The Most Logical Religion

[ShockBlast]

It can be a belief, but generally it is not. That's why it's so confusing to theists.

I have no doubt that some "Atheists" treat Atheism as a religion but then didn`t they just crossed the other side since they believe without checking the facts?

[PointOfViewGun]

Logical can indeed be taken subjectively and most people will probably pick their own religion. I don't know about an objective answer but I know that atheism in its current stance that it's the least logical. If it was really based on science it would require its believers to acknowledge the possibility of a higher power's existence. It certainly became a religion that is a knee jerk reaction to things they don't like about the mainstream religions of the world. Oh, and it's a religion alright, just not an organized one.

I always expressed that Islam is the most logical choice but that's mostly in comparison to Christianity. What's the main difference is that in Islam prophets are human beings. There is no issue of trinity in it which hardly any Christian can explain properly. Lesley Hazleton also illustrates another example in her TED Talk where Muhammad also doubt that he had his first vision.

[ShockBlast]

Logical can indeed be taken subjectively and most people will probably pick their own religion. I don't know about an objective answer but I know that atheism in its current stance that it's the least logical. If it was really based on science it would require its believers to acknowledge the possibility of a higher power's existence. It certainly became a religion that is a knee jerk reaction to things they don't like about the mainstream religions of the world. Oh, and it's a religion alright, just not an organized one.

I always expressed that Islam is the most logical choice but that's mostly in comparison to Christianity. What's the main difference is that in Islam prophets are human beings. There is no issue of trinity in it which hardly any Christian can explain properly. Lesley Hazleton also illustrates another example in her TED Talk where Muhammad also doubt that he had his first vision.

And our god is?

[PointOfViewGun]

And our god is?

re·li·gion

[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional andritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons orsects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Who says a religion has to have a god?

[ShockBlast]

Who says a religion has to have a god?

Cool story bro but we use facts provided through the use of the scientific method.We don`t believe, we know.

[PointOfViewGun]

Cool story bro but we use facts provided through the use of the scientific method.We don`t believe, we know.

Well, it's a funny way of using facts when you ignore the definition I provided. And, no. You don't know. You believe.

[Denny Crane!]

Science does not say that there can not be a higher power just that there is no evidence of one.

Atheism weak form does not deny a higher power at all in the same way science does not.

Atheism strong form does not deny a higher power but are comfortable saying they believe in the non existence based on the reason of a lack of evidence.

Nothing illogical about that setekh.

[Himster]

I have no doubt that some "Atheists" treat Atheism as a religion but then didn`t they just crossed the other side since they believe without checking the facts?

Not all atheists are skeptics or empiricists. It is sure there are some atheists who believe fervently that no God-ish things can exist with the same fervour as any other religious person.
There are buddhists who are atheists and many of them believe is crazy supernatural things, it's not like atheists are magically immune to silly beliefs.

[PointOfViewGun]

Science does not say that there can not be a higher power just that there is no evidence of one.
Atheism weak form does not deny a higher power at all in the same way science does not.
Atheism strong form does not deny a higher power but are comfortable saying they believe in the non existence based on the reason of a lack of evidence.
Nothing illogical about that setekh.

Just more word play. Nothing more. Yet, that's not even accurate on how those terms are usually used.

[ShockBlast]

Not all atheists are skeptics or empiricists. It is sure there are some atheists who believe fervently that no God-ish things can exist with the same fervour as any other religious person.
There are buddhists who are atheists and many of them believe is crazy supernatural things, it's not like atheists are magically immune to silly beliefs.

Aaahhh...Gnostic Atheists.

True, but they are so damn rare since the majority of Atheists are Agnostic.

By the way, wouldn`t Gnostic Atheists be theists?

Just more word play. Nothing more. Yet, that's not even accurate on how those terms are usually used.

[Denny Crane!]

Just more word play. Nothing more. Yet, that's not even accurate on how those terms are usually used.

Pretty close (i like a tighter definition on the nature of belief) and nothing illogical in what I am saying which you as usual do your level best not to address.

[PointOfViewGun]

Ahahaha, since your initial oppositions failed to hold ground you're attacking me just for having faith? Not pathetic at all...

Pretty close (i like a tighter definition on the nature of belief) and nothing illogical in what I am saying which you as usual do your level best not to address.

That's cute, especially since you're responding to my addressing of your post which you're simultaneously claiming to not exist. Everything can be made logical if enough word play is utilized and that is precisely what a lot of atheists do. You even talk about my posting habits and claim that I'm doing my best not to address what you say. That's really not ironic... They try their best to distance themselves from "belief" in any kind as it's so tied religion. While in reality, they either have somewhat of a belief in a higher power, don't want to be associated with a religion and are ashamed of admitting their belief, or they just believe that there is no higher power and they don't want express that as belief since they fear being put in the same basket as theists. So, the proper terms should be Closeted Atheists/Theists and Out-in-the-Open Atheists/Theists.

[Denny Crane!]

How is that word play? It directly addressed the point of either adamantly denying or accepting the possibility of a creator, I simply showed how it is not relevant either in science or atheism.

Address that.

[PointOfViewGun]

How is that word play? It directly addressed the point of either adamantly denying or accepting the possibility of a creator, I simply showed how it is not relevant either in science or atheism.

I've already addressed it but let me dumb it down for you. The distinctions you're making does not exist in real life. They're merely wordplay to make atheists/theists feel better about what they believe in.

[Denny Crane!]

It is as real as your distinction about the knowledge of what happened before the big bang.

You think it needed dumbed down? I think this conversation got pretty dumb pretty fast. So in other words no legitimate objection - gotcha!

[PointOfViewGun]

It is as real as your distinction about the knowledge of what happened before the big bang.

You think it needed dumbed down? I think this conversation got pretty dumb pretty fast. So in other words no legitimate objection - gotcha!

So, we have no idea if it's real or not? Since I, nor anyone, has any knowledge of what happened before the big bang... That's a strange way to defend the reality of the distinction you were using.

[Denny Crane!]

It is very definite if you are claiming that the lack if knowledge is a fundamental problem with atheism. It is an illusory one that you seem to have randomly attributed to atheists who adamantly refuse to acknowledge the possibility of god. The only time to do so is from an apriori logical axiom, but believing there is no god is not the same as denying the possibility of one.

But if you want to invent problems with atheism then fine. Rock on if it makes you feel better.

[ShockBlast]

Ahahaha, since your initial oppositions failed to hold ground you're attacking me just for having faith? Not pathetic at all...

I don`t see Setekh written anywhere.And second of all the quote makes a difference between faith and evidence.

That's cute, especially since you're responding to my addressing of your post which you're simultaneously claiming to not exist. Everything can be made logical if enough word play is utilized and that is precisely what a lot of atheists do. You even talk about my posting habits and claim that I'm doing my best not to address what you say. That's really not ironic... They try their best to distance themselves from "belief" in any kind as it's so tied religion. While in reality, they either have somewhat of a belief in a higher power, don't want to be associated with a religion and are ashamed of admitting their belief, or they just believe that there is no higher power and they don't want express that as belief since they fear being put in the same basket as theists. So, the proper terms should be Closeted Atheists/Theists and Out-in-the-Open Atheists/Theists.

What the...hell are you talking about?

[PointOfViewGun]

It is very definite if you are claiming that the lack if knowledge is a fundamental problem with atheism. It is an illusory one that you seem to have randomly attributed to atheists who adamantly refuse to acknowledge the possibility of god. The only time to do so is from an apriori logical axiom, but believing there is no god is not the same as denying the possibility of one.

But if you want to invent problems with atheism then fine. Rock on if it makes you feel better.

Those mean exactly the same thing.

I don`t see Setekh written anywhere.And second of all the quote makes a difference between faith and evidence.

And, I don't see any relevance what we're talking about in that quote other than a pathetic attempt to attack the opposite side for having faith. Call a spade a spade please.

[Denny Crane!]

Ive explained why belief and acknowledging the possibility are not the exact same thing.

If you cant get it, OK.