Conventional Logic Vs Religous Logic

Conventional Logic Vs Religous Logic


Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Please Login to comment
    39 Comment threads
    0 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    19 Comment authors
    traptin85nyokkidieAntagonistaDaveMcDavidsonSnow Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Pants
    Member

    WELL MAYBE HE DOES AND HE JUST DOESNT WANT TO SHOW IT ITS A PRVATE THING YOU KNOW BASEBALLS SOMETIMES PEOPLE TRY TO STEAL THEM OR BURN THEM ALIVE AND SHOOT THEM OUT OF CANNONS WHAT IF THAT BASEBALL WAS RELIGION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED THATS WHY YOU CANT SHOW THEM IT THEY WIL BURN IN AND SHOOT IT FROM A CANNON

    Paul_Is_Drunk
    Member

    Ah, a classic.

    @Pants: ???

    Whenever I see capslock, I just have no desire to read it.

    Pants
    Member

    @Paul_Is_Drunk: thats the poooiiinnnttt!!!

    im being ironic, religionfgs always argue loudest

    because theyll be damned if you can yell louder than them

    dieAntagonista
    Guest

    Ah, a classic.

    @Pants:

    Whenever I see people use more than one exclamation mark, I just have no desire to take it seriously.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    @Pants: Actually our arguments are far more refined than that above dumbass argument. It is so much deeper than a matter of yelling “you can’t prove that” because logically speaking you can’t prove that which is not seen. Any scientific proof of god relies on a purely theoretical/hypothetical level. We have no idea how to set up any experiments that would yield usable data that can prove or disprove god. At this point Atheism/science ( Do we really need to associate atheism with science? I mean, science operates on a completely different level from ) lie on two completely different… Read more »

    goatsgomoo
    Member

    @thelotuseater725: I expected that to be signed “Summer Glau”.

    dieAntagonista
    Guest

    @thelotuseater725:

    Atheism has no agenda. An atheist is perfectly capable of being absolutely insane. He can believe that there’s no gravity and jump from a building – obviously in that case he wouldn’t acknowledge scientific facts. So no, atheism has little to do with science.
    But people assume that just because they can disprove certain aspects of certain religions with scientific facts, that means science requires atheism and vice versa.

    Anyway, your mind is wasted here. Just wait until some chap comes on and insults you because you wrote more than two lines.

    The Lawnmower
    Member

    @thelotuseater725:

    Wow, nice straw man.

    Atheism: the lack of a belief in God, generally due to a lack of proof, evidence or any compelling reason.

    howsyoursister
    Member

    @dieAntagonista: Not only did he write more than 2 lines, at first glance everything seems to be spelled correctly.

    @The Lawnmower: thelotuseater725’s argument is no less compelling than anyone else’s on this site. It just happens to sound more educated and less inflammatory. This is all a matter of interpretation and no one has the “correct” answer.

    dieAntagonista
    Guest

    @howsyoursister: Haha, oh Lotus’ grammar is fine. He is an extraordinary thinker, and a very open minded theist, though. As for the religion/ science argument, the problem is obvious. “Many philosophers of religion and theologians argue that there exists religious knowledge as a domain of knowledge with its own claims and criteria for evaluation. Other philosophers, however, dispute the very existence of such knowledge on the grounds that it fails to meet the criteria of evidence appropriate to science. Here, the criteria of evidence in one domain (science) is used to criticize claims in another domain (religion). Does religious knowledge… Read more »

    dieAntagonista
    Guest

    Oops, that wasn’t even the main point. Here goes.

    “It is not difficult to see how an ad ignorantiam argument could be drawn from this case. Proponents of the scientific model essentially argue that because religious knowledge cannot meet the standard of evidence of that model, then there is no ‘evidence’ for it, and on such terms its claims are false or meaningless. A better way for the scientist to proceed would be to evaluate the claims to religious knowledge on their own terms and according to their own criteria.”

