The Most Illogical Relgion

[Sir Adrian]

Except that the 10 commandments are the actual word of God and should be obeyed. Besides the teachings of Christ they're more or less the only direct word of God in the Bible

Christian literalism is a byproduct of Puritanism and only exists since ~18th century. It's frowned upon as a heresy in all mainstream Christian circles.

[Sphere]

Except that the 10 commandments are the actual word of God and should be obeyed. Besides the teachings of Christ they're more or less the only direct word of God in the Bible

Christian literalism is a byproduct of Puritanism and only exists since ~18th century. It's frowned upon as a heresy in all mainstream Christian circles.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 20: 4-5

It takes a brave Christian to defend that passage as being the clear and unadulterated word of God.

It is hard to peddle God as being loving and compassionate when he describes Himself as jealous and willing to punish innocent children for the sins of their Great-Great Grandfather.

I expect Mr. Adrian to make an attempt at it, but I don't think a reasonable person will find it convincing.

[War lord]

Except that the 10 commandments are the actual word of God and should be obeyed. Besides the teachings of Christ they're more or less the only direct word of God in the Bible

Christian literalism is a byproduct of Puritanism and only exists since ~18th century. It's frowned upon as a heresy in all mainstream Christian circles.

Usual Christian line when it comes to the bible, it's the word of god, except the parts I don't agree with.

[Ecthelion]

Oh this one is easy.

Trinitarian Christianity

Arianism made a lot more sense. Cause "Christ died for our sins, was crucified by God, which is himself also Christ to save the rest of humanity from being punished by Christ, I mean God, no I mean Christ..." doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The whole "co-substantial" thing doesn't really help either.

I've always marveled at the salesmanship of the early clergy. Just imagine trying to convert someone who is already "taken" religion wise, to give up their old gods and accept "God" who is all powerful but doesn't have a name and died for your sins, or rather sent his son to die for your sins, but his son is actually him and so he is sacrificing him to die for your sins, but he didn't really die, God that is, cause he rose to heaven, but that sacrifice still counts, but if you sin, you will still be punished even though God/Christ already died for your sins...

Yeah, fantastic salesmanship it must have been.

[Lazarus]

Usual Christian line when it comes to the bible, it's the word of god, except the parts I don't agree with.

To be fair to him, it's a consistent distinction to make, and logically sound too if you're willing to assume the commandments did come from God.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

I've always marveled at the salesmanship of the early clergy. Just imagine trying to convert someone who is already "taken" religion wise, to give up their old gods and accept "God" who is all powerful but doesn't have a name and died for your sins, or rather sent his son to die for your sins, but his son is actually him and so he is sacrificing him to die for your sins, but he didn't really die, God that is, cause he rose to heaven, but that sacrifice still counts, but if you sin, you will still be punished even though God/Christ already died for your sins...

Yeah, fantastic salesmanship it must have been.

IIRC the early missionary work focused a lot on the equality between serfs, slaves, citizens and nobles in the eyes of the Christian god. One god, making prayers and sacrifice easier than having to sacrifice to ten gods. Christianity is basically a dumbing down version of previous religions making it kind of "arcadish" and meant for "casuals", instead of "hardcore" believers.

[Denny Crane!]

Oh come on people how come I have to post this, should of been the second post!

[Phier]

To be logical a religion would have to abandon the supernatural and the untestable. Being I do not know any that do, they are all equally illogical.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

To be logical a religion would have to abandon the supernatural and the untestable. Being I do not know any that do, they are all equally illogical.

Both science and religion rest on unproven assumptions and supernatural events or figures, some agreeable to both, some not. Premise 1 is generally accepted by both. It states, to put it simply, that reality is what it is. Reality is an objective fact, independent of our subjective beliefs.


The statement “Everyone has their own reality” is incorrect. There is one reality, and the scientific method is just one way of trying to comprehend that reality, religion is another. Science gives a limited picture of reality; abundant evidence suggests that part of reality exists beyond the reach of our senses and scientific instruments. Science hypothesizes that the brain generates consciousness.

But the brain is simply a complex machine, executing huge numbers of operations at every moment. Even if a computer could be programmed to mimic human behavior, there is no reason to believe that it will ever be conscious.

You jelly of my formatting?

Just Kidding,

[Phier]

Both science and religion rest on unproven assumptions and supernatural events or figures, some agreeable to both, some not. Premise 1 is generally accepted by both. It states, to put it simply, that reality is what it is. Reality is an objective fact, independent of our subjective beliefs.


