The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by LordBalmung18

Literal disability, something i could probably have coasted by the rest of my life on. But that would make only work for me, and i have other people to be concerned with.

I don't want to press farther than I should, but it seems you are dancing around the real question I am asking. Which disability?

And while i could happily quote examples of extranormal and paranormal things i felt ive experienced, it would be pointless. At some points you either have to go look for yourself or stick your thumbs in your ears and pretend its not there.

Well, this is a discussion thread. To me, that implies that everyone should be fully explaining their viewpoint as convincingly as possible. Coming here to simply state your viewpoint without supporting evidence, and then explaining your lack of evidence for "you have to experience it gor yourself" is contrary to the idea of a discussion.

Originally Posted by Swordchucks

I simply find it interesting that atheists often refer to themselves as "enlightened". I'd like for an atheist to explain what makes them any more enlightened than someone who believes in God... because there's an awful lot of wise, intelligent, self-aware people that believe in God for me to think that a 20 year old atheist is enlightened and others are not. In fact, it seems awfully arrogant to me.

Well, first of all, I don't consider myself enlightened in the least. Hell, I consider myself somewhere between atheist and agnostic, so while I believe that there isn't a god, and the universe operates completly by scientific means, I know that I could be wrong, and that there is no way to disprove the existence of a god. I don't consider myself enlightened, but I do think that my viewpoint is right, just like everyone else. Oh, and Archbio did raise a really really good point.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Just reading the introduction of this article might give you a clue. I mean, if you were really looking for an answer, that is, and weren't just itching for a pretext to call people arrogant.

I didn't call anybody arrogant. I said it seemed arrogant to me to if someone said they were enlightened... so I was calling a train of thought without saying anybody here followed that train of thought arrogant. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with me there. I said it also seems arrogant to say that a "theist" is less enlightened than an "atheist", especially since thats very unprovable, highly debatable, and seems to be a red herring fallacy in an attempt to discredit the opposing viewpoint. Atheits believe only rational logic can give answers, and its impossible to come to that conclusion using logic.

Also, your article doesn't say at any point "atheism = enlightenment". It doesn't even say that "theism = unenlightened". It merely says that the Age of Enlightenment is due to the rise of reason and rational thought. Again, I'm sure you wouldn't disagree that there are plenty of rational, reasoning theists out there... In fact, your the list of "enlightened" figures in the article contains quite a few theists.

So really, your article explained nothing.

[ZAKtheGeek]

You've answered it yourself:

Atheits believe only rational logic can give answers

...and, since, as the Wikipedia article points out, the Age of Enlightenment was all about considering things rationally, some atheists think of themselves as "enlightened."

Furthermore...

Atheits believe only rational logic can give answers, and its impossible to come to that conclusion using logic.

What conclusion exactly? The existence of deities isn't a strong falsehood, but in light of a lack of evidence, it is a foolhardy assumption.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

What conclusion exactly? The existence of deities isn't a strong falsehood, but in light of a lack of evidence, it is a foolhardy assumption.

I'll modify my original statement. SOME atheists believe logic and reason are the only way to draw conclusions, but then again so do some theists. The conclusion I refered to is simply that its flawed to say that non-atheists can't be just as enlightened, so don't get hung up on that statement. Look back at that list in that article. A significant number of those people were theists, and it is wholely possible to come to a belief in God via logic as well. As with any logical argument it depends on your premises. If one starts off thinking that the universe could not have come about by itself (which just as plausible as it coming about by itself), one might find themselves more logically inclined to belief in a God. Is that any less rational than coming to the conclusion there is no God? I seriously doubt it. I said atheists believe only in rational thought, yes, but I didn't say theists didn't. I know a couple of Christian guys who could likely own most people on this forum in a debate. The thing is we have rational and irrational theists, and there are rational and irrational atheists. Both might use logic to draw seperate conclusions. And it is interesting to note that only atheists use the term "enlightenment" to describe atheism... because that article doesn't. As I said before, its really just an attempt to discredit opposing viewpoints by implying their own viewpoint is superior in the onset... so I think therefore it is used inaccurately.