    Sticky
    Member

    God was born out of the massive energy burst that was the Big Bang. Everybody loses, and I win.

    MonkeyHitman
    Member

    @Sticky: yea you win. since your theory is conventional logic and the rest are religious logic. sticky here is your internetz!

    DaveMcDavidson
    Member
    DaveMcDavidson

    It’s pretty straight forward, and doesn’t require huge pseudo intellectual rants.

    Gods are supernatural, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural so trying to prove/disprove religion with science is about as helpful as trying to catch fish with philosophy.

    Absolutely nothing we know about the world requires a god to make it possible, or function correctly so why insert one?

    sylvanish
    Member

    Who or what is this God you all speak of?

    How can there be a -logical- debate or dialogue about something that defies logical definition?

    The bottom line that I see forgotten most often in any religious-like conversing is that [this] is all theory and hypothesis and personal opinion. It is impossible to debate something that has billions of differing definitions. Fools be arguing and debating (the Qualia of Red). The enlightened share ideas and experience.

    sylvanish
    Member

    Know what I hate about religion the most? The shifting of blame and responsibility.

    When I go to my catholic relatives for dinner and my aunt makes dinner from food-stuff that my mom provided, and they all start “Dear Lord, we thank you for this blah blah blah…” FUCK YOU! No dang land-owner zapped this meal onto the table upon request, this “Lord” jerk is getting the credit for what -people- did, for what my aunt made and my mom nurtured to life from the soil of the Earth and the light of the fucking Sun.

    howsyoursister
    Member

    @sylvanish: So what you’re saying is that you want your aunt to take the blame or responsibility for what she made. Is her cooking that bad?

    arrested
    Member

    Btw, repost.

    The Lawnmower
    Member

    @dieAntagonista:

    “A better way for the scientist to proceed would be to evaluate the claims to religious knowledge on their own terms and according to their own criteria.”

    Why on Earth would they do that?

    That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read all day.

    nyoki
    Member

    For the most part most people (in the US) didn’t care what religion said until the attempt to insert it into the science classroom. They’re the ones that tried to use science to prove the unscientific and the unprovable. Obviously atheists and religion(ists) never agreed, but the real antipathy of one for the other went from a slight breeze to a hurricane.

    LeeHarveyOswald
    Member

    Dumb asses. Atheist have no religious beliefs, but it’s more than that to me. i Hate when Religions try to prove they are right, when everything they show as proof can be Disproved with Understanding and Logic. But if you don’t believe me Read some Richard Dawkins, or talk to somebody with some GODDAMN COMMON SENSE. Also you “Atheist” motherfuckers better know what your talking about before you even Start to talk religion Atheist or not , you motherfuckers better at least have read the Bible once in your life before you even talk. Because more than likely i will… Read more »

    Messatsunokami
    Member

    Rational Logic for the fucking win!

    dieAntagonista
    Guest

    @The Lawnmower:

    This is a suggestion by a Cambridge book about argumentation. It can’t be that stupid.

    Well for one, there are enough inconsistencies within certain religions, that make it easy for one to disprove aspects of it without bringing science into it at all.

    Sounds pretty simple to me.

    dieAntagonista
    Guest

    @DaveMcDavidson:

    I appreciate huge pseudo intellectual rants. They’re more insightful than an, “OMG WIN!”

    It’s all about perception. If a theist didn’t perceive this world in a way where it only works if there’s a god in the equation, he wouldn’t be a theist. For example there are theists who recognise the big bang as a scientific fact, but they believe there must have been some force that caused it all to begin with, because they’re spiritual, or because they think there’s proof or because they’re crazy, etc.

    100110110110010
    Member
    100110110110010

    Conventional Reaction:
    lol.

    Religious Reaction (current-day Judeo-Christian version):
    THIS ISNT FUNNY!

    Religious Reaction (1500s Judeo-European version and current-day Islamic version):
    THIS ISNT FUNNY!
    IM GOING TO FIND YOU AND KILL YOU.

