The belief in God is Unreasonable

[VAKEMP]

Catholicism is a sect within Christianity.

Yeah yeah. And Christianity is a sect within Judaism. Again, my point was that there are so many interpretations of the Bible, yet they all believe in the same God. Christianity sees Jesus as a god, Judaism doesn't. They both read the Old Testament.

If you say to me, "I believe in a god that is all-loving." I will start arguing points.

..because my view would be entirely subjective. That is another reason why there are so many different religions (or sects within Christianity, as you would put it). Everyone tends to follow that which they believe in. If a little girl likes kittens and hates dogs, there is a high probability that she won't join a religion that sacrifices kittens to the dog god.

 

[Phaedrus]

And what are you even arguing for now? Well, if you wanted a quick comeback you should have thought beforehand.

Let us try this. The Catholic Church is the oldest christian sect that still practices. Study history, the Catholic church is the oldest one, protestantism came from Catholicism. If you want to learn more, just read up on a thing we call the reformation. Look at the name. Protestantism, look anything like protest? I wonder why, oh yea, it was meant as "to protest" the catholic church. Unless you are claiming that protestantism is not christian either then your logic does not make since, since protestantism came from catholicism.. hrm.......Give me a logical statement why Catholicism is not christian. They worship Jesus as their god. Christians. hrm....

- Phaedrus

 

[VAKEMP]

BTW, if you find it hard to believe in a god, then that's up to you. It seems you are out to ruin other people's beliefs.

And just to shut you up:

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe in a god.

However, I am agnostic.

Religion doesn't make sense to me. But then again, it's all subjective. My opinion is my opinion. Until someone can either prove of disprove the existence of a god, neither side can be proven right nor wrong (until death, that is )

 

[fadingCaptain]

I'll be brief:

The belief in god is reasonable but wrong.

Why is it reasonable?
a. It can make life easier.
b. It answers alot of tough questions in one quick stroke.
c. Most everyone else believes, why not?
d. Old books explain god.
e. Some say they feel god and even talk to him sometimes.

Why is it wrong?
Because its illogical.

 

[Phaedrus]

I am out to hurt any illogical belief, sure. Ignorance is not tolerable. I do not know why a person should just stand by and watch it. Try your best to help, and if nothing can be done do not try anymore.

I am agnostic. And again, I do not think it is unreasonable to believe in a god. I however think certain conceptions of god are unreasonable.

So, if you want to debate, find a point. If you want to just lick your wounds and try to strike back with ugly words, go ahead, but I will not waste anymore of my time on it. I joined this to debate, not to get into personal arguments.

- Phaedrus

 

[VAKEMP]

OMFG

You are the atheist form of whatsupyall.

The Catholic Church is the oldest christian sect that still practices. Study history, the Catholic church is the oldest one, protestantism came from Catholicism. If you want to learn more, just read up on a thing we call the reformation. Look at the name. Protestantism, look anything like protest?

No kidding? Wow, thanks for clearing that up, pal!

So, my point was that out of one book, mant different beliefs arose. That is, they all read the Bible, but interpret it differently. One believes in baptism as a child, another may believe that only an adult can decide to be baptized. But, they all follow the same word...just interpret it differently.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. I'm glad you learned something today in 7th grade. Good for you!

 

[VAKEMP]

fadingCaptain,
In a brief post, you got to the heart of what I was trying to say.

It is reasonable, but it doesn't mean it's logical.

Thanks.

 

[VAKEMP]

I am out to hurt any illogical belief, sure. Ignorance is not tolerable.

I hope you do not plan to run for office anytime soon...

 

[Phaedrus]

fadingcap, I do not think that you are using the correct meaning of reasonable.

Used in the situation we are currently having fun in:
Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking

now, let us define reason (within our current context).
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence

So if you say that it is reasonable but not logical, then you are making a contradiction. Reason requires logic. So using the definitions I do not think that reasoning or logic works (yea I used them for fun). Maybe you were thinking more along the lines of meaningful. I will agree though that at the surface, a God is logical.

Tell me what you think.

Vake - I will say it again, I am agnostic not atheist. I was only debating the point that Catholicism is christian. You said otherwise. I was never debating that there are many beliefs came from one book, anyway there would be no need to say that. I believe that everyone (at least most) on this board is educated enough to recognize this. So before you attack next time, please look at what points I am debating first.
- Phaedrus

 

[CounslerCoffee]

Why is it wrong?
Because its illogical.

Who are you to say that its wrong? Who am I to say that its right? Its not illogical. If your going by the bible then no wonder you think its illogical. I think il be the first theist to admit that the bible is full of holes and contradicts itself. Just dont go by the bible, if you do your head will explode and youll have the brain of a 3 year old.

Try to find the truth. Not the truth in a 2,000 year old book.

Science can be illogical to. Hello radiation. Hello DDT. Hello birth defects.

