for granted; believers will attempt to justify their belief by reason. The believer, however, has already shot himself in the foot by starting from a wholly irrationalistic starting point, thus having no claim to a truly rational spirit. [/i]
Well, all religions are bodies of beliefs that no particular believer will take all of to heart. That is, under the umbrella of Christianity, there are many different views of the Creation- some of them contradict each other, some of them contradict evidence, some of them do neither.
I believe it’s possible to be a Christian, without contradicting oneself or the observable evidence.
Standard23
Agnostics can't be religious thinkers? Personal agnosticism is fine, but once you extend the claim to others: ...and nobody else knows either!" You've broken into grounds every bit as unprovable as theistic claims.
What is the rational starting point of the free thinker?
Ancient traditional beliefs aren’t as well-informed as the more developed and modern ideas, sometimes…
Religion is the “highest truth”, personalized.
All religions were invented by individuals and groups.
You can chose to copy a religion [fallow the leader, not too hard]
Or you can chose to create your own religion for yourself [by whatever means].
Either way, persons are free to do one or the other.
Hopefully you’ve all already seen my thread about what the word “religion” means.
You can say that christianity is not logical.
True enough.
…You could also say that humanity is not logical, as a whole. True enough.
Do some of you want a cultural cleansing?
Or do you tier of the never ending information wars?
The agnostic is rightfully open-minded, and not resigned to a particular, unproveable view.
Do you mean to say that some people know God exists?
Unlike the religious thinker who starts from the existence of God (and any other religious dogma), the free-thinker is able to question everything - he has no particular starting point. He works inward, not outward, questioning whether we can know anything (and if we can, what). Instead of trying to justify a belief, he explores what can possibly be known.
The religious thinker is prescribed truths with which he then struggles; the free-thinker on the other hand roams freely amongst the endless possibilites.
I mean to say that it's logically possible that some people know God exists, and that many people do in fact claim such, and that any agnostic who claims 'nobody knows' is either telepathic, or making a claim based on insuffecient evidence. The best he can manage is '[i]I[/i] don't know'.
When, then he’s a general skeptic. As far as I know, there’s no good way to come to the conclusion that any proposition is true, without first accepting that some other proposition is true, is there? If everything is in doubt, what is your standard for evaluation?
Also, I would submit that the type of person you describe above is mainly a mythology- we all live for a decade or so before we start critically thinking (and some a lot longer than that), and have many, many unexamined beliefs entrenched before we start doing so. There’s simply not enough time in the day to re-examine them all.
Theism and religion are two different things.
“Religion” is the honoring of and the living for “highest truth”.
Humanism is officially a religion, for example.
No god.
(original post in the wrong thread)
I accept it is logically possible that some people know God exists, but wouldn’t that also suggest it is also logically possible that some people know that God doesn’t exist?
Also, if the best one can manage is ‘I don’t know’ then perhaps that means you too are unable to say of me that I don’t know that ‘nobody knows’ (if you catch my drift?).
I appreciate what you’re saying and accept that such a wholly free thinker cannot exist as such, due to problems with standards of evaluation and circularity. I wasn’t trying to encourage total skepticism, but was claiming that someone who is free from religious beliefs is able to embark on a more productive philosophic journey due to not having to wasting time trying to reconcile their particular religious views with what (seemingly contradictory) conclusions they reach with reason. As you said, critical thinking invariably does not come until later, yet the scope of their criticism varies hugely - I think the quality and integrity of the criticism will be better and more enjoyable if one is also willing submit their religious beliefs to such criticism, thus remaining truer to the philosophic, rational spirit.
Standard23, I’m enjoying this talk quite a bit!
From the perspective of one who doesn't know for sure either way, yes. But of course, they can't both be [i]actually[/i] true- if there are some people who know God doesn't exist, then there is nobody who knows He does, and vica versa, taking knowledge in the usual way. I don't think I get why you pointed this out, though.
Ahh, I see. But I don’t agree. To say “I don’t know if God exists” is a statement you can make certainly, based on evidence that you posess in full (the limits of your own knowledge). You have agreed with me that it is logically possible that some people know God exists. This implies that it is logically possible that God does exist, knowledge taken in the usual way.
For you to say “Nobody knows if God exists”, you would either have to claim that such knowledge is impossible (which we have already agreed it is not), or you would have to have very detailed, personal information about the mental states and past experiences of every human being on Earth. You’re right- technically, I cannot be perfectly certain that you don’t have this knowledge- which is why I made the statement I did. Either you’re telepathic, or you’re basing the belief that nobody knows on insuffecient information.
Well...I agree with this to an extent, but could you say that about any set of beliefs? Take out 'religious belief' from what you said above, and replace it with 'Capitalism', and wouldn't all the communists nod their head in agreement? After all, communists must see contradictions and other errors in capitalism, so they must see people who are stuck embracing it as people in a sort of philosophical rut or stagnation. It seems to me that what you're saying above only makes sense if we take it for granted that all religious belief is [i]false[/i], right?
Now, this, I totally agree with. Any person engaged in philosophy, who is religious, cannot help but think philosophically about their religion, especially since theism and such are controversial, minority views in the philosophical community. However, I think it’s possible for rational, engaged thinkers to evaluate their religious beliefs and come out still holding them. Of course, this is in part because I happen to think there is a true religion myself. But also, it just seems to me the case- while a minority, there are enough religious philosophers out there who seem credible enough that one can’t dismiss them as simply not having thought things through.
Standard 23 is wrong in saying that atheists refute theism on the grounds that god does not exist. That’s not what I’m saying, anyway. I refute him pragmatically, by saying that God has come into conflict with science, and will again in the future, because some dumb theists believe in a God that still exists. Science wins out because technological benefits are unlimited whereas a society can only get so efficient. A scientific explanation of a certain phenomena is more beneficial than a religious one.
I’m a bit lost as to why I brought it up too. I suppose it seems a shame that if either or neither (but not both!) were the true, it could never be successfully communicated to another, which goes back to the issue of not knowing what others know…one cannot state what others can’t know, nor, it seems, then, can one who knows enable another to know.
You’re right, and I don’t - some may may know whether he does or does not exist. My objection is to those who do not know, but claim to.
Indeed, much progress of a belief or ideology is aided by previous and opposing ideologies, often arising as a direct response. So in one respect they benefit; however, they suffer when the opposing set of beliefs dominates to the extent of being considered more and more as right(e.g. democracy) In these cases one would examine the beliefs and attempt to improve, refine or abandon. I think religious beliefs get further in being regarded as true, as reality itself, therefore becoming a special case where it is considered indispensable given its truth, so much so that it is not subject to revision.
Certainly would. But, as you would agree, I cannot assert that it is. My main concern however is the manner in which religious beliefs are tackled and reached. Someone who comes to rationalize their predetermined beliefs is merely allowing their reason to be a slave to such believes. To remain completely rational (which is supposed to be indifferent) one must let their reason dictate their beliefs.
[/quote]
I certainly think a religious thinker can rightfully continue with their beliefs after having examined them philosophically. Still I would like to stress the need, if one regards themselves rational, to not let their beliefs interfere with their conclusions - something which undoubtedly happens far more often than is admitted. Beliefs held in spite of reason must be acknowledged as faith.
I have now come to see that religious beliefs can be rational. My only wwish remains that, regardless of conclusions reached, one never fails to recognize that they may be in error. Both faith and reason are, of course, fallible - practitioners of both so should recognize them as such.
Not about stuff like this. What’s rock-solid evidence for me because mere anecdote when I try to convey it to you.
Those people are incorrect, but I think it’s mainly a small thing- people are forever claiming to know what they don’t really know, especially when it comes to controversial issues like religion, morality, and so on. I guess you just have to take it in stride that when someone uses the word ‘know’ outside of a philosophical context, they could really mean all kinds of things.
Well, religion has a number of things going for it (or against it, depending) that make it a special case- For one thing, it's taught to the very young. For another, it's not just for experts- people who have no interest or capability in studying theology will still have a religion- and will stick by it rather strongly. That's why I used the example of Capitalism. How many people are their out there who consider Communism to be synonymous with Evil, without really knowing a damned thing about either? Now, even if we happen to be Capitalists ourselves, we have to seperate that element out when discussing the matter, and realize the discussion exists on a higher level. Do the sorts of anti-communists I mentioned in themselves make Capitalism bad?
That's how I see it with religion- we have many, many people that are religious without being critical thinkers, because of when and to whom religion is taught. But, those are the sorts of people we should have in mind when comparing religious perspectives to 'free-thinking' perspectives.
Well, by definition. But we already agreed that we can’t do this about everything. So I think you have three main bodies of religious believers:
Those who can’t, or won’t, apply critical thinking to their religious beliefs.
Those who can, and simply haven’t gotten around to it yet, they are thinking about other things instead.
Those who have, and remain convinced that their religious beliefs are true.
I’m not sure which of those we can condemn. The first seems likely, except that if someone is truly unable to examine things critically- they just don’t have the skill- they were bound to be convinced by the first thing that came along. We can’t criticize their skills in the philosophy game, they simply aren’t playing it. The other two members seem to be beyond reproach, as well.
I think you’re right that religious belief is more often held in spite of reason than other sorts of belief- scientific. I’m of the mind that this has more to do with the accessibility of religion, and not something inherently flawed in the enterprise.
So why teach it then and to them?