Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[Nacesa Plana]

It's more likely he was gay all the time, but for several reasons tried a few other paths.

No, he said that he chose to be gay, not because "He was gay all along".
I guess if he was Heterosexual but turned out to be gay the whole time means that I, a heterosexual man am actually an attack helicopter but I never knew it!

Suppose you were a paedophile. Would you show your orientation to the world? Or would you hide it away and 'play' being a heterosexual or at least one that isn't attracted to children?

Many gay people are in the same position. Their environment, their parents, peer pressure and other forces push them in the direction of heterosexuality. Even in the modern West there’s often still a stigma above homosexuality.

In some situations they really believe they are heterosexual, however they are confused about the subject and not rarely develop depressions and other mental difficulties.

[Arachno-Satinism]

Evidently God didn't think so, given that anencephaly is fatal.

That was a metaphor.


What I meant by it is that all God does is to teach us morals so that we may achieve salvation.


It is still benevolent of him to allow us free will.

-except free will doesn't actually exist itt the calvinists are more correct in this regard

[The New Sea Territory]

Being a social creature is amoral. While not all morality develops from fear, most theistic morality in the west is followed due to the implication of punishment, divine or otherwise.

No.

Why else would people deny themselves? Masochism?

[The 93rd Coalition]

No.

Why else would people deny themselves? Masochism?

It's also the promise of reward in a second life. That never spun for me though, seeing as how life unending sounds like just another form of hell.

[Vaunyrus]

No.

Why else would people deny themselves? Masochism?

I, even as a religious person, do thing simply to do them out of kindness, as why not be that person that brightens another's day?

[The New Sea Territory]

Why else would people deny themselves? Masochism?

I, even as a religious person, do thing simply to do them out of kindness, as why not be that person that brightens another's day?

So you do it because you find making other people happy pleasurable or valuable?

That's not what Christians normally say. They say things like people "ought" to be kind.

[Vaunyrus]

I, even as a religious person, do thing simply to do them out of kindness, as why not be that person that brightens another's day?

So you do it because you find making other people happy pleasurable or valuable?

That's not what Christians normally say. They say things like people "ought" to be kind.

No, I don't find it pleasurable or valuable.


I do it because "why not?".

[Zohiania]

Spontaneous Creation is a theory which could be applied to the existence of both God and the universe therefor both are a possibility and I don't think you can rule out either even if the universe was self created the same could go for God.

[Irona]

Spontaneous Creation is a theory which could be applied to the existence of both God and the universe therefor both are a possibility and I don't think you can rule out either even if the universe was self created the same could go for God.

We can experience the universe, whereas I personally have never experienced God. It doesn't matter if it's possible for God to be created from nothing because that In itself doesn't mean God exists.

I'm completely certain that a God as described in any major religious does not exist

[Godular]

Spontaneous Creation is a theory which could be applied to the existence of both God and the universe therefor both are a possibility and I don't think you can rule out either even if the universe was self created the same could go for God.

We have evidence that the universe exists, though. The same cannot be said of any 'god'.

[Quokkastan]

Evidently God didn't think so, given that anencephaly is fatal.

That was a metaphor.


What I meant by it is that all God does is to teach us morals so that we may achieve salvation.


It is still benevolent of him to allow us free will.

Those with anencephaly cannot be taught anything. Your argument is absurd.

[Big Jim P]

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

Delusional as well.

[Risottia]

[...] Children with anencephaly must be allowed a chance at life, [...]

Evidently God didn't think so, given that anencephaly is fatal.

You're both wrong.

assumption A) God loves every human.
constatation B) Every human dies eventually.
constatation C) To commit a sin, one must be alive.
assumption D) The less you live the less chances to sin you have.
assumption E) God prefers you not to sin.
assumption F) God is omnipotent.

Follows logically that death by whatever cause is actually God's way to save humanity from sin, and God clearly expresses a preference for those whom he allows (or causes) to die first. Anencephaly is one of the way God uses to show his love.

[Risottia]

Spontaneous Creation is a theory which could be applied to the existence of both God and the universe therefor both are a possibility and I don't think you can rule out either even if the universe was self created the same could go for God.

Not a theory. An untestable hypothesis.

=> Russel's teapot.

[Quokkastan]

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

Delusional as well.

Say what you will, I still know in my heart that Taylor Swift loves me. One day she will come to me and we will live happily forever.

[Big Jim P]

Delusional as well.

Say what you will, I still know in my heart that Taylor Swift loves me. One day she will come to me and we will live happily forever.

Sorry, but you are a helluva lot further down the line here than I am.

[Nacesa Plana]

Evidently God didn't think so, given that anencephaly is fatal.

You're both wrong.

assumption A) God loves every human.
constatation B) Every human dies eventually.
constatation C) To commit a sin, one must be alive.
assumption D) The less you live the less chances to sin you have.
assumption E) God prefers you not to sin.
assumption F) God is omnipotent.

Follows logically that death by whatever cause is actually God's way to save humanity from sin, and God clearly expresses a preference for those whom he allows (or causes) to die first. Anencephaly is one of the way God uses to show his love.

The parents of a baby with anencephaly will feel relieved with this loving gift.

[Pope Joan]

Walter Burkert argues that religion is biologically based and is an outgrowth of evolution.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php? ... nt=reviews

[Conscentia]

Evidently God didn't think so, given that anencephaly is fatal.

You're both wrong.

assumption A) God loves every human.
constatation B) Every human dies eventually.
constatation C) To commit a sin, one must be alive.
assumption D) The less you live the less chances to sin you have.
assumption E) God prefers you not to sin.
assumption F) God is omnipotent.

Follows logically that death by whatever cause is actually God's way to save humanity from sin, and God clearly expresses a preference for those whom he allows (or causes) to die first. Anencephaly is one of the way God uses to show his love.

Objection! None of that actually contradicts what I've said, let alone demonstrates that I am wrong.

[Kannabyss]

No, from a metaphysical standpoint, some of theism is perfectly feasible. However, I do find the Abrahamic concept of a deity to be flawed. Just looking at the history of the religions, it destroys its credibility. Hijacked the myths of polytheist religions, practiced henotheism, then adopted monotheism due to tribal rivalries. Read about panbabylonism.

[Conscentia]

What would you say to my earlier argument?:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=29571720#p29571720

I'm not really comfortable enough with theoretical physics to discuss the relationship between a potential divine being and our current understanding of space and time, but I'll give it a go. I agree that it is not strictly possible for a hypothetical God to "create time" because creation implies a beginning. Logically, nothing could create something that existed before it, and nothing could exist before time because "before" and "after" are temporal concepts that would be meaningless in the absence of time. However I don't think that necessarily discounts the possibility that time exists because of God, since I wouldn't necessarily expect such a being to experience time in a linear fashion.

What would it mean for time to exist "because of God"? How is that distinct from saying that 'God created time'?

[Old Tyrannia]

I'm not really comfortable enough with theoretical physics to discuss the relationship between a potential divine being and our current understanding of space and time, but I'll give it a go. I agree that it is not strictly possible for a hypothetical God to "create time" because creation implies a beginning. Logically, nothing could create something that existed before it, and nothing could exist before time because "before" and "after" are temporal concepts that would be meaningless in the absence of time. However I don't think that necessarily discounts the possibility that time exists because of God, since I wouldn't necessarily expect such a being to experience time in a linear fashion.

What would it mean for time to exist "because of God"? How is that distinct from saying that 'God created time'?

Only in that it removes the implication of a linear sequence of events. Time could exist simultaneously with God, but God, being unhindered by a strictly linear understanding of time, may spontaneously cause the existence of time without having to exist prior to it.

[Risottia]

You're both wrong.

assumption A) God loves every human.
constatation B) Every human dies eventually.
constatation C) To commit a sin, one must be alive.
assumption D) The less you live the less chances to sin you have.
assumption E) God prefers you not to sin.
assumption F) God is omnipotent.

Follows logically that death by whatever cause is actually God's way to save humanity from sin, and God clearly expresses a preference for those whom he allows (or causes) to die first. Anencephaly is one of the way God uses to show his love.

The parents of a baby with anencephaly will feel relieved with this loving gift.

It's what most traditionalist theologians and priests would assume they would feel.

Basically, it's still the pie-in-the-sky argument, only wrapped in logics. The problem, of course, are the unwarranted assumptions.

[Risottia]

You're both wrong.

assumption A) God loves every human.
constatation B) Every human dies eventually.
constatation C) To commit a sin, one must be alive.
assumption D) The less you live the less chances to sin you have.
assumption E) God prefers you not to sin.
assumption F) God is omnipotent.

Follows logically that death by whatever cause is actually God's way to save humanity from sin, and God clearly expresses a preference for those whom he allows (or causes) to die first. Anencephaly is one of the way God uses to show his love.

Objection! None of that actually contradicts what I've said, let alone demonstrates that I am wrong.

You said that God doesn't think an anencephalous kid should have a chance at life. But we all know from valid theological sources that life begins somewhere between conception (current mainstream position of most Christians) and the third month of pregnancy (St.Augustin). That's chance enough at life, isn't it? There's also time enough for a caesarean section and a quick baptism. Life, no sin, baptism and eternal salvation!

[Free Missouri]

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/we-physicists-are-the-only-scientists-who-can-say-the-word-god-and-not-blush

No, and Michio Kaku (who helped create String Theory) and Albert Einstein would disagree with you as well. While they may not believe in the same god as most theists, Kaku does (and Einstein did) believe in a god similar to that described by Spinoza.