Man: "Hey doctor Ive been coughin up blood recently. I think it might be the fact that I smoke 7,000 times a day."

Doctor: "Smoking never hurt anyone."

Id rather trust God then a scientist.

-CounslerCoffee

 

[fadingCaptain]

Hmmm. I hate language.

I may be wrong here but I see reasonable and logical being two slightly different things.

Of course, it all depends on the definitions you choose. Here is how I was seeing 'reasonable':
-Being within the bounds of common sense

So, I saw the belief in god as being something that could very well make common sense. But would ultimately fail when the rules of logic are applied.

Anyway, I see your view and it is valid. Reasonable can also mean logical. Words are fuzzy.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Who are you to say that its wrong?

Of course this is just my opinion...though I am one of wisest persons to ever walk the earth.

Its not illogical.

But is it logical?

Science can be illogical to. Hello radiation. Hello DDT. Hello birth defects.

I'd say this stuff is quite logical.

Id rather trust God then a scientist.

My trust must be earned on an individual basis.

Ahhh. I need to hit the sack. Or drink more coffee.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Phaedrus
There was a bit of misunderstanding in my posts.

I don't think I misunderstood. I wasn't claiming you were backing my argument, I was saying " I believe the two statements to be equivalent " regardless of your intent to agree. I was "drawing a strong correlation between them". I might have stated that more clearly. Pardon.

While I don't agree with your assertion that "god" is a reasonable assumption, I respect the fact that you actually skillfully employ logic to attempt to make your point.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Most of the arguments against a divinity argue its characteristics, not the existence of a god itself.

that's kind of superfluous. the issue is the title of the thread. so how about this, this isn't most of the time?

Additionally, I'm not saying that god does not exist. I'm saying the to believe that he does is unreasonable. You may THINK that he does, and while not being unreasonable, it might be irrational. One should believe the absolute truth which is as follows: No one knows if god exists. Simple. True. Accept it... it's healthier. I wish it weren't true mind you, but it is.

Originally posted by Phaedrus


I will give an example and I want people to argue against this conception of a "god" or as I will call it "gawd."

My Gawd:
(1) It does not care about human-kind
(2) It did not create us
(3) While it is not powerful, it is semi-powerful (like mini-me, 1/8th all-powerful)

does that make you a pagan? hehe.. read the definition of god from the dictionary.

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b

the god you describe is more similar to "thor" or "Athena" or a god from some other pre-christian theology.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Now, it is very hard to argue against this type of conception of god. I would like people to try. I want logical arguments, not statements from belief. This should show you that most arguments are directed at certain conceptions and beliefs about god, not about the existence of a higher being in itself.

- Phaedrus

No, it's easy to argue against it once you see that the conception is flawed in its inspiration. I do believe my last comment technically negates your conclusion above... correct? If I'm wrong I apologize but uh.. well, please manage to convince me. I mean, you're trying to use an incorrect definition to wiggle out of defending your position. Really your definition of god is not the god in question but equally as unreasonable to believe in. That' s a good trick but I see through it. You try more now. Hehe.

Neither can be proved nor disproved via logic or reason without more evidence than any human has apparently been able to produce. What argument is more correct than that? That is the only argument that is provable.

uhm.. booya.

yeah.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
I'll be brief:

The belief in god is reasonable but wrong.

Why is it reasonable?
a. It can make life easier.
b. It answers alot of tough questions in one quick stroke.
c. Most everyone else believes, why not?
d. Old books explain god.
e. Some say they feel god and even talk to him sometimes.

Why is it wrong?
Because its illogical.

That is the best argument yet. However, I maintain that something so obviously illogical is unreasonable (the more fundamental the claim, the more solid the proof must be). But without that assertion I have to admit that your reasoning is more correct. It does trump the entire point if you don't think that an obviously illogical point is unreasonable. Hehe, I might argue about that though. It doesn't seem like a reasonable being should avoid the obvious illogic to it, especially given the absolute truth that the answer is as of yet unknown and with all likelihood is unknowable.

 

[CounslerCoffee]

But is it logical?

It can be. It all depends on how you take it. If I say that God is here around us all the time and does miracles 5 times a day then thats illogical. God doesnt do miracles, he can make certain things happen but I wouldnt call them miracles. A logical person would say "Freak Occurence" (Cue the pulp fiction music)

Science can be quite illogical. If an atheist does not admit that then they are not logical.

 

[VAKEMP]

Pheadrus,

before you attack next time, please look at what points I am debating first.

Fair enough.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Science can be quite illogical. If an atheist does not admit that then they are not logical.

When is science ever illogical?

~Raithere

 

[Jenyar]

Logic fallacy

Logic and reason has their uses. But my experience is that they are great tools, but unfortunately the universe doesn't run on it. Have you ever seen a child behave logically? You might be able to explain a few things logically, but that doesn't change the child's behaviour. Watch a few Star Trek episodes with Vulcans in them - they explore the merits of logic beautifully.

For example, you can argue whether suicide is a logical way out of unbearable circumstances. It's only logical if it's the only conclusion that can be come to. But is it a reaonable conclusion? Depends on your frame of reference... what does "unbearable" mean to you? Does "suicide" just mean death, or maybe Hara Kiri, or Holy Sacrifice?

Like Xev said: it's better not to be born than to live this life. That's logical if you consider everything that can happen to you in life - things over which you have no control. It might even have been reasonable if you had the choice and the knowledge at birth. If you didn't have parents who fed you. Or a future. You only lose your future when you have nothing to live for. Religion might give that - but if you practice religion for the sake of religion, you will soon become disappointed and even more disillusioned. Religion is a way in, not a way out. A way into wisdom; there is space for reason and logic, but it is not subjected to it, does not depend on it. Science is subjected to reason and logic, and should be.

The Greeks were also great with reason and logic. Socrates and Plato had already done their thing when Jesus arrived. The Jews followed the Old Testament and its strict moral laws and codes of behaviour...

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:22
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom...
1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You would say that everything should be subjected to reason and logic. Why? Haven't we progressed since the ancient Greeks? How does a tree grow, logically? What reason does flies and mosquitos have for existing? Reasonably and logically, we shouldn't even exist. And yet we do. A logical argument depends on the premises you base you reasoning, and the hypothesis you follow. It is contained therein and cannot escape that framework.

*edit*
Belief in God is not unreasonable. I believe in God's existence and his love as a premise. I believe in a God who has been revealing His will over thousands of years, first heard, then memorised, then written down in the Bible. My thoughts affirm the history described in the Bible through the Holy Spirit, and it gives me hope. You can't argue with hope, and you can't explain it. But you can't deny it's existence.

 

[Phaedrus]

the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b

This is a very flawed definition to apply to all conceptions of god. Sure, it works with many of the western conceptions, but this does not apply to hardly any of the eastern conceptions I know. Yea, my example might sound like a Thor, but are you denying the fact that Thor was a God (in mythology)? In religions there are Gods that have no created the universe and do not "rule" it in the active sense of the word. Also some religions do not belief that their god is perfect or good. So even on the outset, this definition is too flawed to be used. Again, I think the limitation is our language, not the ideas.

Ask any scholar for the definition for a god, it is impossible to define a god that fits with all conceptions. What will happen is that you will either go far to broad (i.e A higher power) which could be many things, or too slim, like your definition. Your definition could not fit many of the Hindu gods, so the definition is flawed itself.

So, I would appreciate it if you would now logically try to refute my "Gawd" example. Why logically it cannot work. Using the rules of logic.

and booya....

- Phaedrus

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Phaedrus
This is a very flawed definition to apply to all conceptions of god. Sure, it works with many of the western conceptions, but this does not apply to hardly any of the eastern conceptions I know. Yea, my example might sound like a Thor, but are you denying the fact that Thor was a God (in mythology)?

No, I do not deny it. It doesn't matter though which we speak of though. Either is the same. Belief in either is unreasonable.
Now, belief that they exist as concepts is quite reasonable. But that is not the issue at hand.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
In religions there are Gods that have no created the universe and do not "rule" it in the active sense of the word. Also some religions do not belief that their god is perfect or good. So even on the outset, this definition is too flawed to be used.

No, it is not. Why do you insist on changing the language? I got that definition from http://www.m-w.com. Online dictionary. I used it as a reference to clue you in on this argument. It perfectly defines what I'm speaking of.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
Again, I think the limitation is our language, not the ideas.

You are correct that language is quite limiting, but how else to do it eh? In this case however I believe I've perfectly qualified what I mean and the language used is quite appropriate.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Ask any scholar for the definition for a god, it is impossible to define a god that fits with all conceptions. What will happen is that you will either go far to broad (i.e A higher power) which could be many things, or too slim, like your definition.

It is NOT my definition. I merely use it. I did not invent english. Talk to meriam webster. However I think they did a really good job of defining it.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Your definition could not fit many of the Hindu gods, so the definition is flawed itself.
Does that matter in terms of the argument at hand? You're avoiding the question to justify your own lies to yourself. It is okay that you can't accept the truth, just be aware that you're lying to yourself.
So, I would appreciate it if you would now logically try to refute my "Gawd" example. Why logically it cannot work. Using the rules of logic.

You are changing the nature of the conversation because you cannot refute the statement that started the thread. Regardless of your definition of god or gawd or whatever the hell the following is more valid logically: The existence of a god (or "Gawd" if you prefer) cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore it is unreasonable (illogical) to believe in god. Address that point specifically if you can.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

and booya....

- Phaedrus

Love the booya but it was really very unwarrented.