(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Introduction

This thread was created to view religious ideologies in a different perspective, perhaps a more objective, scientific, and an empirical one. This thread has 6 sections, comprising of [historic, scientific, statistical, philosophical, deterministic, logical] evidence of why religion is illogical in those areas, as well as in general.

[1]. . . . . Religion is Historically Illogical

Ancient Egyptians worshipped a sun god, 'Ra', because of the environmental affect of living in the desert it had on their lives. In Ancient Greece, to gain aspect of their own life and the phenomena that occurred, they believed in Greek Gods; or as known now, Greek mythology.

Everyone wants to believe that their religion is 'correct' or that the God they believe in, is the 'real' one; and, they deny that other religions are 'wrong', and the God they believe in is, 'fake'. They do not apply the same logic themselves, or look from the perspectives of those who aren't following their religion.

If your religion is correct: why did people form their own religions? It's a self-refuting prophecy, it's more logical to believe that:

Religion is based on the perspective, geography, and aspect of the life you're living. To assume your religion isn't a product of that, is historically illogical.

[2]. . . . . Religion is Scientifically Illogical

When making observations, scientists look through telescopes, study images on electronic screens, record meter readings, and so on. Generally, on a basic level, they can agree on what they see, e.g., the thermometer shows 37.9 C. But, if these scientists have different ideas about the theories that have been developed to explain these basic observations, they can interpret them in different ways. Ancient scientists interpreted the rising of the Sun in the morning as evidence that the Sun moved. Later scientists deduce that the Earth is rotating. For example, if some scientists may conclude that certain observations confirm a specific hypothesis, skeptical colleagues may suspect that something is wrong with the test equipment. Observations when interpreted by a scientist's theories are said to be theory-laden.

Whitehead wrote, "All science must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. These assumptions are justified partly by their adherence to the types of occurrence of which we are directly conscious, and partly by their success in representing the observed facts with a certain generality, devoid of ad hoc suppositions."

Observation involves both perception as well as cognition. That is, one does not make an observation passively, but is also actively engaged in distinguishing the phenomenon being observed from surrounding sensory data. Therefore, observations are affected by our underlying understanding of the way in which the world functions, and that understanding may influence what is perceived, noticed, or deemed worthy of consideration. More importantly, most scientific observation must be done within a theoretical context in order to be useful. For example, when one observes a measured increase in temperature with a thermometer, that observation is based on assumptions about the nature of temperature and its measurement, as well as assumptions about how the thermometer functions. Such assumptions are necessary in order to obtain scientifically useful observations (such as, "the temperature increased by two degrees").

- You must login or register to view this content.

In short, science finds empirical evidence of their claims, and peer-reviews studies to decentralize power, bias, and knowledge; religion simply does not do that, thus is scientifically illogical.

[3]. . . . . Religion is Statistically Illogical

There are You must login or register to view this content. of religions, that is would be almost statistically impossible, and illogical to believe that your religion is the correct one.

[4]. . . . . Religion is Philosophically Illogical

Three fundamental assumptions of philosophy. [thanks thunderf00t]

1. The universe exists.
   
2. We can learn something about the universe.
   
3. Models with predictive capabilities are more useful than models without predictive capabilities.
   

Perspectivism: the philosophical idea coined by Friedrich Nietzsche that as sentient beings, all of our perceptions are subjective - according to our own perceptions. We cannot possibly claim anything to be one-hundred percent 'objective' or even existent outside of or regardless of the mind, because of our perception. There is no such thing as absolute evidence/universal truth.

The existence of a god(s) cannot be one-hundred percent objectively true, and the assertion that a god(s) knows absolute truth/universal truth is idiotic, because you are a sentient being with the option of only viewing the world through your own perspective. The affect that life had on your mind fabricates ideas/ideologies, the Historically Illogical section gives multiple examples. On the contrary, the scientific perception of evolution may be flawed, but it has more empirical, observable, verifiable, and replicable evidence.

[5]. . . . . Religion is Deterministically Illogical

One of the religions that asserts God gave humans free will, is Christianity. This notion defies the laws of physics; the nature of our universe is deterministic - even how you think.

How Determinism fits:

1. Basic building block of any decision is information.
   
2. We do not have control over information which enters our brains, unless:
   
3. We have previously internalized information on which to base decision about new information.
   

What comes out of this is information network within our brains whose root (at least) is information that started network without our control whatsoever.

So, whichever decision we "make", if we retrace why we made that decision, it either ends in blank spot (we dont know) or comes to information which obviously came from outside and became internalized. There can be no conscious control, everything just happens, like river flow.

As a summary, determinism states that everything that happens has some sort of causal mechanism. A coin will land on one side due to how it bounces or spins, and you will think your thoughts based on some prior personal preference and the wiring of your brain and other stimuli. That is why [some] religions are deterministically illogical.

[6]. . . . . Religion is Logically Illogical

The definition of faith: belief that is not based on proof or logical premises; the opposite of reason. Below are logical fallacies that I find religion, and the people that support it, are commonly at fault to.

Appeal to faith: the concept of religion.

Appeal to tradition: traditional indoctrination, listen to what your parents tell you; a never ending cycle.

Appeal to ignorance: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Argument from adverse consequences: 'if you do not believe in God(s), you will burn in hell.'

Circular reasoning: the only reason God(s) exists is because the <ex. Bible, Torah, Quran> says so; the only reason the <ex. Bible, Torah, Quran> exists is because God(s) influenced it.

Appeal to the people: 'other people believe in this, you should too!'

Confirmation bias: experiencing scientific phenomena will often be thought with religious intent to religious individuals.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc [after this, therefore because of this]: any scientific phenomena experienced is caused by God(s), especially prominent with Greek Mythology.

Observational selection bias: a religious individual experiencing a tough situation, will often thank God(s) for the good that has happened during the bad, but forget that the bad is also the fault of God(s).

Red herring: many arguments boil down to morality that the asserted idea of God(s) has, but that argument says nothing about the existence of this being or idea; generally, avoiding the fundamental argument.

Slippery slope: a religious individual will likely think that humanity will become sinful if we did not have the concept of God(s), to sway us from the immoral; missing the fact that anyone with a dislike of pain of themselves or others will develop their own morals.

Argument from authority and statistics of small numbers: there will always be scientists that have religious views that try to scientifically prove religion; though, these studies they conduct are often not peer-reviewed and looked down upon in the scientific community, thus making it illogical to assume it's actually [scientific, empirical, verifiable, replicable] evidence.

Conclusion

Any questions, thoughts, or criticisms can be left below as a response, and if needed, will try my best to answer them.

Good night.

You lazy little shit. LOL

I had no intentions of any member comprehending this -- let alone responding to it. Though I would enjoy it if someone would.

This will go over well with a community that shoutbox bans you for talking about any mature subject because the retarded cancer inducing trolls can't talk about anything besides their copy and pasted gta mod menu

Well, one user already groaned me. I think I started off pretty well.

Bump.

It's late so im gonna keep this short, first off let me commend you for being the first person to have an argument structured so detailed and well thought out and written, I was surprised when I saw this after in that Science vs Religion thread that ClutchHunter I think it was made a while ago had was short arguments and was a flame war. I agree with your points and arguments but the thing is not many people on here will actually read and respond to this, after all this is a gaming forum where 12 Year olds come to post new CFG menus for mw2 that were c/p from someone else's work. Thanks for posting this, you got my thanks .

2015 years and 6 months 14 hours 59 mins since jesus died

Yes, I realize this place is not suited for real arguments, or mature discussion, I just post it for the hopes that it may interest someone in the subject.

Thank you.