U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-22-2011, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 1,692,038 times
Reputation: 440

Advertisements

Now here is where I apply logic. Religion did not cause this people who abuse a religious message did this. To say religion is responsible is like saying a gun or the gun company killed someone, all because someone used a gun to kill someone. Its like saying pencils or keyboards are responsible for grammar errors. It's simple logic, guns and religion don't kill people. People user religion as a reason to kill people with guns. Its simple to see that guns are not the problem, people are. Religion isn't the problem, people are.

I do see how the horrifying things that people do with religion, could cause someone to find it illogical to practice religion. It's all about how you look at it. If all you see is the pain and suffering it causes, I can understand. However, there is another way to look at it. The way I look at it, I and many other practice acceptance among other beliefs, we are trying to set the example, and change the way people use and view religion and the people that practice those religions. My beliefs have never caused me to do anything to cause harm to anyone. Yet, in such a blanket term to say religion caused this violent act to happen, you are basically accusing me of having involvement.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2011, 09:14 PM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,011,636 times
Reputation: 1319
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
What I mean by alogical is not the same as illogical. Alogical meaning beyond the scope of logic. You CAN apply logic when making an opinion based decision in regards to religion and spiritualism. You CANNOT use evidence based logic on a subject that has no evidence to support a definitive answer. I cannot say to you that my believes are the absolute truth without providing evidence to support my claim just as you cannot claim to know with absolute certainty that my beliefs are false. If there suddenly was evidence to prove your claim, I should hope that I hold myself accountable to alter my claim to support the evidence. I feel sorry for anyone who is so set in their ways that they deny the possibility that they could be wrong.
Can you give me an example of 'applying logic when making an opinion based decision in regards to religion and spiritualism'?

And yes, I also feel sorry for people who deny the possibility they could be wrong. Frankly I see that much more commonly in the theistic group than atheistic. I mean it's pretty much the point of faith, isn't it?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 1,692,038 times
Reputation: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
That sounds a bit confused to me, too. Logic applied to opinions seems pretty speculative unless some evidence or negative evidence is being used to provide some pointers.
The sun is beautiful. All evidence provided is purely opinionin bases, so all logic is opinion based regarding this.

Quote:
In the case of theism or atheism, where religions and personal gods are concerned, there is evidence. The Holy books don't stack up. The miracles don't seem persuasive. The personal experiences look more in the mind than something outside. To not base opinion on that is imply ignoring valid information.
thought I don't believe it, the bible is supposedly the teachings of god that man was told to write. You can't prove this false, you can prove that man wrote the bible and it was changed and adapted over time, but you can't prove that god didn't. Tell them to write it. One thing you can do is point out how the bible steals religious stories and beliefs from other religions, but you can't prove that god told them to compile a book of his various teaching from other religions. Maybe god was tired of people following only one or two of his teachings. I don't believe this, but I can't prove it wrong.


Quote:
With the more abstract god - concepts, we don't have much data and I get your idea of a-logical rather illogical. The result of that is to say that we don't know either way but there is no good reason to think that it matters very much unless it affects us here - and then we are back again into the earth - based evidence (and negative evidence) ignoring or denying of which is illogical, or unlogical, not a-logical.
If we do come to discover there is a God, then yes I agree.

Quote:
"I feel sorry for anyone who is so set in their ways that they deny the possibility that they could be wrong." I agree. That is why I feel a bit sorry for those who firmly and trenchantly believe particular faith - based opinions where there is either no knowledge either way or the data really does not support it. And that's why I, as an atheist, try to apply logical assessment to what I am willing to give credence - always with a mind open to some new views and information.
If there is evidence that does not support it, then yes it would be illogical to believe it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 01:26 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 4,261,361 times
Reputation: 2955
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
Not rational based on what? Evidence, empirical data, proof, or just opinion?
All of the above. The issue is that the god hypothesis is not supported by any evidence... arguments... data... or reasons... to lend it even a modicum of credibility.

That is no small issue. The entire god claim is not just slightly, but entirely unsubstantiated and despite your tantrums towards atheists no one on this forum, much less yourself, has provided any such substantiation either.

I am glad to see you admit however that the god concept is not one based on logic. I certainly agree. There is nothing logical about the claim at all. However this is more your problem than mine because you will find a great number of your peers, especially the bigger names on the theism debating circuit like Dinesh DSouza and William Craig very much do argue that the hypothesis fits with basic and advanced logic. So really you need to take it up with them, not us, as they very much disagree with you.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 03:10 AM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 1,692,038 times
Reputation: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
And a few minor wars, still something less than a million dead, so far, or the movement to express the hate of bronze age ignorance a.k.a. religion.

I guess after decades(?) of cherry picking bible passages, you simply can't help but cherry pick reason.

Religion did this:

and this;

and this
FYI: I did some research on those photos. The only one you can directly link to a religious group is the last one. The first one cannot be linked to religion but it can be linked to extreme Chauvinism. Now I will give you that in that country Chauvinism is pretty normal and it has it's roots in their religious beliefs.

And apparently even Atheists aren't above chauvinism: The Privilege Delusion - Skepchick
Boycott Richard Dawkins? – #Elevatorgate « Skeptical Science
Elevatorgate « Freethought Kampala

The second photo cannot be linked to religion at all. Not one story says the attackers were religious and to say religion caused this because some Christians are against the LGBT community is a stretch. Not all non-religious people think the LGBT community is right, just as not all Christians think it is wrong.

Here are a few examples...
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Atheists Against Gay Marriage? | Change.org News

This one shows a few reasons both religious and non-religious:
Common Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Common Moral and Religious Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Lets see here...
Environmental Militant James Lee Shot and Killed After Taking Hostages at Discovery Channel Headquarters - ABC News
Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Lee, Atheist Terrorist (Discovery Channel Hostage-Taker)

These men killed millions because of their atheist views.
40 - 70 million killed - Mao Zedong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cultural Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
10 - 20+ million killed - Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though not violent, still wrong...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godles
State atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just some food for thought before you go off claiming Religion causes harm and therefore is bad.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 03:46 AM
 
570 posts, read 559,556 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
I will reply to your comments without the snideness and the pointless pictures of lemon juice which you have included to try and troll an emotional response out of me. Such tactics will not work with me.

My point here is that given the massive failures and problems in the Islamic world, you simply have no basis on which to be on a forum such as this criticising those of other faiths or no faiths at all. Especially in a language you can barely speak.

You should be more concerned with dealing with the issues in your own world than that of others. Then, and only then, will you have a platform to presume to speak about others. It is similar to the catholic church trying to teach the public about sexual morality, when they themselves clearly have a lot of internal work to do on the subject before they presume to lecture others.

Further when you come on to a forum such as this and simply start wantonly making lies up, and creating false facts about science in order to support your position, you likely do your own cause more harm than good. Acting as you do with snideness, insults, lies and wholly invented and false "facts" you are portraying yourself, and your faith, as being entirely dishonest and untrustworthy.

You do more harm to Islam than I ever could, which is why I am only too happy to repeat your own words for people to read. Letting them read your words does more for my cause than anything I could write myself. All an atheist who wants to fight against Islam need do is find someone like yourself... and merely keep that person talking. You do the rest of the work for me.
Believe me, that will always be your opinion about Islam no matter what my comments or my opinion could've ever be .
You know it & I know it ... every body knows it .
There is a big difference between reading with a Prior intention to find falls & mistakes and reading with honest and impartial intentions .
The proof of what I've said is the existence of positive feedbacks that keeps coming to me which are totally different than yours .
I will not be a hypocrite as some people who said : I respect your opinion !!!
How could I respect an opinion that said there is no god !!!
No ...
But I certainly respect you as a person .
P.S : As I expected u could not come with specific examples as I asked of u .
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 05:17 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 4,261,361 times
Reputation: 2955
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Believe me, that will always be your opinion about Islam no matter what my comments or my opinion could've ever be
You do not know me. You do not know the future. So stop pretending you do. You have no idea what I will, or will not, do in the future. Stop making up things about me just to fill in your lack of evidence.

However this has nothing to do with what I am actually saying. My opinion is nothing to do with it. The point is that Islam is awash with lies, violence, hatred and social problems. You yourself have come on to this forum with lies, made up facts and personal insults... showing us how YOU think a Muslim should act.

You need to address these before you are in a position to comment on the failings of others. You simply have no basis to comment on others in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
As I expected u could not come with specific examples as I asked of u .
That is because you did not ask. You mentioned "examples" but did not say of what. What do you want examples of exactly??

You just tried (and failed) to troll an emotional reaction out of me by showing a picture of lemon juice and then asked me for "specific examples". Examples of what? Examples of lemon juice? What are you talking about son?

If you can not ask a meaningful question then do not be surprised when people do not answer it. If you say things that mean nothing then do not act like its OTHER peoples problems when they do not answer them. The fault lies entirely with you.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 06:19 AM
 
570 posts, read 559,556 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
You do not know me. You do not know the future. So stop pretending you do. You have no idea what I will, or will not, do in the future. Stop making up things about me just to fill in your lack of evidence.

You can expects someones actions by his words .
"famous saying quotes " Squall-lionheart "
Quote:
The point is that Islam is awash with lies, violence, hatred and social problems
There you go ... You just proved what I said .
Quote:
Believe me, that will always be your opinion about Islam no matter what my comments or my opinion could've ever be .
You know it & I know it ... every body knows it .

Thank you ..
Quote:
That is because you did not ask. You mentioned "examples" but did not say of what. What do you want examples of exactly??
Please concentrate...
You posted this :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Not to mention the wanton dishonesty of espousing things as "facts" that you know nothing about. This was more than just a "mistake". It was your wholesale making up facts out of nowhere in order to support your case. Where I come from making up facts and pretending they are true is called "lying". Did Islam teach you lying too? This was not a "mistake" it was wholesale and open lying. One of those "bad habits" you are talking about too.
Ok ??
So I replied :
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart
Now could u please give me Specific examples !!

See ??
Its not that hard to understand !!!
Quote:
You just tried (and failed) to troll an emotional reaction out of me by showing a picture of lemon juice and then asked me for "specific examples". Examples of what? Examples of lemon juice? What are you talking about son?
Woohoo ...
You sure hate lemon juice ..
Quote:
If you can not ask a meaningful question then do not be surprised when people do not answer it. If you say things that mean nothing then do not act like its OTHER peoples problems when they do not answer them. The fault lies entirely with you.
Ok ...
Peace

Last edited by squall-lionheart; 11-23-2011 at 06:59 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 06:44 AM
 
27,201 posts, read 4,009,669 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
Now here is where I apply logic. Religion did not cause this people who abuse a religious message did this. To say religion is responsible is like saying a gun or the

gun company killed someone, all because someone used a gun to kill someone. Its like saying pencils or keyboards are responsible for grammar errors. It's simple logic, guns and religion don't kill

people. People user religion as a reason to kill people with guns. Its simple to see that guns are not the problem, people are. Religion isn't the problem, people are.

I do see how the horrifying things that people do with religion, could cause someone to find it illogical to practice religion. It's all about how you look at it. If all you see is the pain and suffering it

causes, I can understand. However, there is another way to look at it. The way I look at it, I and many other practice acceptance among other beliefs, we are trying to set the example, and change the

way people use and view religion and the people that practice those religions. My beliefs have never caused me to do anything to cause harm to anyone. Yet, in such a blanket term to say religion

caused this violent act to happen, you are basically accusing me of having involvement.
I can't altogether agree with this logic, either. If it's a fallacy I can't quite think of which one yet, but it goes like this:

A gun, money or atomic power is not to blame for what people use them for. if anything is to blame, it's the ideas that people get in their heads which make them use the gun or whatever in a particular way.
Religion is the ideas, not the guns.

Your other argument is the particular to the general. because you have never caused any harm, you can hardly argue that religion never causes harm. While it is true that what we think is religious conflict is very often more racial, cultural or political, it is very often religion that is the only way of telling one bunch of bods from the bods they are fighting.

Now, the argument had moved from open - mindedness to the great atrocity debate. Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot are the unholy trinity of atheism. What I'd say is that the evils they did were not because of atheism, but because of rather irrational. political and social dogma. In a way, what was wrong with them was what is often wrong with religion. While atheism needs to heed the warning, they do not discredit atheism any more than the atom bomb disproves nuclear fission untrue.

On the other hand, religions if untrue (as demonstrably they are) then any evils down to them are utterly without justification.

And...

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Quote:
That sounds a bit confused to me, too. Logic applied to opinions seems pretty speculative unless some evidence or negative evidence is being used to provide some pointers.
Reasoner.
Quote:
The sun is beautiful. All evidence provided is purely opinion based, so all logic is opinion based regarding this.
Wrong. Beauty is very much a man- made relative consensus - rather like morality, though there are some basic evolved emotions which are common to humanity. Evidences of the sort atheists rely on are not subjective but have been demonstrated to the best verification science can devise. Anything it can't test must remain rather speculative. We have to be agnostic about that and that logically means that you don't regard it as evidentially based, proven or a physical law until it is (e.g string theory and dark matter - as yet). That is why belief in a god of any kind is not logical. You still seem to be confused as regards what logic can usefully be applied to and what it can't.

Arq
Quote:
In the case of theism or atheism, where religions and personal gods are concerned, there is evidence. The Holy books don't stack up. The miracles don't seem persuasive. The personal experiences look more in the mind than something outside. To not base opinion on that is imply ignoring valid information.
Reasoner.
Quote:
thought I don't believe it, the bible is supposedly the teachings of god that man was told to write. You can't prove this false, you can prove that man wrote the bible and it was changed and adapted over time, but you can't prove that god didn't. Tell them to write it. One thing you can do is point out how the bible steals religious stories and beliefs from other religions, but you can't prove that god told them to compile a book of his various teaching from other religions. Maybe god was tired of people following only one or two of his teachings. I don't believe this, but I can't prove it wrong.
This is where we apply logic. Logic says that, if a book is full of pronouncements and claims that can be demonstrated to be very doubtful it is logical to doubt the overall claims of the book. Your argument is just another example of holding up an evidentially unsupported claim simply because it cannot be utterly disproved. The Bible is not only not the word of God, it is evidentially polemic, often false and frequently self - contradictory. Logic says that if it looks man made, mistaken and dubious it is reasonable to take as the most believable theory that it is man - made, mistaken and dubious. It is illogical (in respect of William of Occam's razor, specifically) to argue that there could be some mysterious divinity behind it all who is apparently content that He should inspire a book which looks man -made, mistaken and dubious. That is as illogical as the argument that God made fossils to test our faith in a Young Earth. That is why atheists use logic. That is why your argument is not logical.

