View Poll Results: What Religion to you is the most logical?

Voters
112. You may not vote on this poll
  • Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant)

    18 16.07%
  • Hinduisim (Gaudiya Vaishnavisim, Vaishnavisim, Saivism, Shaktism, Smartism or Vedic Sanatan Dharma)

    3 2.68%
  • Buddhisim (Mahayana, Theravāda or Vajrayāna)

    17 15.18%
  • Jainisim ( Digambara and or others)

    0 0%
  • Islam (Sunni or Shiah)

    13 11.61%
  • Sikhism

    0 0%
  • Judaism

    0 0%
  • Bahaism

    2 1.79%
  • Confucianism

    4 3.57%
  • Shintoism

    1 0.89%
  • Atheisim, (Science prevails)

    45 40.18%
  • Asthetic, (Science may prevail, but only god can reveal the full truth)

    4 3.57%
  • Greek Mythology

    2 1.79%
  • Roman Mythology

    2 1.79%
  • Egyptian Mythology

    1 0.89%
Page 22 of 26 FirstFirst ... 121314151617181920212223242526 LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 501

Thread: The Most Logical Religion

  1. #421
    Samraat Mahendra Maurya's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pataliputra, Magdha
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    No scientist was there when these happened but God was.
    Are you sure? Isn't god the main scientist? Btw, do you guys believe in Souls?
    Ich bin Kaiser von mauryan reiches

  2. #422

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    But that's flat out not true. It's not nice to lie, especially when your own book constantly talks about the four corners of the earth. If they knew that the world was a sphere, and therefore could not HAVE any corners, why does the Bible constantly refer to there being four corners, or refer to the heavens as a canopy, or imply that if you are on a high enough mountain you can see the entire world? I am, of course, referring to Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 11:12, and Revelation 7:1?
    It's a sad day when I have to defend biblical literalism, but I think you're missing the mark here. Language is full of sayings or terminology that, when looked at closely, is wrong. Since it's the earth doing the moving, why is it called sunrise instead of, dunno, earthsink, earthspin or something?
    Last edited by Visna; August 25, 2014 at 05:49 PM.

    Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.

  3. #423

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Visna View Post
    It's a sad day when I have to defend biblical literalism, but I think you're missing the mark here. Language is full of sayings or terminology that, when looked at closely, is wrong. Since it's the earth doing the moving, why is it called sunrise instead of, dunno, earthsink, earthspin or something?
    Appeal to potential metaphor moves someone no closer to "Yeah they totally meant a sphere."

  4. #424
    Thanatos's Avatar Now Is Not the Time
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,188

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Visna View Post
    It's a sad day when I have to defend biblical literalism, but I think you're missing the mark here. Language is full of sayings or terminology that, when looked at closely, is wrong. Since it's the earth doing the moving, why is it called sunrise instead of, dunno, earthsink, earthspin or something?
    Yes, but this is the inerrant word of God Almighty we're talking about here. Shouldn't His word be a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit more specific and exact as to what is going on? Why even leave the remote possibility of having somebody get confused? Why do that? That's not very fair, especially when He knows that people will be debating it today.

    He should have left little asterisks everywhere. It'd be like those car commercials everyone sees, but with an asterisk that's an hour long. That should do the trick.

  5. #425
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    " Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    But that's flat out not true. It's not nice to lie, especially when your own book constantly talks about the four corners of the earth. If they knew that the world was a sphere, and therefore could not HAVE any corners, why does the Bible constantly refer to there being four corners, or refer to the heavens as a canopy, or imply that if you are on a high enough mountain you can see the entire world? I am, of course, referring to Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 11:12, and Revelation 7:1? "

    Thanatos,

    In Biblical parlance God often uses numbers as a way of showing the importance of what is being said. In the case of the four corners of the earth what in fact He means is all the earth without anything missing. Three often alludes to the Trinity. Four as I said. Six is the number of man him being made on the sixth day. Seven is regarded as the number of perfection because on the seventh day He rested plus that rest is where every person who is born again looks forward to. Ten is regarded as the number of completion and in the case of Jesus this number or seven is used to emphasise by statements that He is the perfect Sacrifice or the complete Saviour and God.

