Religious people aren't built for logical debate.

[universaldistress]

I propose -not 100% decided on- that when people mix religious ideas with logic, science, factual debate they fudge up the whole experience for everyone else. And further, the majority of illogical thought that people proffer, when questioned, will expose religious thought bubbling away underneath.

Should religious people feel guilty, or does it keep the scientists needfully on their toes?

 

[GeoffP]

Well, I don't think anyone should feel guilty, so long as they're sufficiently benign in outlook.

But the religious have as much right to logic as anyone else.

 

[universaldistress]

Do they have a right to fudge it up with illogic?

 

[GeoffP]

Nope.

 

[universaldistress]

Freedom of speech?

 

[GeoffP]

Freedom of speech covers dumb?

Well, I guess so. But in the private sphere, there's no reason to protect illogic.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Let us look at a doctor that is a religious person. They don't bring their religion into the operating room with them when they operate on a man who committed murder and is serving a life sentence for it. They only are going to try and do what they can to save the man during the operation, not bringing in their religion when doing so. They also learned about their practice at a college that wasn't religious as well but only visited their respected church when they could to keep up with their church.

 

[lightgigantic]

I propose -not 100% decided on- that when people mix religious ideas with logic, science, factual debate they fudge up the whole experience for everyone else. And further, the majority of illogical thought that people proffer, when questioned, will expose religious thought bubbling away underneath.

Should religious people feel guilty, or does it keep the scientists needfully on their toes?

since well over 60% of all key figures within the various branches of philosophy allude to the transcendental/god, I think you've fudged something up in your pursuit of so-called logical, scientific, factual debate.

 

[jmpet]

I propose -not 100% decided on- that when people mix religious ideas with logic, science, factual debate they fudge up the whole experience for everyone else. And further, the majority of illogical thought that people proffer, when questioned, will expose religious thought bubbling away underneath.

Should religious people feel guilty, or does it keep the scientists needfully on their toes?

I can debate you religously, but then again my personal religion is not based on dogma. I think that's where your conflict is.

 

[NMSquirrel]

the logic of religion is not based on science,science keeps trying to corner religion into answering questions based on sciences logic..it doesn't work..

there is a logic when it comes to religion, but it is a belief based logic..IE if God is like this, then he won't do that..

to give some sort of validity to my claim see my conversations with CHI..he accepted my logic when it comes to god..because he understood God the way i do..

 

[Rav]

since well over 60% of all key figures within the various branches of philosophy allude to the transcendental/god, I think you've fudged something up in your pursuit of so-called logical, scientific, factual debate.

Statistics? You should know better.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2009/12/what_philosophe.html

My statistics kick your statistics's [sic] arse (yes, "arse" - I'm Australian).

"Seventy-three percent of the philosophers surveyed said they accepted or leaned towards atheism, while only 15 percent accepted or leaned toward the idea of God."

 

[universaldistress]

Let us look at a doctor that is a religious person. They don't bring their religion into the operating room with them when they operate on a man who committed murder and is serving a life sentence for it. They only are going to try and do what they can to save the man during the operation, not bringing in their religion when doing so. They also learned about their practice at a college that wasn't religious as well but only visited their respected church when they could to keep up with their church.

That is fine, but I suspect said doctor fosters illogical thought, like believing in a maybe?

 

[universaldistress]

since well over 60% of all key figures within the various branches of philosophy allude to the transcendental/god, I think you've fudged something up in your pursuit of so-called logical, scientific, factual debate.

Philosophy is the pursuit of any maybe. Maybes can be expored with logic, but they are still maybes?

 

[universaldistress]

I can debate you religously, but then again my personal religion is not based on dogma. I think that's where your conflict is.

I see your point and almost buy it but, religion is a set of "beliefs" reliant on maybes. For one to believe doesn't one need more?

 

[universaldistress]

the logic of religion is not based on science,science keeps trying to corner religion into answering questions based on sciences logic..it doesn't work..

there is a logic when it comes to religion, but it is a belief based logic..IE if God is like this, then he won't do that..

to give some sort of validity to my claim see my conversations with CHI..he accepted my logic when it comes to god..because he understood God the way i do..

"log·ic
   /ˈlɒdʒɪk/ Show Spelled[loj-ik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "

Ok, any area of study can purport its own logic, but I was kind of assuming meaning 1.

I would say that the logic of religion isn't logical under meaning 1. But this is just terminology.

Logic (as in meaning 1) is assailed by people who half follow it except when their religion (personal or otherwise) is threatened/enforced? I hold no firm beliefs as such. I have theories, and entertain other peoples ideas, but do not fix down myself. I do not wish to be picked off, or pick off anyone else. I feel religious people of all creeds would do well to ponder on this.