I'm perfectly willing to admit there are rational, logical atheists. But there are some atheists who believe it is impossible to be logical and rational yet believe in a God. And to be honest, I think thats not very fair or accurate, and somewhat insulting. Thats all I'm saying.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

What conclusion exactly? The existence of deities isn't a strong falsehood, but in light of a lack of evidence, it is a foolhardy assumption.

I would assert the possibility that it is impossible to conclude that only logic is valid, using logic. You can't use a system of analysis to prove itself. So the conclusion that "only rational logic can give answers" is, by definition not logical. It's not necessarily false, but it's just as much an assumption as is faith.
EDIT: I was ninja'd by the Swordchuck's He said what he means better than I could.

[ZAKtheGeek]

The conclusion I refered to is simply that its flawed to say that non-atheists can't be just as enlightened, so don't get hung up on that statement. Look back at that list in that article. A significant number of those people were theists, and it is wholely possible to come to a belief in God via logic as well. As with any logical argument it depends on your premises.
...
And it is interesting to note that only atheists use the term "enlightenment" to describe atheism... because that article doesn't. As I said before, its really just an attempt to discredit opposing viewpoints by implying their own viewpoint is superior in the onset... so I think therefore it is used inaccurately.

If that's the context you hear it used in, then okay, that makes sense. All you actually wrote at first is that you hear atheists calling themselves enlightened, from which I didn't assume they meant theists were unenlightened or anything like that.

I would assert the possibility that it is impossible to conclude that only logic is valid, using logic. You can't use a system of analysis to prove itself. So the conclusion that "only rational logic can give answers" is, by definition not logical. It's not necessarily false, but it's just as much an assumption as is faith.

Oh, I know. Now it is time to search this thread and quote myself...

Originally Posted by Loki, The Fallen

It can be your belief that science is greater then religion, that logic trumps faith, but how is this different from someone who believes faith trumps logic, which their belief system is greater then your 'scientific' beliefs on how one should live?

Originally Posted by me, transemphasized

That's simple. Logic is the core of mathematics and of science. The only reason we're even communicating with each other is because of people's power for rational assessment. Good or bad, you cannot deny that, objectively, logic works. It's proven itself to work through thousands of years of scientific advancement, through principles and laws logically concluded by man from empirical observations; principles and laws which have been successfully used, and can be successfully used (today! even by you!) to predict the outcomes of various actions given some pieces of prior knowledge.

What I'm saying is that, through logic and observation alone, we've been unraveling the very functions of everything around us, in concrete, mathematical terms, with absolutely proven results. That's what I put my faith in.

[Ryanderman]

That's not being disputed. But the conclusion that only logic is valid is. Logic has been proved to the extent it can be. Which is pretty damn much. But the conclusion that only logic is valid is not logical. That's all. And since the topic's been covered already, I'm not going to debate it any more.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Hm, I see, that's interesting. At the same time, you're using such vague terms that I still don't know exactly what you're talking about...

[Death by Stabbing]

Faith and logic aren't trying to trump each other...they are trying to work together

First of all...Logic is subjective. There for who's to say what's logical...everything is made up.

Second logic and faith can go hand in hand...sure there are some inconcistances in some faith's Dogma...but who the hell cares it's about believing.

Considering what some of the people in this thread who proclaim themselves to be athiests say...apparently love doesn't exist because it's just a feeling. God is also a feeling...but logically there would have to be a higher order to the galaxy...whether he can hear us or not doesn't matter...what matters is that in the world where shit is flying all over the place and there's hardly any cover...we all need to believe

And we all believe in something...

If we can't believe in a higher power or a place for our soul or whatever your religion or personal beliefs are...then what can we believe in?

DBS

[ZAKtheGeek]

Faith and logic aren't trying to trump each other...they are trying to work together

The basis for the whole argument is what happens when they disagree. Some new evidence has us logically deriving one thing, yet old, traditional faith says something totally different. Who do we believe? Historically, logic is the winner, yet the exact sort of problematic intersections continue to occur today.