    So when we see seven consecutive statements about Him those seven show His perfection to those that discern what has been written. And, the same applies to the number ten when he is written of ten times consecutively. The number twelve applies to the Patriarchs or the Disciples or the Old Covenant and the New Covenant but treated separately. As mysterious as it looks, God, especially in the Old Covenant, uses numbers to point to the coming Saviour frequently. Those numbers can cross Covenants for example the rain that fell for forty days and nights, forty years in the wilderness, forty days Jesus fasting and then tempted by Satan, forty days when He showed Himself to over four hundred after His resurrection. They are all quite significant.

  6. #426

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathless View Post
    Appeal to potential metaphor moves someone no closer to "Yeah they totally meant a sphere."
    I doubt they even knew the word "sphere". Ancient languages have only a few thousand words at most, modern western languages like English can have, dunno, something like 250,000 plus technical or scientific terms derived from Latin, Greek, German, French etc. And despite hundreds of years of knowing better we still use terms or phrases today that are wrong. The ends of the earth, sun, stars or moon moving across the sky, sunrise, four corners of the world etc. So if we assume that the bible is divinely inspired, and that's one major assumption, I think the inspiring deity would want the believers to understand what was meant, rather than express itself in terms noone at the time would understand. Or, more likely, the writers would. It's absurd to expect them to invent new words that noone would understand just so that readers thousands of years later will have their interest in scientific accuracy satisfied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    Yes, but this is the inerrant word of God Almighty we're talking about here. Shouldn't His word be a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit more specific and exact as to what is going on? Why even leave the remote possibility of having somebody get confused? Why do that? That's not very fair, especially when He knows that people will be debating it today.

    He should have left little asterisks everywhere. It'd be like those car commercials everyone sees, but with an asterisk that's an hour long. That should do the trick.
    See above. They lacked the words and they were ignorant peons, the whole lot of them. They didn't know about tectonic plates, vulcanic activity or atoms, they lacked the very basic terms to even begin to describe such phenomena as earth quakes, vulcanic eruptions or quantum mechanics. A god that went too much into details would only confuse them further.
    Last edited by Visna; August 26, 2014 at 04:48 AM.

    Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.

  7. #427

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    I doubt they even knew the word "sphere".
    Irrelevant honestly.


    Ancient languages have only a few thousand words at most, modern western languages like English can have, dunno, something like 250,000 plus technical or scientific terms derived from Latin, Greek, German, French etc. And despite hundreds of years of knowing better we still use terms or phrases today that are wrong. The ends of the earth, sun, stars or moon moving across the sky, sunrise, four corners of the world etc. So if we assume that the bible is divinely inspired, and that's one major assumption, I think the inspiring deity would want the believers to understand what was meant, rather than express itself in terms noone at the time would understand. Or, more likely, the writers would. It's absurd to expect them to invent new words that noone would understand just so that readers thousands of years later will have their interest in scientific accuracy satisfied.
    Welcome to the wacky world of biblical literalism. Where sticking round pegs into the square holes of reality is the beginning, middle and end game. When far more well known figures point these things out in religious debates, etc it's precisely because they are pointing out the flaws in the thinking of biblical literalists and other such religious figures. It's low hanging fruit that points out the basics(lulz) of their insane mind set. Also for my own part, or perhaps I can simply default to the FAR FAR FAR more likely likely scenario that it's just writings for ancient desert dwellers with ancient desert dweller morality concepts and ancient desert dweller world concepts. Particularly in light of such ad hoc thinking.

  8. #428
    Thanatos's Avatar Now Is Not the Time
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,188

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Visna View Post


    See above. They lacked the words and they were ignorant peons, the whole lot of them. They didn't know about tectonic plates, vulcanic activity or atoms, they lacked the very basic terms to even begin to describe such phenomena as earth quakes, vulcanic eruptions or quantum mechanics. A god that went too much into details would only confuse them further.
    Yeah, but again, this is the Almighty. Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnipresent. If anyone could find a way to easily explain everything to them without even the slightest risk of confusion, it would have been Him. That's the great thing about dealing with a Gary Stu god; you don't have to settle for anything less than absolute perfection. Even the slightest bad or questionable decision becomes 100% paramount.