 

[universaldistress]

Statistics? You should know better.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2009/12/what_philosophe.html

My statistics kick your statistics's [sic] arse (yes, "arse" - I'm Australian).

"Seventy-three percent of the philosophers surveyed said they accepted or leaned towards atheism, while only 15 percent accepted or leaned toward the idea of God."

You have cited your source so we will have to go with your's I feel, though is the stat relevant to the debate?

 

[Yazata]

I propose -not 100% decided on- that when people mix religious ideas with logic, science, factual debate they fudge up the whole experience for everyone else.

It depends on what the topic of conversation is. If people are discussing automobile mechanics, then introducing religious ideas would generally be inappropriate and detract from the subject at hand.

But on a board labeled 'religion' in a hierarchy called 'philosophy' on a board called 'Sciforums', I'd assume that the original intention was to host intelligent and informed conversation about the philosophy of religion.

And further, the majority of illogical thought that people proffer, when questioned, will expose religious thought bubbling away underneath.

That's almost certainly false. It might be more accurate to say that much of the religion discussion on Sciforums, and on pretty much every forum where participation isn't restricted to people with educations in the subject, often generates more heat than light.

It's a laypeople's board. That's both a good thing and a bad thing. On one hand it gives people exposure to philosophizing and experience in generating and defending their ideas in a non-threatening atmosphere. That's tremendously valuable. But on the other hand, it's often those least adroit at argument who are loudest and display the most attitude in threads. That happens on internet discussion boards on every subject, it isn't unique to religion by any means. But religion is a subject that many people feel very strongly about, pro and con, and a subject about which everyone has views and thinks that they're an expert.

Should religious people feel guilty, or does it keep the scientists needfully on their toes?

It works both ways.

Atheists are occasionally so contemptuous and dismissive of "religion" that they believe that there's nothing to it that deserves any serious study. As a result, their understanding of the breadth and depth of human religiosity consists of little more than a caricature, perhaps accompanied by some insufferable attitude.

 

[universaldistress]

It depends on what the topic of conversation is. If people are discussing automobile mechanics, then introducing religious ideas would generally be inappropriate and detract from the subject at hand.

Ok, I'm listening.

But on a board labeled 'religion' in a hierarchy called 'philosophy' on a board called 'Sciforums', I'd assume that the original intention was to host intelligent and informed conversation about the philosophy of religion.

I don't believe this thread moves away from the essence of this board? I believe it is relevant. Furthermore I feel there is no stipulation limiting discussion to the philosophy of religion? Any thread that quests within a religion related topic is justified?

That's almost certainly false. It might be more accurate to say that much of the religion discussion on Sciforums, and on pretty much every forum where participation isn't restricted to people with educations in the subject, often generates more heat than light.

Almost certainly? I did say majority, and I only proposed, I made no claims. Without a stat (that would be hard nigh impossible to acquire) this one is down to logic I think. . .

It's a laypeople's board. That's both a good thing and a bad thing. On one hand it gives people exposure to philosophizing and experience in generating and defending their ideas in a non-threatening atmosphere. That's tremendously valuable. But on the other hand, it's often those least adroit at argument who are loudest and display the most attitude in threads. That happens on internet discussion boards on every subject, it isn't unique to religion by any means. But religion is a subject that many people feel very strongly about, pro and con, and a subject about which everyone has views and thinks that they're an expert.

I agree. I always choose my word carefully, and follow what I like to think of as universal logic, though I admit it is almost certainly deeply personal (life is interesting).

It works both ways.

I agree, it isn't black and white, nor am I. Just thought it would make a good thread.

Atheists are occasionally so contemptuous and dismissive of "religion" that they believe that there's nothing to it that deserves any serious study. As a result, their understanding of the breadth and depth of human religiosity consists of little more than a caricature, perhaps accompanied by some insufferable attitude.

Oh yes, I think I like you. Don't just sit on the fence but build a jeep to move around in, no fixed abode. Great stuff (no sarcasm).

Do you hold any meaningful affiliations dear, in a theological sense?

 

[Saquist]

I propose -not 100% decided on- that when people mix religious ideas with logic, science, factual debate they fudge up the whole experience for everyone else. And further, the majority of illogical thought that people proffer, when questioned, will expose religious thought bubbling away underneath.

Should religious people feel guilty, or does it keep the scientists needfully on their toes?

The reality is when ever you mix your desires with logic it fouls up a debate.
Science is guilt to justifying itself with infinite theories and religion is guilt is often guilty of ignoring what has been discovered.

What is science?
Science is study/observation and analysis but it does not always lead to the right conclusion. So studying something can lead to an nonobjective conclusion. In other words, Science isn't necessarily logic.

 

[wynn]

I see your point and almost buy it but, religion is a set of "beliefs" reliant on maybes.

How do you know that??