Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[Neutraligon]

So since it's been a while since we have had this discussion and since the issue was raised in another thread I thought I would start this topic here. Like the OP stated is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical.

One of the first thing we would have to do is define religion. This is actually harder then one thinks, because there are things like atheistic religions, which while not believing in a god, does believe in a type of force that causes things like reincarnation. So what is it that unifies all religions.

Second we need to define a god. Again this is difficult considering the variety of gods that humans have created over the millenia. Not all gods are all powerful, some are part of pantheons, some are very like humans (think greek gods) while others are entirely inhuman, some are eternal and cannot die, while others have died (hell some are both of those). So again is there a common thing that links all gods. I would say a god is an anthropomorphic being who has opinions and thoughts of it's own and who is capable of breaking the laws of science as they are currently understood. The force described above would be able to break the laws of science as they are currently understood, and yet is not a being, and has no thoughts or opinion of its own.

Now science does change, so by laws of science as currently understood, I mean the most up to date laws and theories at anytime now or in the future.

I would say a religion is a belief in a being or force (think reincarnation) that is capable of breaking the laws of science as we currently understand them, and the traditions, and practices that come about as a result of that belief.

The ontological argument fails because how do we determine what is meant by great? Further, most of each religion admit that they cannot understand their god/force which means that such a god cannot actually be conceived. Finally there is no reason to believe that the greatest being actually exists.

The teological argument for god is actually one of the worst I have heard. A god or force should be able to make a world work in which we survive despite it "not being possible" for us to actually survive. This would actually provide evidence that such a force exists. Instead we survive in a world where it is possible for us to survive. We see exactly what we would expect to see should things come about naturally.

Given the definition of religion I gave, and the problems with many of the claims that attempt to show that god/religion is logical, as well as the fact that there is no evidence for a God/force, I would say that religion/belief in a god is indeed inherently illogical.

[Parcia]

-Bump-

-Pulls up lawn Chair, pops some popcorn, and sips a cherry coke-

This gonna be gud.

[Meryuma]

I don't believe in a god. I do think the idea of a perfect omnipotent creator is illogical.

[Miarie]

Belief in a god? Yes
Atheistic religion? No, but still somewhat illogical.

[Socialist Nordia]

Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is illogical, so yes.

[Risottia]

So since it's been a while since we have had this discussion and since the issue was raised in another thread I thought I would start this topic here. Like the OP stated is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical.

Yes, it's inherently illogical.
Does it make wrong to be religious? Nah.

[Neutraligon]

So since it's been a while since we have had this discussion and since the issue was raised in another thread I thought I would start this topic here. Like the OP stated is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical.

Yes, it's inherently illogical.
Does it make wrong to be religious? Nah.

Never said it was wrong, people do plenty of illogical things.

[Greater Orensta]

In my opinion, yes

[The New Sea Territory]

Whether it is or not is irrelevant.

[Socialist Nordia]

You should make a poll

[The New Sea Territory]

I would say a religion is a belief in a being or force (think reincarnation) that is capable of breaking the laws of science as we currently understand them, and the traditions, and practices that come about as a result of that belief.

Your definition of religion includes both me leaving sacrifices on an altar in the middle of the woods, and the entirety of the Catholic Church (a billion people, literally). That's way too broad to draw conclusions about.

I think its necessary to separate spiritual belief from religious affiliation and organization. Otherwise, you risk making broad claims that have no real conclusions.

[MERIZoC]

Oh boy, this can of worms. I cant wait to see edgy preteen dawkins worshippers and christian fundies come out of the woodwork to denounce anyone that believes differently from them as either "idiotic" or "blasphemous".

[Neutraligon]

I would say a religion is a belief in a being or force (think reincarnation) that is capable of breaking the laws of science as we currently understand them, and the traditions, and practices that come about as a result of that belief.

Your definition of religion includes both me leaving sacrifices on an altar in the middle of the woods, and the entirety of the Catholic Church (a billion people, literally). That's way too broad to draw conclusions about.

I think its necessary to separate spiritual belief from religious affiliation and organization. Otherwise, you risk making broad claims that have no real conclusions.

I have never heard what spiritual actually means. I guess I could include that a religion needs to be more then 1 person. I am not so sure it is too broad, since the definition needs to cover a wide variety of different groups, from the tiny cults of no more then 3-4 people, to the giant groups like the Catholic church.

Depending on how you define spiritual (I really have no idea how to define that), I would not say it can be separated from religion (while it can be separated from religions institutions, I do not believe an institution is needed to be a religion).

[Herargon]

If we're going to take logic, then believing in no god is illogical as well. And believing in a god as well is illogical. Both of these are illogical, because they use a premisse (I believe a higher entity exists/does not exist, therefore they must exist/not exist).

Therefore agnosticism would be the most logical outcome.
However, I myself consider to find that religious expression and practices are fine, as long as no severe hypocritism in acknowing with other already existing traditions is present, and as long as it isn't used as a force for misdeeds such as what the blackbands* in Iraq and Syria are

* My own name for this organisation. I refuse to call them by a name they use themselves.

