Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Irrational Religions More Popular

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:39:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If people are so inclined to follow a religion for consolation needs (or spiritual purposes as they would claim), wouldn't you think they would go for the most rational religion?

Christianity is by far the most irrational religion in the world and coming in close seconds would be Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, etc. I say this because there are so many flaws and contradictions with these religions which has forced many theologians and apologists to come up with theodicies and books to defend the faith.

You don't see Hindu apologists, you don't see Buddhist apologists, you don't see Jain apologists, and you don't see Taoist apologists. What gives?

Sure, the skeptic can claim that all the religions make assertions that are unsupported by evidence, however, at least the Eastern religions don't have internal flaws and weird theologies i.e. God the father (who is supposedly moral) raped a middle eastern woman to give birth to himself to then be a blood sacrifice to vicariously redeem (vicarious redemption is absurd) the sins of mankind including the unborn.

Thoughts? Are there any aspects of Eastern religions that are inconsistent, nonsensical, or difficult to defend?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:54:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Kaffirs [Africans] are as a rule uncivilised, the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals." - Gandhi

"We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do. We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race." - Gandhi

I realize that this is from a Single leader of Hindu, but since individual Christian leaders are viewed as speaking the views of us all, the same principle should be held against all religions.

Complete non-violence is pretty illogical.

"Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs..." - also Gandhi

The seven chakras also stem for a lack of logic, as is a lot of eastern medicene which derives for religious roots (much like the western medicene that also dreived from religious roots).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:59:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
in close seconds would be Islam, Judaism, Mormonism

The order should be (1) Mormonism, (2) Islam, (3) Christianity and (4) Judaism by any cursory understanding of these 4 faiths. The ONLY thing that would change upon a more thorough analysis would be that (3) and (4) would likely swap, making Christianity the least irrational and most internally coherent epistemic and religious framework. By labeling Christianity more irrational than (1) and (2) shows us that you don't have a working understanding of these faiths.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:01:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:39:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

You don't see Hindu apologists, you don't see Buddhist apologists, you don't see Jain apologists, and you don't see Taoist apologists. What gives?

Hmm, let's see.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe it's because Christianity is the biggest and most hated. And possibly most people don't really take the four you listed very seriously. Kinda a point and laugh type deal. I don't know.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:11:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:01:02 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:39:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

You don't see Hindu apologists, you don't see Buddhist apologists, you don't see Jain apologists, and you don't see Taoist apologists. What gives?


Hmm, let's see.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lmao. According to your link, the Hindu and Buddhist apologetics were a response to Christians attacking their faith which of course are usually laughable criticisms ("ur religion is wrong cause you ain't believe in Jeezus as ur savior"). In fact, the apologetics books were partly attacks on Christianity because it was basically a preaching battle of theology.

And possibly most people don't really take the four you listed very seriously. Kinda a point and laugh type deal. I don't know.

Seriously? You must be confusing them with Mormonism. As far as I'm aware, the Eastern religions are the most respected by intellectuals and philosophers.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:17:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:11:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/28/2010 6:01:02 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:39:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

You don't see Hindu apologists, you don't see Buddhist apologists, you don't see Jain apologists, and you don't see Taoist apologists. What gives?


Hmm, let's see.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lmao. According to your link, the Hindu and Buddhist apologists were a response to Christians attacking their faith which of course are usually laughable criticisms ("ur religion is wrong cause you ain't believe in Jeezus as ur savior"). In fact, the apologetics books were partly attacks on Christianity because it was basically a preaching battle of theology.

Lol. Did you read your own post? You said "You don't see" four times. I was showing you were wrong, you do see Hindu and budda apologists.

And possibly most people don't really take the four you listed very seriously. Kinda a point and laugh type deal. I don't know.

Seriously? You must be confusing them with Mormonism. As far as I'm aware, the Eastern religions are the most respected by intellectuals and philosophers.

No, everyone I know just points and laughs.:)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:36:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:39:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Thoughts? Are there any aspects of Eastern religions that are inconsistent, nonsensical, or difficult to defend?

