Anyways, as interesting as all this may be, it is blatantly apparent that no one in this thread, or anyone truly believing the Bible (as in takes it literally) have never taken a basic course in critical reasoning. All of the presented arguments are flooded with logical fallacies; and here is a relevant fallacy that people just love to violate: Appeal to ignorance ("argumentum ad ignorantiam"): It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). It seems logic is something that many sorely lack.
As usual debating with religious people is like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good I'm at chess, they will just knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and strut around victoriously. and Dan, you don't need to take critical reasoning course to understand logic and reasons. It's all around us, people just need to open up their minds and stop believing in fairy tales.
Acknowledging the existence of logic and reasoning is one thing, fully understanding the science and history of logic and reasoning is another. One can think they understand logic and reasoning (or rather, one can claim one is logical and reasonable), but that does not mean they realistically understand the scientific concepts of logic and reasoning. i.e. A human being acknowledges that the laws of physics exist. The laws of physics are all around us. Regardless of whether they open their minds or not, that does not mean that the human understands why and how they exist, without taking courses in physics. Anyways, I'm not claiming that they should "stop believing in fairy tales". That's a fallacy in and of itself: by that statement you are claiming that religion is analogous to a fairy tale. By definition, a fairy tale is a children's story about magical and imaginary beings/lands, OR a fabricated story (one intended to deceive). By definition, a religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power, or a particular system of faith and worship pursued by those in which the set of belief is of interest. According to the definition of a fairy tale, you make the unproven assumption that religion is a children's story, or that it is intended to deceive. You didn't write the religion, so you cannot confirm its intentions. Furthermore, religion is a set of belief, not a story. You're making an appeal to association, which is a logical fallacy. I repeat: Appeal to ignorance ("argumentum ad ignorantiam"): It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). Therefore, you assert that a proposition (religion) is false, because it has not yet been proven true. The premises of "It's [logic] all around us" and "people need to open up their minds" are valid. I agree with those premises. But the conclusion derived from those premises "you don't need to take critical reasoning course to understand logic and reasons." is invalid. Your premises are irrelevant to this statement because you are using the fallacy of non-sequitur. So are you sure you really understand logic and reasoning? Having said that, I am arguing that people should not stop following their religions, HOWEVER what people should take out of the literary works of their respective religions are the moral teachings to follow a better life, NOT blindly and literally seek truth of the existence of a superhuman entity (i.e. God).
Wow Dan, you really take what I say literally. For a minute there I thought we were on the same page. It doesn't take a genius to know that no one can fully understand logic and reasons. So I don't know why you need to write a full paragraph explaining that. But to let religion over take what is logical and proven by science is absurd such as Creationist vs evolutionist. Religion was created by man and it's intention was to control people in the dark ages where science wasn't popular. Anything that the people can't explain at that time, the answer is always "God did it". I agree religion has it's good merits and it does teach morals to our childrens. I just don't agree with their tactics and the way they scared children with hell and torture. And when they start getting involved in politics telling us what we can and can not do and changes laws to suit their religion. That's when I have to call it Bull shit. You seem to fiip flop around this topic. In some of your other posts, you are vulgar and disrespectful to religious people (which I don't agree with) and in this post you seem to be defending religion. I guess you are one of those who are on the fence and don't know what to believe yet. I wish you luck! And if you don't like me calling it a fairy tale, we can call it myths or superstitions, will that work for you?
Dan before you write another lengthy post, let me just say that I am not here to make enemies. This is just a place for people to share ideas and maybe rant and rave. Although it may seem I disrespect religious people, that is not my intention. I believe in all my posts i have been polite and straight to the point. My wife is a strong Catholic, my parents are Buddhist (i believe that's what you are too), most my family and friends believe in one faith or another. So I have nothing against religious people. I'm just against the religious dogma and the brain washing. and my post above about you being vulgar and disrespectful, that may be someone else post i might have mistaken. I think you were just in one of the thread. so I apologize for that.
Hahaha calm down man, it seems you're the one who's taking what I said seriously. I was simply making an argument (isn't it what this entire section was all about)? If you don't like my argument, you refute it. This is part of what a debate is all about. If you think I'm taking it seriously, I'm sorry but that's not the case. A lengthy post does not mean I am making enemies with you. A lengthy post means I am ELABORATING WITH DETAIL ON MY POINT OF VIEW AND ARGUMENT. Finally, any writing courses would show you that my lengthy posts do not reflect ANY emotions of contempt to other debaters. Argument != fight. Argument = logical claim. So don't get me wrong, I am NOT fighting you. I am debating. You seem to misunderstand my position. I am not against religion, nor am I against proven science. I am against the method in which parties involved in this religion vs science are undertaking to prove their point. You seem to think I was arguing against religion in previous posts, and you seem to think I was defending religion in my last post. Maybe I did not make myself clear, but I am arguing the method in which those who take religion to an extreme take, and now I am arguing in which Atheists make their arguments. Let me make it clearer: many Atheists and extreme Christians (and many other religions) follow the same method of argument. Take Christianity away, take God away, take Science and facts away, you both argue with the same methods. In the end, this religion vs science debate will go nowhere. Again with the false assumptions. Do you think I'm on the fence and don't know what to believe? I am a Buddhist. I know exactly what I believe. It does not matter to me whether a God exists or not. What concerns me is to take moral teachings from religions to better myself. That's the philosophy of Buddhism, and I'm following it to the letter. Here's a relevant quote by the Dalai Lama: This is the point of view of a spiritual person. Conversely, "by learning from religion about aspects of spirituality where its understanding may be more advanced", it enriches one's own worldview. My position (which has always been the case if you read my arguments): Science teaches us things about how the world works, how we can facilitate our way of living, and expand our knowledge. Religion teaches us things about how we can conduct ourselves to become better individuals, live well, and live with compassion. I do not concern myself with the existence of a superhuman entity.
So again, this is an educational debate. We are discussing in a civil manner. There are no place for criticism and contempt in this place (and my previous two posts do not reflect criticism nor contempt). Again, lengthy post means a well detailed post, reducing loopholes and sustaining a conclusion. Do not mistaken that with "being angry and taking it seriously". Furthermore, I rather enjoy this debate. It helps me practice for my philosophy test. I truly hope you see that I am not fighting anyone. I am merely discussing the logic of the current debate, which happens to be religion vs science. My emotions are not involved in this discussion. edit: here are the parties of those involved in this argument: 1. Christians: who argue that God exists. 2. Atheists: who argue that God does not exist. 3. Me: who argues that it does not matter if God exists.
