Amazon.com Widgets

Religion cannot exist in an infallibly logical mind.

Asked by: Ford_42
  • Belief in religion necessitates faulty reasoning.

    Religious belief, Using the standard definition that involves the supernatural, Necessarily requires erroneous, Illogical thinking. Every claim for a deity involves a logical fallacy taking place. Perhaps a deity exists, But it is illogical to think so. Even if God came down from the heavens to tell me he is real, It would be more probable that I was delusional or hallucinating, Or that I am actually int he matrix, Or someone or something is playing a trick on me, Etc. Etc.

  • Logic dictates that religion cannot possibly be correct.

    From a psychological standpoint, Humans are predisposed to believing in any possible explanation for the unknown.

    For instance, When a child is afraid of the dark, Neurons in their amygdala alert them of a possible danger - of course, This danger does not exist. Yet still, The child will have irrational thoughts about what could be in the dark. This is due to the illogical belief that since they cannot see what could be there, There must be something and it cannot be simply nothing. The same happens with those who follow religion - they assume that since they cannot imagine being alone there must be a higher power or divine being to step in and be with them.

    The afterlife, A common belief in almost every religion, Can also be attributed to this irrational fear of the unknown. It is physically impossible for the human mind to even begin to fathom complete nothingness, So they begin to formulate on what must occur to prolong their consciousness' existence. Logic would dictate that after death there is no consciousness, Since after death there is no brain activity. However, The survival instinct of humans (and possibly other animals as well) drives them to believe that they will never truly "die. "

  • I forgot one important detail

    Believing in a higher power isn't such a bad thing. I mean, If you're right, You're golden. If you're wrong, You're no worse off than not believing in the first place.

    It's like Dr. Peter Venkman once said: "If we're wrong, Then nothing happens. We'll go to jail - peacefully, Quietly. We'll enjoy it. But if we're right, And we can stop this thing. . . Lenny. . . Youuuu will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters. "

  • I guess you failed history class

    Example #1: Isaac Newton.
    This person was a genius and a man of many talents. He created the fundamentals of math and science that we use. In college we learn calculus. He read the bible and believed in a god.

    Sure he was weird and might of done some alchemy but I can assure you that he was twice as logical than you and he believed in a god.

    Next you studied algebra and you fail to know that the algebra come from the Arabic people who were all devoutly Muslim and believe in Allah which the word algebra come from. "God's numbers" is what you say every time you say algebra. The Greeks and Romans and Chinese and Aztecs and Egyptians were all religious and yet they were all very smart and logical and methodical.

    There is a movement of secularism but people like you fail to know how many people are religious and how many of them are scientists.

    Even your "idols" like Niel Tyson is AGNOSTIC. Your numbers shrink when you factor in agnostic people.

    Those are not even your own words. I bet you plagiarized them from some atheist and you want to sound more important than everyone. You just want to impress people but I pity people like you.

  • Oh come on.

    How about we not start debates on statements that can't be debated by their very definition? You might as well have typed "the sun rises in the east" or "science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". Sheesh. . .

    So what are ya getting at with this? Let me throw a little monkey poo into the mix. I think we can all agree that human beings don't know everything in the universe. If we can agree on that, Then there must be things that are yet to be discovered/learned/clarified. How many? Who knows, But I'd be willing to bet we'll still be discovering things many thousands of generations into the future. So, With that, I say because we don't know everything, It stands to reason that we simply haven't been enlightened enough to be able to prove the existence of a higher power. I look at how human beings are unlike any other animals on earth - with our reason, Self-awareness, And clothing, And I can't help but wonder why us and why here? It's certainly possible that everything happened by pure chance - that had the earth been inhospitable for human life, We wouldn't be here. I totally get it - logic dictates that there must be conclusive evidence to prove something to be true (can't use logic to prove something to be false). But because we've only been on earth a very short time, Compared to the earth's age, I find it incredibly narcissistic for anyone to say definitively that a higher power doesn't exist simply because of what we currently know to be true today. That doesn't mean the religious zealots get a pass -- they should do more to accept scientific discovery and logic as a gift of human nature and celebrate it. Religion and logic can co-exist, But not at the extremes.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.