First off, starting from a materialist or monist point of view, all religions are equally absurd. Even without that, any religion requires some step of irrational faith; were it a proven fact, were it able to be completely understood, it would not be a religion, but a science.

More to the point, nonsensical (or unproven, or incomprehensible from a materialistic viewpoint) aspects of Eastern religions? Here's a few:

Shinto: Ancestor worship; spirits or spiritual essences of rocks, trees, rivers, winds, etc. Belief in an unproven afterlife. Creation of the islands of Japan by a spear dipped in the ocean. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Chinese folk religion: Belief in many minor gods and goddesses. Belief in an underworld. Worship of the Sun, Moon, Earth, Heaven, and Stars. Animism. Belief in an afterlife. Guan Yu, the patron god of both policemen and gangsters. (Our libertarian and anarchist members may not find this to be contradictory, however. :P)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Baha'i: Everybody was right, after all; God just chose to contradict Himself many, many times to keep us guessing. He sent many messengers, who all disagreed on who He is, but finally He got around to the point of actually telling us what He wanted us to know. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Janism: Belief in a potentially divine, non-material soul in each of us. Worship of the Yaksha and Yakshini. http://en.wikipedia.org...

List goes on; I'm not going to.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:40:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:59:14 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
The order should be (1) Mormonism, (2) Islam, (3) Christianity and (4) Judaism by any cursory understanding of these 4 faiths. The ONLY thing that would change upon a more thorough analysis would be that (3) and (4) would likely swap, making Christianity the least irrational and most internally coherent epistemic and religious framework. By labeling Christianity more irrational than (1) and (2) shows us that you don't have a working understanding of these faiths.

Well, Mormonism and Islam reject the Trinity, which is a rather problematic aspect of Christianity; see here:
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:43:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:36:37 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:39:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Thoughts? Are there any aspects of Eastern religions that are inconsistent, nonsensical, or difficult to defend?

First off, starting from a materialist or monist point of view, all religions are equally absurd. Even without that, any religion requires some step of irrational faith; were it a proven fact, were it able to be completely understood, it would not be a religion, but a science.

More to the point, nonsensical (or unproven, or incomprehensible from a materialistic viewpoint) aspects of Eastern religions? Here's a few:

Shinto: Ancestor worship; spirits or spiritual essences of rocks, trees, rivers, winds, etc. Belief in an unproven afterlife. Creation of the islands of Japan by a spear dipped in the ocean. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Chinese folk religion: Belief in many minor gods and goddesses. Belief in an underworld. Worship of the Sun, Moon, Earth, Heaven, and Stars. Animism. Belief in an afterlife. Guan Yu, the patron god of both policemen and gangsters. (Our libertarian and anarchist members may not find this to be contradictory, however. :P)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Janism: Belief in a potentially divine, non-material soul in each of us. Worship of the Yaksha and Yakshini. http://en.wikipedia.org...

You missed an important point I made in the OP:

"Sure, the skeptic can claim that all the religions make assertions that are unsupported by evidence, however, at least the Eastern religions don't have internal flaws and weird theologies" -- OP

Baha'i: Everybody was right, after all; God just chose to contradict Himself many, many times to keep us guessing. He sent many messengers, who all disagreed on who He is, but finally He got around to the point of actually telling us what He wanted us to know. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, you have a valid point here, and I agree. This is one of the internal inconsistencies I was referring to.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:55:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, Mormonism and Islam reject the Trinity, which is a rather problematic aspect of Christianity; see here:

I hope you realize that an appeal to Bill Maher only helps in establishing my point. In trying to show the incoherency of theology, it does not help to appeal to someone who is just as ignorant of it as you are. Furthermore, the doctrine of the Trinity, even if shown to be internally irrational, does not make Islam and Mormonism more rational. In fact, the internal inconsistencies of the latter two, to say nothing of the empirical analyses of the religions - are far more plentiful. Even Christopher Hitchens admitted that Christianity is an internally coherent world-view.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:58:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:43:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You missed an important point I made in the OP:

"Sure, the skeptic can claim that all the religions make assertions that are unsupported by evidence,

Ok, you're right. I missed that. That cuts out half of what I said.

however, at least the Eastern religions don't have internal flaws and weird theologies"

Shinto: Weird theologies, as in, creation myths.

Chinese folk religion: Weird theologies, as in, creation myths and hundreds of esoteric and sometimes contradictory Gods.

Hinduism: Really weird theologies; as in, creation myths and millions of local Gods and Goddesses
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:59:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:40:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:59:14 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
The order should be (1) Mormonism, (2) Islam, (3) Christianity and (4) Judaism by any cursory understanding of these 4 faiths. The ONLY thing that would change upon a more thorough analysis would be that (3) and (4) would likely swap, making Christianity the least irrational and most internally coherent epistemic and religious framework. By labeling Christianity more irrational than (1) and (2) shows us that you don't have a working understanding of these faiths.

Well, Mormonism and Islam reject the Trinity, which is a rather problematic aspect of Christianity; see here:

How is it problematic? Because that guy said it is? He doesn't even know what he is talking about. I will have to agree with you/Bill mock what you don't understand.

My 2 cents.You understand but mock anyway, why? Because you have to.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 7:02:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:59:16 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 6:40:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:59:14 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
The order should be (1) Mormonism, (2) Islam, (3) Christianity and (4) Judaism by any cursory understanding of these 4 faiths. The ONLY thing that would change upon a more thorough analysis would be that (3) and (4) would likely swap, making Christianity the least irrational and most internally coherent epistemic and religious framework. By labeling Christianity more irrational than (1) and (2) shows us that you don't have a working understanding of these faiths.

Well, Mormonism and Islam reject the Trinity, which is a rather problematic aspect of Christianity; see here:

How is it problematic? Because that guy said it is? He doesn't even know what he is talking about. I will have to agree with ,InquireTruth, you/Bill mock what you don't understand.

My 2 cents.You understand but mock anyway, why? Because you have to.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 7:03:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:39:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If people are so inclined to follow a religion for consolation needs (or spiritual purposes as they would claim), wouldn't you think they would go for the most rational religion?

Christianity is by far the most irrational religion in the world and coming in close seconds would be Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, etc.

Mormonism is more "rational" than orthodox Christianity? Please, give me a break. Mormonism was the Scientology of its day. It's only Christianity plus a lot of extra stuff.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 7:17:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
we could also look at the numerous ancient religions, from ancient chinese, greek, roman, egyptian, latin american, all of them. Christianity is simply targeted because of its current size and because some people just don't like it, so they attack.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheLaw
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 7:25:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
First of all, the author of this topic clearly as a lack of knowledge when it comes to different faiths. That in itself should make me avoid posting but I will anyway to address the author's ignorance.

If people are so inclined to follow a religion for consolation needs (or spiritual purposes as they would claim), wouldn't you think they would go for the most rational religion? :

Firstly, how would you define rational? You make a claim stating that people should go for the "the most rational religion" but this is implying that your point of view is opinioned because there isn't some "rational scale" in which you can measure a religion's rationality.

Christianity is by far the most irrational religion in the world and coming in close seconds would be Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, etc. I say this because there are so many flaws and contradictions with these religions which has forced many theologians and apologists to come up with theodicies and books to defend the faith. :

It is almost like you just wrote "I am biased against Christianity" all across this post. Firstly, you "claim" that there are many flaws and contradictions in Christianity and these other religions, but you don't address what these contradictions are, meaning you could just be saying stuff into the air. Secondly, even though this rationalism scale or whatever you're doing is completely absurd, how would Christianity be by far the most irrational religion? You do not back this up, thus still, your points are up in the air.

Sure, the skeptic can claim that all the religions make assertions that are unsupported by evidence, however, at least the Eastern religions don't have internal flaws and weird theologies i.e. God the father (who is supposedly moral) raped a middle eastern woman to give birth to himself to then be a blood sacrifice to vicariously redeem (vicarious redemption is absurd) the sins of mankind including the unborn. :

I don't even want to address this because this is the most ignorant part of your post. Since when did God rape a Middle Eastern woman? Where do you get your information? Seriously, you don't even present any sources. You've basically just delievered distortion from the truth.

Thoughts? Are there any aspects of Eastern religions that are inconsistent, nonsensical, or difficult to defend?:
And about this, there were posts from OreEle, jHarry, and Chrysippus that sum this up.

Well, Mormonism and Islam reject the Trinity, which is a rather problematic aspect of Christianity; see here::
You also fail to realize that not everyone that is Christian believes in the Trinity.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 7:44:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 7:03:37 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 10/28/2010 5:39:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If people are so inclined to follow a religion for consolation needs (or spiritual purposes as they would claim), wouldn't you think they would go for the most rational religion?

Christianity is by far the most irrational religion in the world and coming in close seconds would be Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, etc.

Mormonism is more "rational" than orthodox Christianity? Please, give me a break. Mormonism was the Scientology of its day. It's only Christianity plus a lot of extra stuff.

Again, the Mormons don't have the Trinity. Also, Scientology isn't that irrational. People just like to laugh at it because it acknowledges that souls can incarnate on more places than Earth (hence the whole alien thing). If really think about it, are there really many internal inconsistencies in Scientology?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 7:56:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 7:44:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Again, the Mormons don't have the Trinity.

No, Mormons just believe that people who drink coffee and take Tylenol go to hell, black people aren't cool enough to become priests, and that we can become Gods and rule over our own universe if we just convert enough people (all paying their mandatory tithes, of course) and have over 9,000 children. Much more rational, IMHO

/sarcasm

Also, Scientology isn't that irrational. People just like to laugh at it because it acknowledges that souls can incarnate on more places than Earth (hence the whole alien thing). If really think about it, are there really many internal inconsistencies in Scientology?

Lolwat? Scientology is based on a series of poorly written science fiction novels. It's like starting vampire worshiping cult with Twilight as your holy scripture.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:10:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:55:32 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
Well, Mormonism and Islam reject the Trinity, which is a rather problematic aspect of Christianity; see here:

I hope you realize that an appeal to Bill Maher only helps in establishing my point. In trying to show the incoherency of theology, it does not help to appeal to someone who is just as ignorant of it as you are.

I've taken college courses on World Religions and the Philosophy of Religion. Not to mention all the Lane Craig, D'Souza, and Plantinga talks I've seen.

Furthermore, the doctrine of the Trinity, even if shown to be internally irrational, does not make Islam and Mormonism more rational.

Well, if one of the central tenets of one can be shown to be more irrational than the central tenets of another, that's quite a good indicator.

In fact, the internal inconsistencies of the latter two, to say nothing of the empirical analyses of the religions - are far more plentiful.

That's possible, but I haven't seen that to be the case yet.

Even Christopher Hitchens admitted that Christianity is an internally coherent world-view.

LOL. Are you serious??????????????????

Look at these videos. Hitchens spends the entire time explaining why Christianity is NOT internally coherent.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:23:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
if irrational religions were really more popular (by dint of their irrationality at least) scientology would be the world leader
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:24:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:58:15 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/28/2010 6:43:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
however, at least the Eastern religions don't have internal flaws and weird theologies"

Shinto: Weird theologies, as in, creation myths.

Lol, yes, Shinto creation myths are funny and even absurd, but they're at least not internally inconsistent like an omnipotent God needing rest on the 7th day.

Hinduism: Really weird theologies; as in, creation myths and millions of local Gods and Goddesses

Hinduism is far more advanced with it's view of the world and origins. While Christianity treats the Earth as the center of the Universe (this is a fact. Genesis is specifically about how the Earth was created as opposed to the other billions and billions of planets that were dismissed and ignored as simply stars decorating the Earth sky), Hinduism acknowledges that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, and in fact posits a Multiverse in which there is a creator God for each universe.

Even Carl Sagan commended the Hindus for their profound view of cosmology.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:26:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:59:16 PM, jharry wrote:
How is it problematic? Because that guy said it is?

No, it's problematic for the reasons that he gave, not merely because he claimed it's problematic.

He doesn't even know what he is talking about. I will have to agree with you/Bill mock what you don't understand.

Yet, you have failed to give defense. You simply claimed he doesn't know what he's talking about and left it at that. That's not an argument or defense.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:47:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 7:25:59 PM, TheLaw wrote:
First of all, the author of this topic clearly as a lack of knowledge when it comes to different faiths. That in itself should make me avoid posting but I will anyway to address the author's ignorance.

I've taken college courses on World Religions and Philosophy of Religion, not to mention I've read a lot of material on religion over the past few years. Just because you disagree with my points doesn't mean you can say I'm ignorant of religion.

If people are so inclined to follow a religion for consolation needs (or spiritual purposes as they would claim), wouldn't you think they would go for the most rational religion? :

Firstly, how would you define rational? You make a claim stating that people should go for the "the most rational religion" but this is implying that your point of view is opinioned because there isn't some "rational scale" in which you can measure a religion's rationality.

Well, for one, if a religion doesn't include a story about a God who has sex with a human to give birth to himself in human/god form, then I consider it at least more rational than Christianity.

Technically, when I say "rational" I mean "not offensive to reason."

Christianity is by far the most irrational religion in the world and coming in close seconds would be Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, etc. I say this because there are so many flaws and contradictions with these religions which has forced many theologians and apologists to come up with theodicies and books to defend the faith. :

It is almost like you just wrote "I am biased against Christianity" all across this post. Firstly, you "claim" that there are many flaws and contradictions in Christianity and these other religions, but you don't address what these contradictions are, meaning you could just be saying stuff into the air.

True, however, that's not the purpose of the thread, though I did expect for there to be discussion on the contradictions of Western religion vs. Eastern religion.

Secondly, even though this rationalism scale or whatever you're doing is completely absurd, how would Christianity be by far the most irrational religion? You do not back this up, thus still, your points are up in the air.

I backed it up in the statement following the above, which you clearly saw because you responded to it.

Sure, the skeptic can claim that all the religions make assertions that are unsupported by evidence, however, at least the Eastern religions don't have internal flaws and weird theologies i.e. God the father (who is supposedly moral) raped a middle eastern woman to give birth to himself to then be a blood sacrifice to vicariously redeem (vicarious redemption is absurd) the sins of mankind including the unborn. :

I don't even want to address this because this is the most ignorant part of your post. Since when did God rape a Middle Eastern woman? Where do you get your information? Seriously, you don't even present any sources. You've basically just delievered distortion from the truth.

Are you serious? This is the one of the most well known aspects of Christianity! Ever heard of Christmas? Yahweh used the Holy Spirit to have sex with Mary without her consent (that's called rape) to give birth to himself (Jesus).

And you also deny that Jesus was offered up as a blood sacrifice in the crucifixion to pay for the sins of humanity? This is also a well-known aspect of Christianity. No source needed.

For someone who is defending Christianity, you sure don't know much about it. Not even the central story. And you claim I don't know much about it?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:52:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 9:26:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/28/2010 6:59:16 PM, jharry wrote:
How is it problematic? Because that guy said it is?

No, it's problematic for the reasons that he gave, not merely because he claimed it's problematic.

He doesn't even know what he is talking about. I will have to agree with you/Bill mock what you don't understand.

Yet, you have failed to give defense. You simply claimed he doesn't know what he's talking about and left it at that. That's not an argument or defense.

Name on reason he gave for his statements.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:56:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Maybe Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have the most followers, not because of the doctrines' immense irrationality, but because much of the opposition has been viciously eliminated throughout history.

But that's just a guess. I honestly don't know. =P
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 10:04:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 9:56:17 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Maybe Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have the most followers, not because of the doctrines' immense irrationality, but because much of the opposition has been viciously eliminated throughout history.

But that's just a guess. I honestly don't know. =P

yes, we are very efficient in that area. :)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 10:21:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 9:24:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
but they're at least not internally inconsistent like an omnipotentGod needing rest on the 7th day.


*facepalm*

Seriously, Geo?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 10:31:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 10:21:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/28/2010 9:24:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
but they're at least not internally inconsistent like an omnipotentGod needing rest on the 7th day.


*facepalm*

Seriously, Geo?

Explain.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat