Miburo

Sure. Yeah, it's like believing 2+2=5. But as long as they use 2+2=4 while operating in society, then it's all good.

Is that always going to happen, realistically? Nah, but it doesn't matter so long as people ignore or dismiss religion based arguments when that shit crops up. Because, honestly, we're not going to get people to stop being religious. As seen above, a lot of them aren't exactly the type that can be reasoned with using logic. It's like trying to persuade people to stop being stupid in general: Not going to happen.

We're moving in the right direction though. Recently, shit like Intelligent Design has been rejected, hard, almost everywhere. It is frustrating seeing religion being brought up in things like elections, and even more so seeing that shit like that actually influences the outcome. But that's more so a flaw in democracy than anything else, really. We've got to expect that kind of stupidity when we allow the general public to make decisions about things that most of them are completely clueless on.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily support this shit. It's just that it does bring people happiness, comfort, meaning, etc. So as long as they realize that these beliefs should be strictly personal, since not everyone subscribes to them, then there wouldn't be any reason to try and take away that happiness, comfort, etc.




@Veggiegirl101-Oh, see, I thought you were trying to make some sort of argument there. You know, since this is the debate section and all. Didn't realize you were just talking about how awesome you think Jesus is.

I think Big Boss from the Metal Gear series is totally awesome too. Seems the two have a lot in common. ^^b

Trey

Uh, no. No matter how hard you believe two plus two equals five, it won't come true. You've read too much Nineteen Eighty-Four. At least when I believe in a higher power, some one just can't come along and say "no." They can't disprove him, or give me irrefutable evidence he doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form.

Really, religion isn't as bad as you people make it out to be.

Miburo

Uh, yes? He's using it as an analogy to show how an illogical belief is harmless so long as it is not applied to the rest of the world. While it's true that one cannot disprove the existence of God (or pretty much anything else for that matter), that doesn't mean it's a bit more logical then believing 2+2=5.

Because it can be, and has been, shown that the belief in baseless claims is illogical. Just like it can be shown that the belief that 2+2=5 is illogical. They're both illogical. It's a fitting analogy.

There isn't a scale of logicalness or anything. Shit is either logical or it isn't.

Trey

Yeah, okay, but two plus two is proven to not be five. So you're believing in something that is proven wrong. The difference between belief in a god and belief in a wrong mathematical function is that the god is not proven wrong.

Miburo

If wrong=illogical, then the belief in god can be proven wrong.

If you're saying wrong=proving that he definitely, positively doesn't exist, then that's just stupid. If I said completely disprove the existence of neon green dogs with wings that can breath fire (or anything else I can make up) you wouldn't be able to do it. That's just the nature of crazy, made up shit. That's why when dealing with a claim we shouldn't accept it without proof backing it up.

They're just different things entirely, so we show they're illogical using different methods. That doesn't make one any less illogical than the other though. So you were incorrect in your statement that we were making religion look worse than it is. It's exactly as bad as we were making it out to be. Which isn't that bad, we're just saying it's illogical. ; )

Mashed Potato

All claims are logical, but some are more logical than others. : D

(Here's to hoping you've read Animal Farm, or else I'm going to come off as a total twat.)

Also, that analogy isn't completely fitting, as 2+2=5 can be disproven (I don't want to go into how it is disproven, because honestly that's something I want to know as well; we'd have to delve into the veracity of supposed facts and truth and that's another ballpark I cbf entering. Let's just say it's self-evident) but a belief in a deity, no matter how illogical, cannot be absolutely denied. Something can be illogical as well as true. >_<

I can see how that analogy may be adequate in accordance to a strong atheist's perception.

__________________

&hearts;

Miles T

You seem to have missed my point here: both stating that 2+2=5 and that religions are correct are invariably done without showing a reasonable degree of evidence. While my analogy may not be perfect, it serves its purpose. Showing that 2+2=5 and championing the claims of religion are extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence that is invariably lacking. We cannot absolutely disprove any proposition, but we can sometimes show that they are not only unsupported, but also logically or mathematically impossible or only vanishingly likely.

Orwell’s ‘1984’ actually attempts to point out the folly of thinking that belief constitutes knowledge, contrary to what your cheap shot suggests. If you are going to name drop, at least try to get your facts straight.

Considering that you have not even provided a definition for ‘him’, that statement does not hold much weight. And of course…that a claim is not disprovable does not necessarily make it correct nor necessarily even remotely likely.

That the number of innocent people subjugated due to religion goes not only into the hundreds of millions, but probably even into the billions flies in the face of this statement of yours. Just think about the scale of that for a moment. Hundreds of millions of innocent people! When you realise the extent of all the atrocities that have occurred in religion’s name, perhaps you will reconsider your position.

Trey

Mashed just said we were both wrong and right at the same time. Also, Animal Farm was written by the same dewd who wrote Nineteen Eighty Four. I'm sure he used similar principles in both novels.

@Mibs--Sure, okay, whatever. But looking at someone who legitamately that 2+2 = 5, one would assume he's more illogical than one who just believes in god, or magical fairy green dogs.

Miburo

I actually haven't read Animal Farm. ; )

It's fitting in the context it was presented in, is what I'm saying.

Like I said, they are different things. So you'll show they're illogical using different methods. They're definitely both illogical though, which was what the argument was based on.