[Nikolai the Russian Guy]

Nyet.

/thread

[Evilland of Evil Business]

While believing in an omnipotent higher being may seem completely illogical, please note that thanks to religion, we have morals and compassion (all due to a fear in God punishing us). Sure, we now don't need religion to be moral now, but without religion, life wouldn't have been so compassionate.

Granted, it came at the cost of rights of other races and the LGBT due to corruption and racism, which is not avoidable.

[Parcia]

While believing in an omnipotent higher being may seem completely illogical, please note that thanks to religion, we have morals and compassion (all due to a fear in God punishing us). Sure, we now don't need religion to be moral now, but without religion, life wouldn't have been so compassionate.

Granted, it came at the cost of rights of other races and the LGBT due to corruption and racism, which is not avoidable.

Probably the closest to what I think of this.

[The New Sea Territory]

While believing in an omnipotent higher being may seem completely illogical, please note that thanks to religion, we have morals and compassion (all due to a fear in God punishing us). Sure, we now don't need religion to be moral now, but without religion, life wouldn't have been so compassionate.

Why are morals good/worth having? (Here comes the circular logic)

[Neutraligon]

If we're going to take logic, then believing in no god is illogical as well. And believing in a god as well is illogical. Both of these are illogical, because they use a premisse (I believe a higher entity exists/does not exist, therefore they must exist/not exist).

Therefore agnosticism would be the most logical outcome.
However, I myself consider to find that religious expression and practices are fine, as long as no severe hypocritism in acknowing with other already existing traditions is present, and as long as it isn't used as a force for misdeeds such as what the black headbands in Iraq and Syria are doing.

Atheist does not necessarily mean the active belief in no god, and atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. There are agnostic and gnostic theists, as well as agnostic and gnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists and theists are indeed both illogical. I would claim however that agnostic theists are also illogical, and that the only logical position is agnostic atheist.

[Saint-Jacob (Ancient)]

Whether or not religion is illogical, it's called faith for a reason. Since science deals with the physical world and any *true* god would be considered outside the realm of space and time, the existence of such a god would be beyond human understanding.

[Neutraligon]

While believing in an omnipotent higher being may seem completely illogical, please note that thanks to religion, we have morals and compassion (all due to a fear in God punishing us). Sure, we now don't need religion to be moral now, but without religion, life wouldn't have been so compassionate.

Granted, it came at the cost of rights of other races and the LGBT due to corruption and racism, which is not avoidable.

Please tell my why you think that we have morals and compassion due to religion. I think that such things would exist regardless of religion, and may predate religion. We see compassion and morals in the wild (look at dog packs or bonobos) and there is likely no belief of god there. So please provide evidence that life would be less compassionate without religion.

[Neutraligon]

Whether or not religion is illogical, it's called faith for a reason. Since science deals with the physical world and any *true* god would be considered outside the realm of space and time, the existence of such a god would be beyond human understanding.

I have no idea what it means to be outside space and time, please explain this to me.

[Evilland of Evil Business]

While believing in an omnipotent higher being may seem completely illogical, please note that thanks to religion, we have morals and compassion (all due to a fear in God punishing us). Sure, we now don't need religion to be moral now, but without religion, life wouldn't have been so compassionate.

Why are morals good/worth having? (Here comes the circular logic)

Well if it wasn't for religious documents like the Qur'an, the Bible or the Torah, we wouldn't have laws to protect people from robberies, murders or stealing. Plus - we wouldn't have human rights. Kind of a not-nice place to live in.

[Neutraligon]

Why are morals good/worth having? (Here comes the circular logic)

Well if it wasn't for religious documents like the Qur'an, the Bible or the Torah, we wouldn't have laws to protect people from robberies, murders or stealing. Plus - we wouldn't have human rights. Kind of a not-nice place to live in.

Incorrect, laws protecting people against those existed long before the Qur'an, Bible, and Torah. Provide evidence of the claim that without these religious documents such laws would not exist. You still have not said why these morals worth having.

[The New Sea Territory]

Your definition of religion includes both me leaving sacrifices on an altar in the middle of the woods, and the entirety of the Catholic Church (a billion people, literally). That's way too broad to draw conclusions about.

I think its necessary to separate spiritual belief from religious affiliation and organization. Otherwise, you risk making broad claims that have no real conclusions.

I have never heard what spiritual actually means. I guess I could include that a religion needs to be more then 1 person. I am not so sure it is too broad, since the definition needs to cover a wide variety of different groups, from the tiny cults of no more then 3-4 people, to the giant groups like the Catholic church.

Depending on how you define spiritual (I really have no idea how to define that), I would not say it can be separated from religion (while it can be separated from religions institutions, I do not believe an institution is needed to be a religion).

Point to a religion without an institution. There are none. There are some movements like paganism that are split, where some affiliate with organizations and institutions, but most do not...this doesn't make the unaffiliated pagans "religious" though, because that stretches the definition of that term to absurd levels of vagueness.

I would define spiritual basically how you define religious, then define religious as "actively affiliating with an organization based on spirituality".