Are religion and logic incompatible?

Are religion and logic incompatible?

Religion is a step on the logical progression of the search for knowledge and understanding. From mysticism came Religion, from Religion came Philosophy, from Philosophy, the Scientific Method.

It was the most logical thing in existence, at the time it was created.

It is the enemy of reason, yes

God is real and his name is Lucifer.

No.

Most of the brilliant mathematicians were religious.

Sage.

Atheism and understanding are incompatible. Extreme skepticism to a standard which even history texts couldn't meet is not logical. If atheists held everything to the same degree of skepticism they held the concept of a creator they can literally not believe any historical figure they've read about it real

And what is pol's take on atheism? I've noticed it being mocked here, which doesn't seem consistent with a group that seems to pride itself on logical thought. Is it more an attack on annoying atheists themselves than actual atheism?

Wrong. Dogma is the enemy.

It's dumb and bad because muh bible says so. Following a religion made by desert jews is the true red pill!

This is wrong. History isn't a science.

But did they apply that mathematical knowledge to matters of religion or just accept it blindly?

What is illogical about a god existing exactly?

Many Sup Forumsiticians will define religion as a "red pill" because they don't understand what that term means.

There seem to be better arguments against the existence of God than for it.

Wat

No. Logic and religion are just two offshoots of metaphysical philosophy.

A complete lack of evidence.

Yeah, that one lost me too.

What we attack is the idea that atheism is born from logical thought and that theism is the antithesis of logical thought which is fedora thinking that's been repeated on redit so much that people started taking it as some kind of self evident fact. .

What argument is there besides "no proof"

No, Atheism is an absolute abomination.

This, religion is perfect and true philosophy revealed by supernatural means.

There isn't a lack of evidence. There's no proof, but there's countless evidence. The available evidence not being enough to convince you isn't the same as a complete lack of evidence

They are skeptical. The skeptical are called agnostics because they have the good sense to at least accept they can't prove the existance of God, nor can they disprove.

Atheists are just loud mouthed idiots who shoulder a superiority complex. The irony of the atheist is that they hold science,p, yet they forget that on science... One of the first rules you learn is that there are no absolutes. Yet, they spout science to "prove" their claim there is absolutely no God. Again, most of them are idiots. I have to meet one who was half as smart as they think they are.

As for logic. You can use a broad brush when you ask that question. You need to be specific. Why? Because we Catholics have no problem with science, we have no problem with evolution or the Big Bang... Hell, many major scientific discoveries and breakthroughs came from Catholic scientific minded people.

Now, on the other hand.... While Catholics freely accept, for example, that the earth is 4 billion years old... The evangelicals are the ones who claim it's only 6,000 years and believe dinosaurs walked the earth with modern humans.

Just two examples.

...

Fuck I have learn to proof read.

Not at all, secular ideologies have no factual basis and ignore the scientific method, which leads such individuals to referring towards logical fallacies as a way of suppoting their position.

"There isn't sufficient evidence"
"You cannot not disprove God exist"
"God is the same as Santa Claus, FSM, etc."
"he" (Theism =/= organized religion)

As an athiest, one dying question I can't wrap my head around is the part where we kinda just plopped into existence out of the asshole of nothingness

So it seems like people are mostly against uncritical, unthinking fedora atheism. Or a faith in atheism that is no different than religious faith. Sound right?

"No proof" is a pretty solid argument IMO.

What would you consider evidence of God?

The need for the beginning of the universe is an error in perception.

Religion and logic are not mutually exclusive values. Religion teaches morals where logic does not. The correct way to phrase this question is is belief in a god logical? Since religion is a lot more than just about belief in something that cannot be proven true.

Wow I guess you make a fair argument so I guess we should disregard all scientific, medical and cultural advancements made by illogical religious people haha!

Militant atheism and logic are incompatible.

Soft, tolerant atheists who don't hate religious people are fine, but militant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are flying in the face of overwhelming evidence.

No.

Yeah, I'm with you on the agnostic distinction (as is Dawkins). I'm getting a sense that it's the vegan/cross fit/atheist types that are the biggest gripe so far.

Religion is the denial of observation so that faith can be preserved. It is fundamentally illogical to ignore evidence. Of course they're incompatible.

No proof is actually a very good argument, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And since religious folks can't cite anything valid that causes a big problem.

Which religion and why?