The statement “Everyone has their own reality” is incorrect. There is one reality, and the scientific method is just one way of trying to comprehend that reality, religion is another. Science gives a limited picture of reality; abundant evidence suggests that part of reality exists beyond the reach of our senses and scientific instruments. Science hypothesizes that the brain generates consciousness.

But the brain is simply a complex machine, executing huge numbers of operations at every moment. Even if a computer could be programmed to mimic human behavior, there is no reason to believe that it will ever be conscious.

You jelly of my formatting?

Just Kidding,

But the fact of the issue is that only one is logical, science, in finding that answer. It may rest on some ideas which turn out to be false, but that very ability of falsification is what makes science logical over religion.

There is a chance some religion out there is in fact 100% correct, but due to its very illogical nature, we can't ever know it.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

But the fact of the issue is that only one is logical, science, in finding that answer. It may rest on some ideas which turn out to be false, but that very ability of falsification is what makes science logical over religion.

There is a chance some religion out there is in fact 100% correct, but due to its very illogical nature, we can't ever know it.

I see what you did there
Well, Logic is different to different people, Logic is an idea, so therefore, it is naturally subjective.
I guess any "literalist" interpretation of religion will be inaccurate, but the conception of the absolute truth is certainly something that should be inquired and it is
very hard, I guess you'd know when a religion is wrong, when your not happy with it because God will not discriminate with his creation as he is all merciful!
Nature is speaking the highest glory of God at every moment, we just need the eyes and ears to see and to hear.

[LestaT]

All religions except Islam are illogical. Not sure which is the 'most' as I have no time to study them all.

[Inhuman One]

The ones that incite violence and judgement on those who do not follow the same religion are the least logical to me.

So what if you think your god is supreme? Why not just leave others be and find out for themselves when they die that they are wrong? Why bother killing them for it or condemming their lifestyles?

It's all mythology to me either way.. God, Allah, Buddah, etc. are no different than Thor, Zeus, Ra, etc.

It even comes with the same moral stories that clearly are not true, yet people are stupid enough to believe them.

And I really can respect some biblical stories in that context though, when it teaches values or simply has an interesting angle. Then its just entertainment.

The most implausible bible story may still be Noah's arc.
I mean just consider the ship building techniques at the time.. at best they could make a raft. Yet Noah is able to build something that may not have been possible untill the renaissance.
Also the size. Remember that there are multible variations of many species. Perhaps less than later since some resulted in later crossbreeding and enviromental factors, but there would have been some. That arc would have needed to be as big as the titanic or such to hold all these animals.
Time to create the arc is also something.. it was just Noah and his three sons and their wives. So they just build that boat during their lifetime somehow? Or did they have workers to build it, but didnt allow these workers on board?
What about extended family? Noah must have had parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. His daughters in law must have had parents and siblings too. If his sons could convince them to follow god, they should clearly be disciples and go converting people to god.

I'm just guessing that many events may be based on something.. I mean there may have been a flood and someone build a boat on land.. perhaps he had a lot of animals with him because he was a farmer and that could be it.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

It's all mythology to me either way.. God, Allah, Buddah, etc. are no different than Thor, Zeus, Ra, etc.

Buddha never declared himself god, not did he possess any supernatural ability, he was a man who achieved liberation through human endeavours.

It even comes with the same moral stories that clearly are not true, yet people are stupid enough to believe them.

Like? What's so bad with the morals taught in Religion?

[LestaT]

Buddha never declared himself god, not did he possess any supernatural ability, he was a man who achieved liberation through human endeavours.

True. He was a great teacher and unfortunately like Jesus and countless of roman emperors he was made a god and people worshipped him.

[jockmcplop]

Buddha never declared himself god, not did he possess any supernatural ability, he was a man who achieved liberation through human endeavours.

And yet he was born out of his mother's side and spoke the moment he came out.

People living long ago created myths because they didn't have another way of communicating massive amounts of data. Usually when you see a religious story claiming that something supernatural happened, it is some kind of metaphorical way of handing down information to the next generation.
Unfortunately at some point people decided to ignore this and start claiming that the story's contained within religious texts actually happened and were true from an objective, historical point of view. That's where the problem lies IMO.

[Emperor Hantscher]

Buddhist don't consider him a God though don't they worship him as a man? Yes there are some mythological aspects of him but what ancient story doesn't have something extraordinary in it. Buddhism is certainly a unique religion and I think the most logical. Though I don't know a lot about it I won't say too much but I know it is based a lot on meditation and finding inner peace, meditation is scientifically proven to have many benefits to your mind so I do not think it is far off.

[O'Hea]

Buddhist don't consider him a God though don't they worship him as a man? Yes there are some mythological aspects of him but what ancient story doesn't have something extraordinary in it. Buddhism is certainly a unique religion and I think the most logical. Though I don't know a lot about it I won't say too much but I know it is based a lot on meditation and finding inner peace, meditation is scientifically proven to have many benefits to your mind so I do not think it is far off.

If you start from the core tenets and practices of Buddhism, it hardly seems like a religion at all and is more like a set of ethical precepts and some meditative/contemplative practices. But this is only a fraction of what's included in the Buddhist canon and, unfortunately, in many parts of the faith it plays a pretty small part in actual practice. The best reading I can give it is that the Buddha himself was agnostic and interested in lifestyle, not metaphysics, but somehow since his death Buddhism has picked up some impressively complex and crazy cosmological beliefs. This is largely due to influence from Brahmanic religion, and from the many folk practices it blended with as it spread outward.

[Denny Crane!]

And yet he was born out of his mother's side and spoke the moment he came out.

People living long ago created myths because they didn't have another way of communicating massive amounts of data. Usually when you see a religious story claiming that something supernatural happened, it is some kind of metaphorical way of handing down information to the next generation.
Unfortunately at some point people decided to ignore this and start claiming that the story's contained within religious texts actually happened and were true from an objective, historical point of view. That's where the problem lies IMO.

Yeah you are thinking of Prince Shotoku which is a Japanese myth.

There are many tales regarding the prince Shotoku’s life. According to the
Nihonshoki
(Suiko, 1
st
year, 4
th
month, 10
th
day), he is described as a being who could speak at the moment he was born and has the intelligent like the adult. He
could also listen to ten men’s clam at once and discern each of them without any
error. He was also considered to be born with the gifted foreknowledge of future events.

Buddha on the other hand was born a man, claimed to be an ordinary man, lived a decadent life as a prince for a while before deciding to renounce it all then fethed up for a while by going the whole ascetic route. Not a prince who had infinite knowledge the moment he was born at all.

Buddhist don't consider him a God though don't they worship him as a man? Yes there are some mythological aspects of him but what ancient story doesn't have something extraordinary in it. Buddhism is certainly a unique religion and I think the most logical. Though I don't know a lot about it I won't say too much but I know it is based a lot on meditation and finding inner peace, meditation is scientifically proven to have many benefits to your mind so I do not think it is far off.

Most of what is attached to him is popular myths and desires of the peoples culture at the time and that changes depending on where you are, Tibetans attached their existing cosmology to Buddhism, Japan attached all their crazy to him or just made stuff up and put it in. Buddhisms weakness and strength is that it isn't dogmatic so its all things to all people seemingly. He also seemingly spoke differently depending on who he was talking too. Ignorant village people needed myths, much like I guess Jesus used parables.

There are to many hints that it should be evidence based though and this if you are Buddhist and just relying on things of faith or superstition I just wonder what you are reading.

If you start from the core tenets and practices of Buddhism, it hardly seems like a religion at all and is more like a set of ethical precepts and some meditative/contemplative practices. But this is only a fraction of what's included in the Buddhist canon and, unfortunately, in many parts of the faith it plays a pretty small part in actual practice. The best reading I can give it is that the Buddha himself was agnostic and interested in lifestyle, not metaphysics, but somehow since his death Buddhism has picked up some impressively complex and crazy cosmological beliefs. This is largely due to influence from Brahmanic religion, and from the many folk practices it blended with as it spread outward.

I agree.

[jockmcplop]

Yeah you are thinking of Prince Shotoku which is a Japanese myth.

Apologies if i'm wrong but i took this from a lecture by Joseph Campbell, a comparative religion academic. I'm struggling to find the exact source as i have seen hours of his lectures (they get taken down fast due to overzealous copyright claimants). There's are references to this online, but they are not as easily found as i thought they would be.

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/produc...-s-birth-ZU61/

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhis...ory/buddha.htm #3

The following is less fanciful, but still has a newborn infant speaking:
http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddha/a/birthofbuddha.htm



EDIT:
I think the difference with Buddhism in particular and to an extent Hinduism, is that the canon associated with the religion is taught with varying degrees of faithfulness, and is widely understood by followers to just be stories, rather than objective fact and historical data. The central part of the religion is still inner peace and spirituality, and an arc which all humans take to some degree of the change from a materialistic, animal being to a spiritual being.