Now, if we're saying which is more stupid to believe, then I dunno. If someone believed in an invisible talking magic banana-split and based their entire life around what the magic dessert commanded and someone else believed that 2+2=5, I wouldn't be able to choose who was being more illogical to tell the truth. I'd just say they're both being illogical, know what I mean? =p

Trey

Okay.

I do have my facts straight, I've read the book. I was only making a passing comment of that one scene in the book.

I'm not, nor ever, tried to prove that God, or any variation of him, exists. It's possible he doesn't, and the only harm that comes out of me believing in him is that if I'm wrong, I just stop existing.

Now, look. People will do things in the name of their Lord. It is a way to control the masses to produce a desired effect. However, people swayed like that on a grand scale were weak minded or easily influenced anyways. The way I was brought up was quite different from those hardcore evangelical and covenanted Christians. So, trying to say all people who believe in god or the idea of one are illogical is a bit extreme. Trying to "show us the light" will do nothing. Minds far greater than yours or mines entertain the thought of a higher being. It's not so wrong to have faith, is what I'm saying.



I know the ramifications, Miles. But if you honestly think those hundreds of millions of people would go on Crusades, or burn crosses, or cause genocide to another religious group, is a bit farfetched. Those were the atrocities you were alluding to, right?

Mashed Potato

Yep, just pointing out the slight variation between the two comparative objects in the analogy. But as long as that doesn't negatively affect the veracity of your argument, then carry on by all means : o

No wait, I retract my previous statement. I looked this up;

Alogical:
being outside the bounds of that to which logic can apply

Illogical:
devoid of logic

In which category does a "belief in diety" fit in? Is it alogical or illogical?

Isn't Orwell just a dreamboat n__n

__________________

&hearts;

Trey

Yes, I quite enjoyed his prose. It actually had an impact on my writing style.

Miles T

Comrade Napoleon is always right...

It is 'proven' using mathematics, which is the best system we have for uncovering truth and as good as perfect for many intents and purposes. It is true that showing something to be mathematically correct carries more weight than showing something to be very unlikely in general, but the former is but a special case of the latter. In both cases, the justification for the holding of both positions is invariably irrational and the propositions themselves are both very unlikely, which is what my point was.

Really? Something can defy deductive logic and still be true? Care to explain?
(Edit: Never mind...I think.)

The propositions themselves may differ in terms of whether one is logically possible or not, but whether or not someone is being illogical to claim it is a different matter. There is always the very small chance that they have managed to find a way to show that the system we currently call 'deductive logic' is incorrect using logical methods. However, due to the improbability of both propositions, one probably would assume that both claimants hold their positions irrationally.

Miburo

I would guess since I'm applying logic to the concept of God, it isn't something in which logic cannot be applied. Right?

And the belief in God is also devoid of logic since there's nothing to support the belief.

So the term 'illogical' works for me. XD

Miles T

Well you see, you put forward the following:

Which suggests that you were telling me that I took Orwell's message too much to heart. However, Orwell's message was what you were trying to put forth yourself, and I agree that bare assertion does not constitute knowledge. Thus, I agree with Orwell's message (that bare assertion does not constitute knowledge was [at least] pretty much one of Orwell's messages) and your suggestion to the contrary is wrong. Perhaps you misinterpreted my position or you intended to put forward something along the lines of, 'You give too much credence to the propaganda described in Nineteen Eighty-Four.'


I did not say that you had the wrong idea about the burden of proof. I did, however, wish to ensure that my position on it was clear.

It is illogical to believe in God because belief is illogical: it does not adhere to deductive logic. The 'idea' of God itself is not contrafactual.

I never used that phrase. I can hope that my arguments are sound and will lead you to acknowledge the shortcomings of your own positions, but I will not assert that which I cannot support--as 'divine truth' or otherwise.

You do not know enough of me to judge how 'great' my mind is. Appealing to authorities' support to try and show something to be true is a recognised fallacy. Besides, you seem to have chosen to use the word 'greater' when better choices would have been along the lines of 'better', 'more powerful', 'more perspicacious' and so on.

Using faith as a tool to derive knowledge can lead to an infinite number of externally contradictory (i.e., logically incorrect) and internally contradictory conclusions. Faith is bare assertion. Thus, faith is not a valid tool to derive knowledge, and using it as a tool to influence others is indeed what I would call 'wrong'. You said that that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth. However, assuming faith as a valid informative tool results in contradictory conclusions, such as that 2+2 equals four, five, six seven and any other value.

Faith is something that has very successfully allowed fools to justify their atrocities.

Not only were those not the atrocities I had at the forefront of my mind, but you also seem to have missed my point. My point was not that hundreds of millions of people would subjugate others. My point was that hundreds of millions--if not billions--have been subjugated at religions' behest. As a correction to what I think I may have poorly formulated: religion itself--as a concept--does not decree these subjugations. However, religions have. It is a fine distinction, but an important one.

In my usage, 'belief' refers to holding a position one holds due to faith. Thus, in my usage, belief in a deity is illogical by definition. Whether or not thinking a deity exists is necessarily illogical and whether or not demonstrating that assertion is within the scope of logic may depend on one's definition of 'deity'. Lots of discussion of 'God' takes place without any parties neither having a valid definition of 'God' nor realising that they lack a valid definition. Without a valid definition, the only rational stance is agnosticism.

That said, it is unclear what it means for something to be 'outside the scope of logic'. Does it mean that no facts are present from which logical conclusions can be made? Does it mean something else entirely?