Should religious people apply more logic?

[John_And_Elijah]

You have great faith, awesome! That's the most important, but why do so many of you reject logic as part of your faith? Take Noah's ark for example. How could Noah possibly fit every animal on the earth into the ark? Furthermore, why don't they attack each other on the ark? Now if you read translations like the Great Bible of 1539 or the Coverdale, it specifically states that flood only took place on a specific part of the earth (a piece of land), not the entire earth, which potentially suggests that no aggressive species of animal was ever taken onto the ark. Logic can be applied to your faith, you just have to know your bible well enough. Maybe stop relying on corrupted translations like NIV.

[incorrected]

That story, along with plenty others in the Jewish religion, were just pilfered from older religions as they moved around the near east. It wasn't even written down until AFTER the so-called New Testament, it was an oral tradition. It's not just religious people who could use more logic, it's everybody. Noah's Ark was pilfered from an earlier work called The Epic of Gilgamesh. Even the dimensions of the boat. They're stories, not histories.

Outside of a few mundane claims like where places and things were located, none of the supernatural claims of religion can be evidenced without some leap of faith in the first place. Religion is not, was not, and never will be about reason or evidence. It's about faith. It's about faith because it's a form of social binding. It's glue that keeps people together. Sometimes it's used to mislead and control, though not always.

[John_And_Elijah]

Where you getting your information? Some article off Google? Or some idiot who is biased towards his atheistic beliefs?

[incorrected]

Go and READ. The Epic of Gilgamesh has been translated to English already. You can read it. You want more logic, but then you admit to taking a big leap of FAITH, while talking about others being idiots or biased. Good grief. The stink of arrogance coming from you is insane.

[John_And_Elijah]

Religion is about faith. I'm talking about those who don't incorporate logic into their faith.. And you're blindly assuming that this suppose work came before the story of Noah's Ark?

[incorrected]

Not blindly, that one is the work of scholars. Reading that story, a much older story, and seeing the similarity down to the measurements, is not a blind assumption.

The logical thing to do would be to proceed from there and research it yourself; I don't spoon-feed.

As for mixing logic with faith, well you can't proceed from unproven assumptions that you believe on faith. That's a foundation built on sand. What you will get out of it is a story you believe on faith that makes superficially more logical sense, pinning the details of unproven stories on your understanding of reality to make it seem more reasonable, but it won't be anything more than a more palatable story. If you took that approach 1000 years ago, the facts you knew would not be the same as the facts you know today, for instance you might believe that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds or that bats were in the same class as birds, whereas now you'd know that the poppy seed is smaller and bats are not in the same class as birds.

[Anonymous]

that's why the red-pill exists yet too many religious conservatives wanna get stuck in their blue-pill way of thinking and reject the red-pill explanations just like liberals do

for example, the Bible is against promiscuity but you can use science, history and evolutionary psychology to explain why promiscuity is bad without needing to use the Bible

too many religious conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles are willing to die on the hill for "because the Bible says so" and being out of touch with a society that mostly doesn't believe in God so such arguments end up failing

instead of bashing the red-pill, religious conservatives should be thanking the red-pill for saving them from being wiped out

using God as the argument against woke ideology has never been successful. it's much better to use logic to defeat the side that believes strongly in using logic

[strateguy632]

Omg! Atheists are so pathetic! Don't you even notice? You just wrote the bible was CORRECT about family promiscuity.

[incorrected]

@strateguy632 All of those basic values predate the bible. The mistake you're making is to think that basic values like that came from your god and your religion, and your books.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

The church doesn’t want smart people, they want obedient followers who will continue to financially support them. Applying logic means having critical thinking skills and having critical thinking skills leads to asking questions and asking questions leads to doubting your faith and they can’t have that. So they just cut it off at the root.

[jshm2]

No. Don't be daft, logic is a different purview from faith

Logic tells you Achilles cannot beat a tortoise, as per the Zeno paradox. Whereas Moses led the Israelites on faith alone to their destination.

You maybe need to take a philosophy 101 course or something, as you're confused about what words mean, and how they differ across different disciplines.

[John_And_Elijah]

I don't think you read my question. I said "Should religious people apply more logic to their faith?" I never said you need to be logical. Take different races of people for example. You really think all races and ethnic backgrounds came from just 2 people (Adam and Eve)? This is where logic needs to be considered, but the bible does give the answer if you pray on it.

[strateguy632]

You are extremely backward.

Logic OBLIGATED god. God is a logical necessity as des carte and others wrote.

Atheists OUGHT TO "apply more logic" as des carte wrote!

[strateguy632]

About the flood you just need to read.
Nobody said "every animal on the earth into the ark".
2, it had 3 levels so lions separated from zebra.
3, your "stop relying on corrupted translations" applied to your preference version that CORRUPTED the story.
Just read it.
Genesis 7 & 8
https://biblehub.com/ylt/genesis/7.htm

[strateguy632]

"every living creature after its kind" can't exclude predator.
Find a hebrew word that was "bad translation".
only your Coverdale conflicted the text "covered all the high mountains under the whole heavens" in verses 14 & 19!

[John_And_Elijah]

Ask 95% Christians, and they'll tell you that every animal on the planet went into the ark. I don't know where you're getting the idea that the ark had different levels. That's not stated in the scripture, but even if it is, so what. The scripture says 7 of every CLEAN beast (animals which are allowed to be eaten), and 2 of every beast which had the breath of life (had a soul); that's referring to certain humans, and all birds of every sort. This is coming from the King James version.

[John_And_Elijah]

There were no lions on the ark, and the flood only took place on a specific part of the earth.

And the rain was UP ON the earth (upper part of the earth) forty days and forty night.

Genesis 7:12 KJV

[incorrected]

Descartes's great revelation, "I think, therefore I am.", isn't that great. It's just a variation on the self-evident nature of one's own existence. So-called "great" thinkers in religious times were always trying to prove that God exists with supposed logical contrivances, and not one of them succeeded. Religious people are always pointing to smart people with grand reputations as their evidence, as if to say, "See, that really clever person wrote that God exists, so who are you to question it?" They don't outlay their supposed arguments though. Curious, that. Their arguments for the existence of God were flawed apologetic nonsense. Feel free to outlay your "logical" path to prove the existence of God. It's not possible to even attempt without a bunch of axiomatic assumptions in the first place, and even if you manage that, you have all your work left to do before proving it's your particular god that you believe in.

[John_And_Elijah]

Lmao, I can debate my faith with logic better than ANYONE on this forum. Obviously, certain aspects would require a leap of faith.

[incorrected]

Why bother with ANY faith? Why take that leap at all? Noah's Ark was just another pilfered story. It's in The Epic ff Gilgamesh, a much older text. Hebrews/Jews travelled around doing that for centuries upon centuries, and they didn't even write it down until AFTER the New Testament was written down. Why take a leap of faith on that at all, rather than on some other world religion?