    NoOneInParticular
    Member

    @nyokki: For the most part most people (in the US) didn’t care what religion said until the attempt to insert it into the science classroom. They’re the ones that tried to use science to prove the unscientific and the unprovable.

    Sorry, but you got that backwards. Clearly you failed US History. 🙂

    Christian religion was ALWAYS part of American education until a few crazed atheists got tired of the majority stampeding on their religion (and atheism IS a religion – religion doesn’t mean “worshiping a god”), and took them to court to get it removed from school.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    @The Lawnmower: So because i agree with you yet at the same time disagree you accuse me of making a straw man argument? I never once said that atheism is wrong, just that the way it trys to disprove/prove things is useless for something that lies outside of conventional scientific reasoning. I have already admitted that i can not prove to you god exists because i genuinely have no clue how to go about doing something like that. As i said before, if god exists he/she/it exists in a manner that you and i have no way of detecting. @dieAntagonista:… Read more »

    Pants
    Member

    @thelotuseater725: FUCK READING!

    @everyone:
    FUCK READING!

    dieAntagonista
    Guest

    @thelotuseater725:

    I didn’t say your grammar is flawless at all times.

    Soo, did you take pictures. Of your wife’s distractions. Don’t be selfish Ian.

    nyoki
    Member

    @NoOneInParticular: No religion was specifically taught at public schools. If you were Catholic, you left early every Wednesday for religious instruction (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine). I assume it had something to do w/ Confirmation ad Communion. In many schools, in many places the population was homogeneous and Christianity was assumed and accepted. It still goes on here in WV. Under God was not added to The Pledge of Allegiance until some time in the 50s. I do not know what was taught prior to the Scopes trial, but I’m guessing that it wasn’t anything as specific as Creationism/Intelligent Design.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    @dieAntagonista: Hey, those are my distractions. You’ll have to make an IRL appearance to see them. For all i know you could be a 45 year old bosnian man.

    dieAntagonista
    Guest

    @thelotuseater725:

    You selfish man, I shake my fist at you.

    But I’m just a 20 year old girl, ready to explore your wife’s distractions, you have my word. Actually, people think I’m 16. And when they hear my voice they think I’m 15. Then I tell them about my interests, and they think I’m 27.

    Either way, the only thing you have to worry about is a slight sense of paedophilia. We can make it work right?

    Do you like Michael Jackson? I do.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    @dieAntagonista: Beat it had an awesome guitar riff. Eddie Van fucking Halen.

    rattybad
    Member

    Can I still yell “First!”? No? Because I didn’t read any of this. Blah blah blah we’ve heard all this before.

    Snow
    Member

    epicurus is my favorite little line to use here. its logical too it has a premise (3 infact) and a conclusion. logic could not be more straight forward. (be warned its very wanky and shows no original thought or intellegence on my part.

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god. ~ Epicurus

    DaveMcDavidson
    Member
    DaveMcDavidson

    @thelotuseater725

    gods are meant to be all powerful creators, being confined to the physical laws and science doesn’t sound logical in that context at all. More importantly if you can’t detect or test his existance within science then how can he be constrained by scientfic laws.

    What you’re arguing for really is the god of the gaps – i.e god sits in an area of science we currently don’t have a solid answer for. And we all know how that will play out…

    dieAntagonista
    Guest

    @thelotuseater725: My personal favourite is Blood on the Dancefloor.

    @rattybad:

    No you can’t. Yeah we have heard all this before, but we’ve heard people like you complain before too.

    Checkmate.

    nyoki
    Member

    @LeeHarveyOswald: I have read the bible several times, along w/ many other books on religion in general, but I’ve bee a atheist my whole life. I don’t have to read the Qur’an to know I disagree w/ its basic tenets. I don’t need to argue every single point that pro-religion thumpers put to me. I only need to disprove one. If one is wrong and it is the word of God, then it’s all wrong.

    traptin85
    Member

    epic repost respawns same old long religion arguements.