Arq
Quote:
With the more abstract god - concepts, we don't have much data and I get your idea of a-logical rather illogical. The result of that is to say that we don't know either way but there is no good reason to think that it matters very much unless it affects us here - and then we are back again into the earth - based evidence (and negative evidence) ignoring or denying of which is illogical, or unlogical, not a-logical.
Reasoner.
Quote:
If we do come to discover there is a God, then yes I agree.
That seems to imply that, if we don't discover that there is a God (perhaps you mean a 'god') then you don't agree. Why would you not agree that a god that doesn't affect us here (according to any sound evidence - including negative evidence) doesn't matter to us very much? Or wasn't that what you meant?

Arq
Quote:
"I feel sorry for anyone who is so set in their ways that they deny the possibility that they could be wrong." I agree. That is why I feel a bit sorry for those who firmly and trenchantly believe particular faith - based opinions where there is either no knowledge either way or the data really does not support it. And that's why I, as an atheist, try to apply logical assessment to what I am willing to give credence - always with a mind open to some new views and information.
Reasoner.
Quote:
If there is evidence that does not support it, then yes it would be illogical to believe it.
Excellent. Then it is down to we unbelievers to give good reason to accept that the god - claims of the various holy books do not stack up. I see the burden of proof is on us there because the Holy Books exist. If the holy Books can be demonstrated doubtful then the religions based on them are as untenable as old scientific theories without any evidential support. I believe this can be done now even more strongly than just a decade ago. That still leaves a sorta god of all religions or none. The line between that and the unthinking forces of physics is very blurred indeed and while I have to declare myself agnostic about what and how, I have logically to refuse the label 'god' being applied to it.

Why not? I argued this with Boxcar and my line is that matter and physics are known. Given that matter itself looks damn' near an illusion, the effects and laws that operate it are repeatable and predictable (reality) and there is no evidence (valid negative evidence) that there is any intelligence behind it or necessary for there to be one (ID has been shown invalid science and doubtful logic) Thus materialist 'nature' is a given and 'god' has no sound supportive evidence. Thus I remain an unbelieving agnostic about 'god'.

We get here to the basic of why we should take Scientifically verified information and the rules of logic as the best option. I have argued before that the alternative - to believe everything that cannot be disproved (unfeasible) or believe just selected unprovables (illogical) - are not reasonable options. As soon as one starts to argue or reason about what to believe and what not to, then you are using evidence and reason. For the love of mike, let's use the proper methods.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-23-2011 at 07:43 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 07:18 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 4,261,361 times
Reputation: 2955
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
You can expects someones actions by his words
You can imagine what you want. You neither know me, nor the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
There you go ... You just proved what I said
Not at all. My comment was about Islam NOW and I stand by it. Your comment is about what I will think about Islam in the future, no matter what is ever said or done. Totally different.

For example I can say NOW that your ability to use English is terrible. This is true. You English is simply awful and much of it not readable. If you improve it however I will not say the same thing in the future. If you do not improve it I will.

What I say about Islam in the future will depend on what, if anything, is done to improve it. So you simply can not know what I will be saying, or not, in the future. So stop making things up that you do not know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Please concentrate...
Concentration is not the problem, your use of English is. You posted a pointless trolling picture of lemon juice and then asked me for examples. Examples of what? You were not clear.

NOW you tell me you want examples of where you make up facts. I already gave one: Where you claimed that moving the earth a centemetre would either freeze it or melt it. You simply made this up. It is however not true.

Another one was where you claimed Earth was the only planet with Oxygen. You simply made this up. It is not true. In that thread I named two others.

Here you claim to know me and the future by pretending to know what I will be saying in the future and that what I say will not change no matter what evidence is presented, arguments made, or changes implemented.

How many examples do you want? There is 3. You simply make things up that are not true to suit your position... and then come on a thread like this pretending you are "logical".

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
You sure hate lemon juice ..
See what I mean about trolling? You are simply and deliberately engaging in throwing out pointless comments in order to try and illicit an emotional and angry response in other users. Alas it will not work on me. Trolling never does and derailing a thread in this fashion says more about you than me.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top