Would you consider you religious belief to be logical and true? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
33Opinion
True, yes; logical, no. That's why it's a matter of belief, rather than of fact. Faith and knowledge aren't the same thing.
I don't like any religion but so many people really need a religion because they are so dumb ignorent stupid and have mantel issues that can't be considered normal religion is nothing more than self satisfaction
Logic can be an imperfect scale to judge beliefs. Most times beliefs are built on illogical infrastructures.
Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s a lack of belief in anything at all.
Anyway, I do not think there is logic nor truth in any organized religion.
No religious beliefs are logical or true, pretty much by definition. The only logical thing to do is reject all religions, and I do.
I think all religions are oral fables passed down and told through generations. All of them have stretched reality and credulity, but it does tranquilize or fanatacize the masses!
I’m agnostic, I believe there is a god out. But I don’t what he is. I mean humans become so intelligent and you look at the world around us, but I need to see proof of a god. God might just something that created us and moved on.
I'm close to atheism, still not sure. But I have long departed away from my religion
Ok that what most people are that the don't know but they don't believe in there previous religion because it doesn't make sense.
I used to be a hindu. It has so many barbaric practices, contradictions, incest and staggering logic. But whatever I don't force my opinion on others but it's not my cuppa tea
Atheism isn't a religion. It is the rejection of faith based assumptions, which inherently is more logical than accepting faith based ideas as personal reality.
No sorry to say this but most of the atheist believe in someone that said something so it is a religion
Agreeing with what someone else said doesn't make your opinion a religion...
Ok then give the evidence that a creater doesn't exist
Thats exactly opposite of how the burden of evidence works. If i say x exists, i have to provide evidence for x. I can't say x exists, now you go and proof that it does. That's nonsensical.
I say unicorns exist. Now you go proof that they don't or I'm right... See how dumb that is? Also: The non existence of things generally can't be proven, cause you can always make the claim that things exist outside of our perception. So therefore we do not assume things to exist unless we can proof that they do exist. That's what you do with everything else. Why not do that with god like atheists do? Not real untill proven otherwise.
Besides there's countless evidence for stuff existing without there being a creator. You weren't created were you?
Atheism is not "the claim that god doesn't exist". Atheism is the "denial of the claim that god exists for lack of evidence." Just fyi.
Atheism say that God do not exist so it made the claim so it has to providing evidence otherwise it should be agnostic that you don't know if god exist or not did get that
Christians claimed God exists without evidence. What has been claimed without evidence, can be discussed without evidence. That's what Athesism does. Atheism doesn't say god can not exist. It says the evidence for the god claim is not sufficient. Rejecting a claim is not a claim. J know christians are trying to reverse the burden of evidence and you know why? Cause they have none. They have been failing to provide evidence for over 2000 years. If there was evidence, atheism couldn't exist. But then there w lol would also be no need for faith. So the very fact that it's faith ja proof that there is no evidence. Making atheism justified in rejecting the god claim.
Dismissed** not discussed
If we stay with the unicorn example: i claim unicorns exist. You say:"no they don't". Do you now have the obligation to proof they don't exist?
Look we can simply this discussion a lot. Just tell me: what are the qualifying standards for existence. Tell me. Then we can simply check if we have the same standards and whether or not good exists by those standards.
Simplify*
@genericname85 I hope you dont mind me weighing in here, you dont need the help you are absolutely smashing it but I just wanted to add that it doesn't matter whether or not there was a creator or if things began through some currently not understood process.
Because there currently is no evidence for a God or Gods, so what that means is that even if we were to later on find an entity which had supernatural or suitably impressive abilities and that entity had the initiator / creator, that would still not lend ANY support for any religious idea which preceeded it, none what so ever. All religious claims and ideas are constructions of humans, to claim you know the unknowable, that you have access to the mind of a so far undiscovered entity is not just supremely arrogant, its dangerously delusional.
had been the creator*
@Guffrus i feel like this skips one or 2 classes on ontology that christians or general theists intentionally skip on, cause they have to preserve ignorance to defend their faith.
that's why i don't correct people when they call me an "atheist", cause i'm actually an ignostic secular humanist. meaning whether or god exists or not ultimately doesn't even have any quantifyable consequences on our life either way, so we should derive our values and standards from or own minds capacity. but to even understand that point of view, i assume one has to understand "how things can be known" first.
@genericname85 Knowing what knowing things means is certainly a massive problem.
Though I can certainly understand why most people dont start at the beginning, as a person who skimmed some and skipped other parts myself.
It does get quite mind bending when you realise that can't begin to start thinking about anything else until you have demonstrated to yourself that you even exist to ask the question in the first place.
@Guffrus the ego to me is merely like a usefull software that runs on a computer. it's an "idea", a "process" or a "concept", not a sort of "thing" that physically manifests like a rock or something. i think it's way more interesting to dealth with the "id" (the meaning that Freud uses) cause that has more of a "thing" than the "ego" and we can actively experience that state of being, even though we mostly don't. god in the way people talk about that concept to me is just the superego combined with the false assumption that this concept is somehow an entity thatt "connects us all" making it something external to the human mind or "god like" when it's nothing but the fact that the human experience is so similar across different specimen that it seems like there's a sort of connection, when in reality there's none.
