Quote Originally Posted by Heartless Angel View Post
Actually, I'm not religious. From where I stand, the denial of the divine is every bit as illogical as its acceptance. The fundamental purpose of logic is to infer truths from other truths. The only absolute truth to be inferred here, is that nobody has concrete proof of anything about the origin of the universe, meaning we know nothing.

Science is all well and good, I like science myself, but even in science we base alot on faith. Faith that our tests have given us reliable data, and that our observations have discovered all the relevant information. Quite often, they do not. For example, it was observation and implementation of the scientific method that lead people to believe the earth was the center of the universe. Because their observations were incomplete, their conclusion was wrong. Someone then came by with much better observations and calculations, and he 'proved' that the sun was the center of the universe. At least until someone proved him wrong too. Even scientific theories are only 'true' for as long as they fit in with the other things we think we know. Every belief anybody has is based entirely on the assumption that we percieve things correctly. We have no evidence to support this. In fact given how often we've come back later and proven ourselves dead wrong, we in fact have good reason to believe the exact opposite.

Nobody's beliefs are perfectly logical, the only real difference between people is how far they try to go with reason before they finally say "screw it" and take the leap of faith.

If you're into what works, I'll pose a pragmatic argument for you.

Let us assume that all religions are equal just for the purpose of this, so I can eliminate complexities unnescessary for the sake of this argument. To be more precise, you're either religious, or athiest, no sub divisions. Most of them share the primary focus of my point anyways.

Your goal is that our belief be practical and useful. So I'll make a truth table with that as my conclusion.

The two premises and attempted conclusion are as follows

I am Religous, My beliefs are Correct, My beliefs Acomplish something for me. My beliefs were Useful

R C A U
T T T T
T F F F
F T F F
F F F F

These are all the possible ways the two premises can occur, and their effect on the conclusion.

Argument 1: If I follow this religion, and am correct, I go to heaven. Therefore the belief was useful and did me good.

Argument 2: If follow this religion, and am incorrect, I decompose after burial and am consumed by worms. Therefore the belief did not do me any good.

Argument 3: If I do not folow this religion, but it was the truth. I now rot in Hell for all eternity. Therefore the belief definitely did no good.

Argument 4: If I do not follow this religion, and was right in not doing so, I decompose after burial and am consumed by worms. Therefore the belief still did me no good.

The only argument which lead to the conclusion that the belief was useful, was the first, in which you picked a religion and happened to be right.

I appreciate you posting. I've seen a lot of your posts and I like the way you put forth arguments and bring information to the debates.
having said that I think you might have missed something.

Theres nothing illogical about denying something based on lack of evidence. If anything, that is the perfect logical thought process.

"god exists"
-"okay! i believe"

the default position for thinking SHOULD and always should be 'prove it' and not to just accept something because it is.If i say "ive got a fire in my pocket" you dont just say 'okay, i believe you' you would want evidence and proof that the fire was actually in my pocket because you could not see it and therefor have reason to question if there actually was a fire in my pocket.

I mentioned scientific method, but I didn't think I made myself clear. In no way am I claiming to know the origins of the universe, for i do not. I mentioned scientific method because science gives us testability (we are actually able to prove things in a PRACTICAL way) and repeatability (we are able to do them over and over again successfully). Based on these 2 things, we can make informed deicisions that give us results. Science is results based and therfor making it practical and useful. Science is not faith based, we dont believe in avenues for no good reason, we take roads based on tests and results that give us the information to make informed decisions about what we are trying to do, they are not based on faith. Of course certain risks are involved in areas, but they are in the interest of results and based on tests that have credability. They've nothing to do with faith.

Your diagram on how one lives thier life based on religion is interesting, but seems a little redundant.

and to firefly, im not targetting you. You are the only one whos responded to my question yet still failed to give me a logical answer. Believing in god because of a book and a person who supposedly existed all those centuries ago, is not justification enough for me. Bible does not count as physical proof as it has been re-editioned countless times and edited out so many versus its unbelievable. If you were a true christian you would only be allowed to wear the clothes of animals you have killed yourself and would not be allowed to have sex unless it was for reproduction only.

also, you say that god is loving and caring in your eyes but you also say that he ALLOWS death and slavery and sacrifice to happen. That is the most hypocritical statement I've heard all month. Where do you get these ideals of his character from if you can acknowledge that hes a immoral god who allows death, destruction, slavery and sacrifice? Im more moral than your god because I would not allow anything like that to happen. I wouldnt care about people believing in me, id rather them be happy and living their lives isntead of praying to me everyday.