People are against the idea that atheism is more rational. If someone is an atheist and they argue for it, I'm 100% ok and respectful of it. If someone is an atheist and claims it's more rational than being a theist with absolutely no reason other than it being repeated so many times he thinks it's true, that's the problem.

It isn't when there's evidence. There's not proof of much in this world, only evidence. Extreme skepticism isn't logical, especially when you only apply it to religion and nowhere else. If anything that skepticism should only make you an anostic. To take no proof of god and say that means there is no God is an illogical leap. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

Could you elaborate, what overwhelming evidence are they flying in the face of?

I made no argument. However, I did phrase the question incorrectly.

They most likely put more mathematical knowledge into their beliefs than atheists with their ludicrous assertion that "reality just happened once lol".

Atheism is a cancer that is destroying the west, were Christianity and indeed religion as a concept (including Islam) given it's due respect then Islam would not be nearly so great a threat as it is.

There's the cosmological argument. You can look at the pure unliklieness of the universe, things like the odds of protein chains forming on their own being less likely than 1 in (every atom in the observable universe). The big bang suggesting the universe was made at a specific place at a specific time suggests creation, and there's countless philosophical arguments.

Again, not proof, but there's evidence and argument to be made.

Those are the problem children. They just don't know when shut the fuck up and mind their own business. They're so consumed with self loathing they make it a point to disparage anyone of faith for their own amusement.

I don't rub my religious beliefs in their faces and expect the same courtesy in return. But, because their fedoras are on so tight the circulation to their brains has been cut off... They're like an autist seeing Christmas lights... They cant help themselves at the opportunity to make themselves feel superior.

Is it important as a tool whether it's true or not?

A creator of the universe is not an extraordinary claim. The non existence of one is extraordinary. A creator is the simplest answer and jo creator is absurd

Define "reason"
Sounds like a spook just like "morals"

It's a null hypothesis

What I've hear is, given the size of the universe, life is actually more likely to have formed than not. My understanding is that it would be highly unlikely for life not to form.

Hahaha, nice.

Much better way of phrasing it. Thanks.

That understanding is wrong. Life was less likely to form than it was to not form given the size of the universe. You should read up on protein chains.

Again, everything was either laying around or plopped out the asshole of nothingness... even if that were true, that's still more of an observation than an explanation.

That's a fair call but who's to say the scientific method doesn't lead us to a religion being true?

> atheist are the enlightened ones of this world
> atheism promotes logic and reason
> atheist promotes objectivity, skepticism and the free discussion of ideas
> atheist use objectivity and reason to advance human society

Are you referring to religion?
Yes, absolutely unfortunately a lot of atheists are more idealistic and naive than the religious people they deride for being exactly that.
What atheists don't realise is that most people are too dumb to have a set of concrete moral values without having them dictated to them by an authority, historically that authority has been the various churches of Christianity and it has been extremely successful in that role. Now with many in the west becoming disillusioned with Christianity we see them taking up new moral centers one of the most popular being feminism, it's no simple coincidence that so many parallels can be drawn between modern feminism and religion with its followers being similarly dogmatic in their pushing of their grand narrative.

Now the reason I myself am a Christian despite knowing the purpose of religion is that to me the idea that reality just happened is incredibly illogical.

You're ignoring the possibility that the entire universe has always existed and that you're just constrained to observing it at a finite rate that is proportionate to your speed.

The same reason Neil Degrass Tyson should shut the fuck up about politics (or at least not be considered some kind of expert on the subject).

> from religion came philosophy
> implying the scientific method is the most logical thing in existance

Mainly because there is no way to acquire empirical evidence of God himself.

No he isn't. He said "either everything was laying around or". That was the laying around part

I started to type this but failed to succeed in stating it coherently, so I didn't post.

Care to explain protein chains or not?

Probably so, but consider this:

Life as we know it is carbon based. This is where the problem of astrobiology comes in. Can life be based off of other chemical elements, as some have proposed silicon and arsenic-based life forms. If so, then the same random events that led to the formation of life here should be easily replicated in the observable universe.

Let's say that the Big Bang was uniform in process; that is, the universe is symmetrical. So the reason why we haven't seen life is because

1. We are too far away from the "other side" of the point of symmetry
2. Life was unlikely to form randomly, but it did

Islam obviously
Because it's the truth

>always existed

>can literally go back and look at the beginning of the Universe forming

consider reading a book

Yes, don't be stupid user.

Damn bruh, you just blinded me with science.

The relevant part of protein chains to my argument is that they were astronomically unlikely to form yet based on the size and age of our post big bang universe.

leaf>shitpost

By your logic you need to shut the fuck up about politics too, cuck.

>the universe is symmetrical.

But it isn't. That is why we have a random distribution of matter. This is also something YEC's bring up when they try to discredit the big bang, which is actually somewhat of a fair criticism.

>the pinnacle of logic is "a sky wizard did everything"
yeah I'm out

HAIL

No, some of the greatest scientists have been religious
Atheists takes their spasms to whole new levels of autism in trying to be right, which they aren't.
In short, fuck atheists, especially atheists preaching about muh atheism.

His post wasn't science. It was logical deductions based on speculation, none that is substantiated by anything empirical.

Are HUMANS and logic incompatible?

I'd say Christian Identity, that is at least the closet I've seen, if not the full 100% Truth. It's interesting there is only one single Truth in all of existence, only one Truth, yet there are thousands of nearly innumerable religions, beliefs, philosophies, ect which purport to convey and profess the One single Truth that exists, what ever that one Truth may be. One Truth, but over thousands of interpretations of that One single Truth we all desire and yearn to seek. There should only be One belief for One Truth, the Truth, and the only Truth that exists.

No, atheists who think this way just cannot fathom the idea that there are religious people who have seen evidence that God exists. As someone who has felt the presence of God firsthand, I have no doubts whatsoever that He exists. I know that I cannot use that as evidence to convince others, because I cannot show them the proof, but it would be completely illogical to just ignore what I experienced.

People don't view me as some kind of expert on religion due to my expertise in other areas. People take his word for shit cuz he's a scientist, even if he's not talking about science. Please try to pay attention.

Did you read it properly? He said it was the most logical thing AT THE TIME it was created.

>sky wizard

The day I no longer see this meme on Sup Forums/ will be the day. Go back to Sup Forums or reddit you faggot. Wherever you came from.

Ameen

agnostic theism is the only logical position

>atheism
>everything came from nothing
not logical

I mean the entire universe and all of "time" and all probabilities simultaneously may exist spatially in higher dimensions.

That is only "going back" because you're used to only experiencing the third dimension at a finite rate in one direction.

...

I love this fallacy
>muh universe couldn't be created from nothing
>God could create himself from nothing

non overlapping magisteria

Matthew 7:7

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

The even left us a cheat sheet telling us how to get evidence or God

>>everything came from nothing

Prove anything had to come.

Atheism is just the answer the question if you believe in a God/Gods or not? It's Yes or No. There's no middle-ground there.

One can be an Agnostic-Atheist (which is what most Atheists are), they don't believe because there's no good objective evidence.

Faith is not a good way to truth.

Exactly right.

Religion is an entrenched mechanism that humans biologically crave to make sure they don't self-terminate, as the West is currently doing by eschewing religion.

Gentlemen, you all need only look around to see where secularism leads. 0 birth rate, ladies chopping their tits off, men chopping their dicks off, and everyone committing suicide.

>implying God had a beginning
>implying God has an end

I said "let's say", I don't know if the Big Bang made a symmetrical universe. The astrobiology stuff is solid though.

And I don't see how a symmetrical universe is a criticism of the Big Bang.

It seems like an OK speculation, assuming that this "God" or whatever "higher power" is "higher" than physics, which sounds ridiculous but then it relies totally on assumption to sneak out of being proved empirically by our current tools and understanding of science.

tl;dr - a "higher power" being exempt from physical law is one of the only "science-y" explanations that theism can come up with

>God created himself from nothing

That's not the argument. The argument is that he's always existed not that he created himself.

I wish a believed in a religion desu. Would give me more energy/focus i think

Cmon bruh, the bible is most definitely not evidence of God.

Multiple people of other religions with God(s) different than yours have experienced similar things. You were indoctrinated into your beliefs (without any good objective evidence). People have "mystical" experiences and attribute it to the sky-daddy they were indoctrinated to believe.

does someone need a sky daddy?

I would say a benevolent being in the sky is unreasonable.

Intelligent Design is not. Think of how we make 2D objects. Perhaps, we were created by something like a 4D being of sorts. Benevolent, though? Knowing all our thoughts? Influencing our lives?
Doubtful.