Do You Have a Thinking Problem?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 00:33
VIEWED: 13256
PAGE 5 of 17
It is not logical to put any trust in a third hand account written 60 years after the event as recorded by some very ignorant people 2000 years ago. It just doesn't make any logical sense.
If Jesus was a one-off, then it might be something worth debating but history is littered with countless people who performed miracles, inspired followers (to this day) and claimed to be divinely connected.
As much fun as it is to rewrite the Bible to fit with what we now know ("the flood skipped the Australian cave paintings because... um... God spared the aborginines as they hadn't heard the message..."), it is another classic example of facts being twisted to fit a theory rather than the theory fitting the facts (something science is often equally guilty of). Before we found out how old the Earth truly was, no preacher would argue that a "day" meant an unspecified period of time.
Perhaps a simpler question: how does religion make logical sense? From what basis can you argue in a purely logical manner that there must be a God?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Um, you do realize the voluminous and hostile response to the concept he expressed indirectly supports the claim, yes ?
Just sayin...
-Frem
The concept as originally expressed was that religion is an inherently illogical thing. Being that I just don't believe that that is so, I'm not simply go to let that go by. And if I want to defend the logicality (if I may) of religious thought, that is going to take somewhat more text than if I simply wanted to say, "nuh unh". I also have worked very hard to remain calm throughout this discussion (note that I've refrained from emotionally-based arguments or ad hominem attacks). So I have a hard time seeing what you're perceiving as "hostile" (although if by hostile you mean a vigorous defense of my position, well then, there are other problems).
And again, being that logic is the main thing that we've been discussing, your argument that my lengthy posts and my supposed hostility support the original proposition that religion is illogical doesn't follow. You seem to be saying, 1) Causal posts long comments, 2) Causal is hostile, therefore 3) Religion is illogical. But that doesn't follow from #1 and #2. As a matter of fact, I believe that if I've been anything in my posts, it's logical, which would rather destroy his original proposition.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Voluminous I see. Hostile? I don't see. And even if it were hostile, I don't see how that indirectly supports Simon's position. You will have to explain this one to me.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Um, you do realize the voluminous and hostile response to the concept he expressed indirectly supports the claim, yes ?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Like I said, there is a big difference between alogical and illogical. Alogical is falling outside the boundaries of logic, and illogical is falling against the principles of logic.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
It is not logical to put any trust in a third hand account written 60 years after the event as recorded by some very ignorant people 2000 years ago. It just doesn't make any logical sense....
Perhaps a simpler question: how does religion make logical sense? From what basis can you argue in a purely logical manner that there must be a God?
The sheer existence of God and many other suppositions in religion are alogical. They fall outside the purvue of logic. This rests on the premise that there exist things logic can know, and there exist things logic can't know.
Most of the arguments I've seen in from the empiricism/rationalism camp come from the following positions: 1. These exists only the physical world. 2. Empiricism and rationalism are adequate for understanding the physical world in its entirety. 3. Empiricism and rationalism can explain ONLY the physical world. 4. Therefore ONLY the physical world exists. 5. Anything that cannot be explained empirically and rationally does not exist.
Well, logically, there are problems with that reasoning. Without getting into all that, let's skip to the end. It comes down to these questions: Do you accept as a premise that empiricism and rationalism are omniscient and all-knowing? Or that there exists only the physical world and nothing else?
But just because some of us answer NO to that question doesn't mean we don't use logic. For things that are alogical, logic doesn't apply. But there still remains PLENTY of ideas for which logic DOES apply, and where applicable, we still use logic to make arguments.
1. Some parts of religion are alogical.
2. Some parts of religion are logical.
3. Where logic applies in religion, some people are logical in their reasoning.
4. Where logic applies in religion, some people are illogical in their reasoning.
All Causal and I are saying is (Causal, forgive me for speaking for you), please don't label us "illogical" simply because we subscribe to a religion. Some of us really value logic (where it applies) and being called "illogical" feels insulting. That's all.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
All Causal and I are saying is...please don't label us "illogical" simply because we subscribe to a religion. Some of us really value logic (where it applies) and being called "illogical" feels insulting. That's all.
Yes! Exactly! Being called illogical is about the most dreadful insult imaginable to a philosopher. To imply that the scientific method is the only kind of "logical" thinking and that a monist worldview is the only "logical" worldview is far too narrow a way to define logic.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Holding a position on Faith alone is not logical, to believe God exists is a belief based solely on faith and not logic. It is not Alogical it is illogical, faith is illogical.
One can both be logical and believe, but religion, although often containing philosophical elements, is not philosophy.
Your argument of scientists also being theists is an interesting one, since it's often said, by these scientists, that they have to compartmentalise their faith and their science, so really it proves the opposite of what you think.
Faith is not logical, it is the very opposite, this is not a bad thing, and by your framing it as such you set off from a false stand point. From your assumption that saying faith is illogical is a denegation of faith you base your argument on a false foundation.
Stop trying to shoe horn faith into a position it does not belong, faith and logic are opposites, and vastly different ways of looking at and understanding the world.
Like good and evil, yin and yang the whole is not complete without each other, but they are still opposites and to say faith is logical, or as you say alogical (assuming that if we had more data faith would be logical, which is practically absurd) is ridiculous.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is not what alogical means. It does not mean NOT YET understood by logic. It means outside the outer boundaries of logic, inherently and by definition.
Originally posted by citizen:
or as you say alogical (assuming that if we had more data faith would be logical, which is practically absurd) is ridiculous.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Believing in something for which there is no evidence is outside the bounds of logic, because it's illogical. Alogical is a polite way of saying illogical.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
That is not what alogical means. It does not mean NOT YET understood by logic. It means outside the outer boundaries of logic, inherently and by definition.
By definitions of both alogical and illogical they are both described as the absence of logic, they're more or less the same thing worded differently.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Was gonna suggest that we Thinkers Anonymous folks should get together and elect a dunb guy President--
"oh, never mind..." we been there , done that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME