<p>“I should have said “many Christians”. I was not talking about all of them, though this is just a statement which is true, which you showed when you did this exact thing with the reasoning in your first post.” </p>
<p>You obviously haven’t been reading my posts. I have never argued your point at all. I just said that Christians start with the logically unproven assumption that God is the source of all good. I really don’t see where you’re getting this. The argument is dumb because most people wouldn’t claim that God exists because a source of good is necessary. Was it Descartes who developed the fallacious First Cause argument? Most people nowadays don’t take it seriously anyway.</p>
<p>“If it can not be proven with logic it IS irrational. It may hold some value but it is still irrational. I want to show it to be irrational so people will cease to hold to the nonsensical premise of Christianity etc. It is almost surely false and does more harm than good in my opinion (case in point George Dubya Bush).”</p>
<p>We’re working with two definitions here. In the familiar sense, religion is not irrational.</p>
<p>In the logical sense, it is irrational. However, that doesn’t mean that it is nonsensical or irrelevant, or false. It just means that in a strict debate using traditional rhetoric, religion would lose.</p>
<p>“Like a mission trip? It does not have to be logical to have value, but it is irrational if logic does not back it up. I did not mean to imply illogical things are valueless-just that they are irrational. It is sort of like Santa Clause. He is useful in that he makes Children happy, but belief in him is illogical. Same deal basically with god.”</p>
<p>Right, but that doesn’t make it false. It just makes it unsupported by traditional logic. That’s why I don’t understand the original post. Are you discussing only that one aspect of Christianity, or are you trying to apply that example to all religion? You are fighting a lost cause, I assure you. Mainly because most religious people (a generalization) would probably not claim “logic” as the primary reason for their belief.</p>
<p>“I think those that hold to irrational positions are deluded. I do not respect their opinion as it is unsupported. I do consider myself superior and think that is a perfectly understandable thing to think.”</p>
<p>Why exactly would that be the case? I mean, they could be wrong, but are they less intelligent? Less important? I mean, in what way are you superior? We’re talking about specific people, not generalizations here. As in, is someone less able to think for themselves because they are religious? Are they automatically dumber? In what way are you superior? I’m not questioning that belief because it IS understandable. But it’s vague.</p>
<p>“Something must be proven before it is true.”</p>
<p>No. The earth was round way before it was “proven.” Again, we are talking about universal truths, not the ones limited by the confines of formulaic rhetoric.</p>
<p>“Kant is great for a number of reasons.”</p>
<p>I share your reasons. However, I don’t understand why he is so much greater than the others. It’s fine if the answer is yes: Are they automatically less great because they do not follow what you consider to be pristine logic? If so, then we disagree fundamentally on the value and validity of someone’s work.</p>
<p>“I like to think I win and learn. If someone proves me wrong with logic or evidence my view will change.”</p>
<p>I like to win and learn too. However, I am probably more open to accepting different viewpoints than you, if what you just said is true. Perhaps that’s why I’m approaching this differently.</p>
<p>“My desire to show that religion is nonsense has little to nothing to do with my personal ego.”</p>
<p>I know, but again, you misrepresent me. Your ego is an entirely different matter. You want to both show religion to be nonsensical and inflate your ego. They are not mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>In addition, you can’t prove religion to be nonsensical, because that is entirely different from illogical. If you honestly knew anything about most religions, they really do make a lot of sense. It’s just that the premises are not always proven empirically, although some would argue that there are cases where they are (every religion has their own thing in this regard…).</p>
<p>Again, given that most people have honest reasons for believing in the religion, demonstrating that it is not empirically justified is completely useless. They’re not ■■■■■■■■. They know that. Try showing that religion is impossible, and then you might achieve your goal.</p>
<p>“Baelor, what do you personally think of Islam?”</p>
<p>I am not a Muslim. Islam is a fascinating religion. However, it is illogical. Just like most, if not all, others. I don’t see the relevance.</p>
<p>“It is not a useless argument. The question of god is one of the most important in history.”</p>
<p>It is one that still hasn’t been resolved, and probably won’t be when this thread runs its course.</p>