Somewhere I have heard this idea that humans are naturally predesposed to religious belief. Presumably not just humans actually, as there is that thing with the pigeons, where you feed them randomly and they start developing superstitions about how to get more food to appear.
It seems to me that we all can 'feel' and understand why a person would be religious, we have all had seemingly profound experiences which a theist might call a miracle or a sign from God. I think at least some religious people incorrectly think that they are fortunate to have had these experiences and would pity atheists, incorrectly believing that they (atheists) were not able to access this 'connection to God', presumably perceived as made manifest by their (theist) faith and or good conduct etc.
From my own experience i would associate this sort of experience as being more to do with the ego than the super ego or knowledge, it is simply a feeling, I am at one with this moment in awe of its profound revelation, the explanations come after as i try to make sense of what i am feeling.
@Guffrus i wish i'd find the quote but there's actually a genetic component to it. like some people aren't prone to addiction, some aren't prone to entertain delusional thoughts. so there seems to be a genetic concept to faith. i also think it "might" have something to do with intelligence levels, cause higher levels of intelligence seems to correlate with a lower likelyhood of following some sort of religious doctrin, though of course other social factors play a major role in that too. it's definitely a multivariate problem.
i mean some people choose to intoxicate their senses with substances that make them feel like in some sort of parralel/alternate/"enhanced" reality. i don't. i think it has to do with choosing the red or the blue pill if you follow the matrix movie logic. some people prefer the prettty delusion over the ugly truth. some people prefer truth over everything no matter how harsh that will turn out to be.
My best guess for the source would be Daniel Dennitt, seems like his area.
@Guffrus nono it wasn't some philosophical thing. it was "actual science" xD (not trying to bash philosophy but philosophy isn't exactly scientific). i found it. it was actually a meta study with cold hard numbers published in the "the Personality and Social Psychology Review" journal and pubmed.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313497266
I dont consider philosophy and science to be particularly different, they are both honest attempts to find truth and have a significant overlap.
@Guffrus as far as i know, philosophy provides ways of thinking. like algorythms for the brain. it doesn't "generate knowledge" or any verifiable evidence that can be used to verify or falsify theories with as far as i know. i consider it a tool for science. not science. i mean i know that the very conceptional foundation for most sciences is layed out through philosophy. but the process of gathering evidence and articulating and testing theories is not what i'd associate philopsophy with. maybe you know more about that than me.
i'm not saying philosophy isn't valuable. i'm just saying, you can't use philosophy to gather data and make correlations from it xD
Its all just a tool box isn't it?
As you say science is born out of philosophy, philosophy is the thought process, the defined desire for truth and understanding and science is the method which generates data which provides the foundation from which thoughts can be built.
Philosophy allows you to attempt to explore ideas for which no data can be generated, acting as a tether to try to keep you connected to reality.
Im not sure there are any examples of science acting without philosophy, though that is perhaps a semantic issue of how you define these things.
Is a hypothesis philosophy?
@Guffrus well a producer of hammers won't build houses. but those that build houses can use hammers to do so. same relation between philosphy and science in my opinion. providing the tool is not the same as doing the job that employs the tool.
a hypothesis is not philosphy at all xD a hypothesis alone is worthless without a methodology to test it. god for example is such a hypothesis.
@Guffrus though it can be a bit confusing if you employ the informal use of the word "philosophy" XD
I dont think i can agree with Quote: a hypothesis alone is worthless without a methodology to test it.
It is frustrating certainly and you can't prove anything but assigning it a zero value i think is a mistake.
The danger being that you close off your mind to the idea and then the idea does not reoccur to you later when data is available.
Knowing what you dont know is as important as knowing what you do know.
What does a theorectical physist do? Is that science or philosophy?
If a hypthoesis is not philosophy, what is the difference between philosophy and a thought experiement? Assuming a thought experiment is scientific, maybe it isn't?
As i said to begin with i suspect this is all just semantic.
@Guffrus well if you use informal definitions, it all becomes a wash. i will concede however that my choice of the word "worthless" was not wise. i should have chosen "useless", cause that's what it is. there is a certain worth in it as you said, however you're wrong in asserting that a hypothesis offers the value of "knowing what you don't know". it doesn't. cause knowing what you don't know precedes the articulation of a hypothesis.
i mean i don't know how familiar you are with scientific work but usually the a paper doesn't start with the hypothesis. it starts with a question. then the current state of the scientifical findings considerin the question are reflected and only at that point do you start articulating your hypothesis. you shouldn't conflate "taking an educated guess" or "just a guess" with "articulating a hypothesis", as those things have different qualities.
what's the difference between talking out of your ass, making an educated guess or formulating a scientifical hypothesis? it's the research you put in to articulate the hypothesis.
next step in science typically is introducing a methodology with which you will try to answer the question that you had. and of course from there it's open ended. you may or may not find the answer using your methodology.
some methods of philosophy may or may not be employed for the articulation of the hypothesis. manly informal logic but you're not discussing or trying to reinvent the very foundation of how kowledge can be gathered in the first place, hence a hypothesis isn't philosophy.
it can be philosophical. sure. but only if the question it's trying to answer is philosophical in nature.