  9. #429

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Visna View Post
    I doubt they even knew the word "sphere".
    I'm going to guess that most languages had a word that was the equivalent of sphere. Shapes are pretty basic, and what is basically a round ball, something anyone could make out of mud with their hands most likely had a word.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  10. #430
    DaniCatBurger's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Page 216
    Posts
    820

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    The speakers may be able to invent the word at least, e.g. apple*.
    *= that can't be eaten

    A similar case "pommes de terres" (apple from the soil = potato). More funny in the sense of the image would be "apple inside you can sit" for "sphere" of course.

    Last edited by DaniCatBurger; August 30, 2014 at 09:45 PM.
    שנאה היא לא ערך, גזענות היא לא הדרך




  11. #431
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by KleenClothMaurya View Post
    Are you sure? Isn't god the main scientist? Btw, do you guys believe in Souls?
    KleenClothMaurya,

    Of course God is behind science. He is the Creator of all things and science comes into that bracket even though those that study it for the main don't seem to quite get it yet. But one day in each one's individual case the truth will hit them bang in the face, a big bang as it were, for what else could it be when they discover that Jesus Christ all along was their God and Creator.

  12. #432

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    I haven't read this whole thread - which is an excellent primer on logical fallacies by the way, but the problem seems to be the difference in basic assumptions about the universe.

    On one hand you have blind faith in the bible, god's word and personal experience.

    On the other rationality in terms of the scientific method and logic.

    They are different games gentlemen, and neither will convince the other.

    I'm reminded of the debate between Bill Nye & Ken Hamm when asked at the end (victory claimed by both sides of course) if anything would change their minds "Nothing" says Ken. "Evidence" says Bill.

  13. #433

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethelred Unraed View Post
    I haven't read this whole thread - which is an excellent primer on logical fallacies by the way, but the problem seems to be the difference in basic assumptions about the universe.

    On one hand you have blind faith in the bible, god's word and personal experience.

    On the other rationality in terms of the scientific method and logic.

    They are different games gentlemen, and neither will convince the other.

    I'm reminded of the debate between Bill Nye & Ken Hamm when asked at the end (victory claimed by both sides of course) if anything would change their minds "Nothing" says Ken. "Evidence" says Bill.
    The idea that this presents us with no reason to not have the conversation is well...at best it's lazy, at it's worst it's the lazy apathetic mire that allows non scientifically nonsense to prattle it's way to arenas of the public it has no right to. The part you failed to mention for instance on the Hamm/Nye part is....one of those positions actually has reality on it's side. I'll give you it hint, it's not the fellow who's name sounds like a tasty meat dish.

  14. #434

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    I agree with you 100%.

    For a discussion though, both sides need to start on what they commonly hold to be true - and between this (shorthand) science vs YE Creationism there is very little common ground.

    I doubt that they would even agree on assumption one - that the physical world is real, there are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.

    I say this not to imply that these religious views should not be challenged (especially when ignorance of science, the scientific method etc) is evident and worse, where religion tries to use science to back up its perfidious claims, but to represent the futility of continued argument.

    Basics isn't using the same tools as someone arguing from a rational perspective - it's already very frustrating to read their responses.

    It is in interesting point you raise - how do you (how can you!?) continue a discussion with someone who my old physics lecturer would say is "not even wrong"?

  15. #435

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethelred Unraed View Post
    I agree with you 100%.

    For a discussion though, both sides need to start on what they commonly hold to be true - and between this (shorthand) science vs YE Creationism there is very little common ground.

    I doubt that they would even agree on assumption one - that the physical world is real, there are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.

    I say this not to imply that these religious views should not be challenged (especially when ignorance of science, the scientific method etc) is evident and worse, where religion tries to use science to back up its perfidious claims, but to represent the futility of continued argument.