I dont believe that i asserted that a hypothesis offered the value of knowing what you dont know. The idea i was attempting to convey was simply that one should keep an open mind and not necessarily immediately abandon and ignore an idea just because you can't resolve it at the present time. New data or testing methods may become available or the idea could evolve into something else perhaps. So even with your adjustment to 'useless' i still dont quite agree. I am advocating devaluation over zerovaluation.
Quote:
i mean i don't know how familiar you are with scientific work but usually the a paper doesn't start with the hypothesis. it starts with a question.
doesn't philosophy also start with a question?
Regarding the rest of you post, I take this to mean that you feel that the difference between philosophy and what you would call a scientific thought experiment is the quantity and quality of the associated data?
Though you make no attempt to draw a line.
Maybe there are formal definitions and lines drawn, I did a very small amount of poking around but i didn't find an simple distinction.
What i did find was this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
Quote: Scientists also use thought experiments when particular physical experiments are impossible to conduct (Carl Gustav Hempel labeled these sorts of experiment "theoretical experiments-in-imagination"), such as Einstein's thought experiment of chasing a light beam, leading to special relativity. This is a unique use of a scientific thought experiment, in that it was never carried out, but led to a successful theory, proven by other empirical means.
I dont know a lot about it and i didn't look into it but this sounds to me as though Einstein used philosophy, not science to develop the idea of special relativity, science was then used later on to prove the idea was correct.
@Guffrus "one should keep an open mind and not necessarily immediately abandon and ignore an idea" well that's a normative thing but scientifically speaking, a hypothesis with no methodology of finding an asnwer to that hypothesis can not lead to a theory and is therefore useless.
those are all methods to come up with a theory but they aren't scientific. they only become scientific if embeddet and contextualized within current scientific status quo in a field and they only become usefull, if it's falsifiable and if you have a method of testing the hypothesis.
anyway. from a linguistic perspective, there's distinctions between words, cause they have different meanings. surely there can be some overlap but if there are no distinguishing factors, then having 2 words is pointless. so i'd be very carefull with calling a hypothesis "philosphy" or calling science "philosophy". you might have a vin diagram between those but those aren't the same and shouldn't be used undifferentiated.
Im not sure if i am doing a bad job of making myself understood or if you are going out of your way to misunderstand me but it is increasingly feeling like the latter.
Logically, the supernatural is unproven. So my atheism (unbelief) is true.
What you claim is that your belief that God isn't real is true because his exiestence is not proven
Logical * (not true)
@marish01 unbelief isn’t belief god doesn’t exist. It’s just unconvinced.
@marish01 there is a difference between saying you know a god does not exist and not believing in one based on not being offered any reason to do so. It's not maybe, it a "no, until proven otherwise" it is not a "no, never, under any circumstance. Saying god is positively false would require you to claim that god is a contradiction by definition, an impossibility. That is not what atheism is about.
@Shizunk people define atheism differently.
@marish01 people define atheism wrong. Pretty often at that. We atheists agree quite exactly what it means and we care about the distinction...
Yeah people define all words differently. I’d argue people define Christianity differently.
But atypical, asexual, atheism. Not typical, not sexual, not theist. It’s not “I believe no theism.”
Guys from 1 to 10 how much do you think God's existence is possible?
@marish01 possible? 9. Probable? 1 and that's generous. That could change quickly with new discoveries though.
@marish01 I’d actually say -10. I’m 99% certain there is no god. Can’t be 100% on anything in my opinion.
@OddBeMe It doesn't sound you have unbelief. You do have belief. Your belief is that God is not real.
@marish01 true! But that’s not atheism. I’ve heard it called “hard atheism” or “anti-theism” on Reddit. But the general idea of atheism is just uncovinced.
I do believe (to the valid extent one can believe) there is no god. Which is a claim I need to back up.
You said
"I’d actually say -10. I’m 99% certain there is no god."
So you give 1% to God's existence which is not (-10). It would be 0,1 out of 10
@marish01 well I’m not a mathematician. I just know 100% can’t ever be proven. So I’m 99.9% sure.
How are you sure if you don't have evidence?
@marish01 my evidence is the absence of evidence.
Lol. That proves God is not real?
@marish01 if I said I had a hundred dollar bill in my wallet and you look in it and don’t find it…proves it.
It is something that can easily be proven or disproven
honestly so is god.
You have a very primitive way of thinking. Your example proved it
@marish01 as I said, can’t be 100%. But based on everyday logic, God doesn’t exist.
100% logical and 100% true. I believe literally everything written in the Bible.
Atheism isn't a religion though.
There is no objective logic or truth. I believe in religion for community and comfort
Atheism isn't a religion.
What is my "religious belief" as an athiest?
It's one's truth against the other's
Mine is. I know all man-made religions are false.
I believe in God im not sure whose 100% right
Atheism isn't a religion
None.