    Basics isn't using the same tools as someone arguing from a rational perspective - it's already very frustrating to read their responses.

    It is in interesting point you raise - how do you (how can you!?) continue a discussion with someone who my old physics lecturer would say is "not even wrong"?
    I can only speak for myself and I just put basics on ignore. I don't have much inclination to chat with folks I consider such a waste of oxygen and such a detriment to the human race.

  16. #436
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,075

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethelred Unraed View Post
    For a discussion though, both sides need to start on what they commonly hold to be true - and between this (shorthand) science vs YE Creationism there is very little common ground. I doubt that they would even agree on assumption one - that the physical world is real, there are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
    I say this not to imply that these religious views should not be challenged (especially when ignorance of science, the scientific method etc) is evident and worse, where religion tries to use science to back up its perfidious claims, but to represent the futility of continued argument.
    What often goes wrong in discussions like these is that people try to argue why, by the standards of their own beliefs, the beliefs of others must be wrong. Fact is there will be multitudes of different beliefs. It happens even within a single religion. If we all just accepted that, then we would not equate others explaining their views with them trying to dissuade us from ours. Then perhaps we could listen and actually understand eachother, even if we would not agree. It's probably the best you can hope for anyway.
    Last edited by Muizer; August 29, 2014 at 12:46 PM.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  17. #437

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    I'm going to guess that most languages had a word that was the equivalent of sphere. Shapes are pretty basic, and what is basically a round ball, something anyone could make out of mud with their hands most likely had a word.
    In Biblical Hebrew, the word dūr for "ball" can also mean "mound", "dome", "circle", or "fortress". It's formed out of a root that means "to dwell". From Aramaic, it's also the dura in Dura-Europos. But it's never used to describe the earth. The word that is used to describe the earth is more like "circle" or "circuit" as in the line drawn by a compass. You could maybe stretch that somehow to be a sphere I guess, but based on the historical context I think it is pretty clearly describing the earth as a disc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  18. #438
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    " Basics isn't using the same tools as someone arguing from a rational perspective - it's already very frustrating to read their responses. "

    Ethelred Unraed,

    Basics has dozens of books by emminent scientists who by their own scientific methods and models have been persuaded that evolution does not work, cannot work, and that supported by evolutionists who have hit the proverbial brick wall in their methodology yet they cling to it regardless of the evidence.

    On the other hand basics by experience does know that Jesus Christ saves, him being just one example out of millions through the generations. I don't need to hide behind billions of years to express what I know and experience every other day. So, what is the most logical? To experience the life changing work done by God on an irreverent sinner or to believe that nothing actually made something?

  19. #439

    Default The Most Logical Religion

    Read these assumptions about science here:-

    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

    If you agree with these then we can discuss what you understand about evolution.

    If you can't agree with what's stated there then there's no point because you'll just say "because God" to anything I say - and good luck to you.

    That covers the first point about evolution.

    For the second about god, then IMHO you've obviously had a personal revelation which seems very real to you. This is a faith/philosophy or theological discussion.

    Do you see though how these things are different? Using science means you must use sciences rules which is why I ask you to read about the assumptions above. For matters of faith then it's completely different and I would suggest we agree to disagree now as nothing I say (unless you tell me otherwise!) would convince you *not* to believe.

    So - I'm willing to discuss creationist science and why it isn't accepted by science in general, or we can discuss theology using debating rules, but as others and I have said your arguments are so far specious and illogical.
    Last edited by Ethelred Unraed; August 30, 2014 at 10:00 AM.

  20. #440

    Default Re: The Most Logical Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    In Biblical Hebrew, the word dūr for "ball" can also mean "mound", "dome", "circle", or "fortress". It's formed out of a root that means "to dwell". From Aramaic, it's also the dura in Dura-Europos. But it's never used to describe the earth. The word that is used to describe the earth is more like "circle" or "circuit" as in the line drawn by a compass. You could maybe stretch that somehow to be a sphere I guess, but based on the historical context I think it is pretty clearly describing the earth as a disc.
    I'm just saying if they wanted to describe something as spherical they would have a way to do so linguistically.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •