Question about logic

[McBell]

I smoke. Smoking is one of the most illogical things to do, knowing the possible consequences. I do it anyhow but I don't claim it to be logical.

Believing in things that can't be evidenced or proven is also not logical. Believers do it anyhow. But why do they have the need to say that it is logical?

5 Health Benefits of Smoking | Live Science

just saying....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1. The OP wasn't about the harm religious belief does to others as a basis of it being illogical. It was pointing out the sound reasoning or logical reasoning a child or believer come to their conclusions santa or god exist regardless the benefit or consequence of these beliefs.

I've noticed you very much like to do this. My original post was in answer to your OP, and stuck to the ideas pretty well. You then responded with items I felt the need to respond to with what I did in my second reply. But then you want to ignore all of those responses or items because they aren't directly related to the OP, but ARE related to your response to my original reply. You do this quite often, as far as I have seen evidence of. You're allowed to start to stray off topic, but no one else is allowed to reply to your off-topic statements. I've considered not even bothering to reply to your blather for this very reason.

2. I don't share your method of sentiment.

You certainly don't have to in order for me to continue to hold my opinions. Hope you understand.

It doesn't solve anything to prove god doesn't exist.

You can't simply state this without backing yourself up. I have provided numerous examples of where belief in God has proven detrimental to people and situations. Those things might well have been solved if invoking "God" wasn't an option.

Would you try to prove god doesn't exist without taking into consideration why they believe in such a thing to begin with?

If they were intent on convincing me of the reality of "God" but weren't willing to provide me convincing evidence, then yes. Yes I would. There are plenty of things I am convinced of. Plenty of them. Just tons and tons of items. Gravity is a force to be reckoned with, many objects feel solid to me based on my limited means of perception, my family exists, and I exist to my family, my dog is laying on my couch right now snoring. The quality of evidence I have for the reality of those items is greater in magnitude by some exponential degree when compared to the evidence anyone has for their god's existence. So yes... if they were intent on trying to get me to believe without evidence, then I might just try to talk them out of belief themselves - they have no warrant to be holding the belief. It is exactly the same as trying to talk a conspiracy theorist down out of their theories when they can't produce any cogent evidence. Most likely though? I'd just tell them to come back to me when they had some acceptable form of evidence. Which is most of what I do. It isn't even nearly that I am completely unwilling to believe. I am merely unwilling to believe given the terrible state of the evidence for such things as it stands.

For example, some people cannot live without god-that's their whole life is based on it.

If you mean psychological effects that then go on to cause detriment to the body, I get it. But again... is it possible for them to believe and just keep it to themselves? Is that possible? Can they get all the "needs" for believing in a God by doing just that - believing in it, but just not try to parade it around in front of others? That really solves all of the problems you seem to think exist in my rebuking them based on their beliefs. Then I don't even have the chance to question them, nor criticize. It would be an item that literally would not matter to me because I don't even know about it! Just think of how peaceful everything would be. It would be just as you seem to want it! What's the problem that I am not seeing here?

The only way they can "not believe in god" (regardless his existence idea or actual being) is if they are presented with a situation (say have a homosexual child) that they have to struggle with their belief or the love of their child. It has to be done by challenging their personal experiences not debating objectivity vs subjectivity and the contradictions of scripture (for examples).

I will continue to criticize people whose behavior I find inappropriate or annoying. I simply will. I don't care how you think it should be done or could be done. I am trying to set boundaries. If that's a problem, then take it up with "the boss" (note - there isn't one, that's why there are quotes around the reference).

How did you want believers to live if you took god away from them?

I don't care what they do, so long as they aren't trying to get me to believe unsubstantiated claims. Again - if they kept it to themselves it wouldn't be a problem. I wouldn't even know they believed now would I?

What would you do if they didn't agree with how you want them to see reality?

I don't offer an alternate explanation for "reality." All I state is that if something isn't present in the reality we can readily share, don't try and convince me of it. If it is, however, and you have the goods to demonstrate its existence, then by all means! I am all ears at that point. But that sort of quality of presentation has never once been put forth by any theist in the history of mankind. Plenty of other things have had enormously well-accepted presentations - like the computer, which (guess what?) actually worked as predicted and did so consistently for just about (providing they had the standard sensory function, before more accessible options were invented) anyone and everyone who used it!

Which makes me wonder again if god was out of the picture, how would "you" want them to live? What criteria do you feel they should base their life on if not god?

Again here - it bears repeating - they can have God all they want - to themselves. To themselves. Don't tell me about it. Unless you have actual evidence that is going to shock me out of my pants, don't even tell me. once youo have something like a computer to put in front of me, you're golden. Until then, keep it to yourself.

The rest I don't share the sentiment.

Okay. Thanks for letting me know.

An example is a psychiatrist treating a client because that client hears voices. Hearing voices doesn't do anything in itself. Once the psychiatrist treats the symptoms (suicidal behavior, things like that), and have coping techniques and all, hearing voices becomes less of a problem for the client if, indeed, they still hear voices despite the relief of their symptoms.

You're right... if it was just "hearing voices" then there's really not much of an issue. It is when those voices present a danger to the person listening to them or the people around them. That's when there is an issue. When the voices are, in effect, shared with people who don't hear them, and don't understand what is going on, and aren't going to stand for being the target of violence or harassment.

So, based on this very analogy, let me ask you. Should I just put up with someone who "hears voices" telling me what those voices inform them that I should do? Or should I just put up with what those voices told that person to do to me if that involves something detrimental to my person or even causes me some amount of mental or emotional or social discomfort? Please don't tell me that you believe I should just humor the person who hears the voices in order not to "hurt their feelings."

Okay. I understand your opinion about it, but who holds the claims to this truth (how are you any more correct and your criteria you base your opinions on) any more than the believer beside you?

The person who holds the evidence that can readily and easily be shared with basically anyone at any time. That's who. That is who.

 

[halbhh]

For me the relative harm of allowing kids to believe in Santa is different than the relative harm a lot (not all, but a lot) of religions bring.

Though personally I'd rather tell kids Santa is make believe but it's okay to play make believe so long as peolpe aren't getting hurt. If someone says Santa says you can't get this kind of medicine or that this kind of kid is bad and you should isolate and alienate them then we have a real problem.

But I don't think this has much to do with logic.

I always felt sort of wrong telling any child santa is real. Though I played along while others did. But it was a guilty feeling, since it's lying.

Makes sense, right?

In contrast, if I tell them the sun is real, from my direct repeated experience -- as real as anything ever gets, even if it's been cloudy for a week and none of us can see it -- then I feel no guilt at all.

Simple question about god and all of that jazz.

If you have a child who believes in santa claus, it's fine. Your child is happy. It's logical that he would believe in santa because as a child he looks forward to getting toys and gifts etc. So he waits for santa to give it to him. While he doesn't know santa is actually his parents, the reasoning behind his thinking santa is real is logical regardless.

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy. It's logical one would believe in god because in christianity, they look forward to the afterlife, god's love, and so forth. So waiting for god (or jesus) to arrives is fine. The reasoning behind the believer believing in gods is logical regardless how ridiculous one may think it is both in the case of santa and of god.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

I also noticed in reading the logic afterlife thread and remembering others even some believers don't consider their belief in god logical. Going by the above, why not?

To derive logic doesn't mean you have to use science. It just means you're using whatever it means that makes sense to you to justify why you believe what you do "and" how it makes sense to the reality you live in. (In addition. It's hard to defend one's belief in god if it doesn't logically make up one's view of reality and with justification behind such reasoning).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've noticed you very much like to do this. My original post was in answer to your OP, and stuck to the ideas pretty well. You then responded with items I felt the need to respond to with what I did in my second reply. But then you want to ignore all of those responses or items because they aren't directly related to the OP, but ARE related to your response to my original reply. You do this quite often, as far as I have seen evidence of. You're allowed to start to stray off topic, but no one else is allowed to reply to your off-topic statements. I've considered not even bothering to reply to your blather for this very reason.

I was following until "you want to ignore"...

I can take the correction and concern, but not assumptions. One thing I do have to do is separate all people's posts like this and work through these paragraphs one by one instead of all at once. In doing so, I read all of what you (guys) say. It helps in my brain to make sense of what's said regardless the topic. So, it's easier just to say "we strayed off topic that's why it's not hooked to the OP."

You certainly don't have to in order for me to continue to hold my opinions. Hope you understand.

Ok

You can't simply state this without backing yourself up. I have provided numerous examples of where belief in God has proven detrimental to people and situations. Those things might well have been solved if invoking "God" wasn't an option.

I explained it. Whether you agree with me or not is a whole different matter.

Belief in god (as I read) yes, is detrimental to people and situations "and" people survive off of belief in god so taking that way from them does worse damage than just addressing the actions (the symptoms) themselves.

How would you want them to live and believe without god?

What should they base their lives on that would ideally won't cause harm to others?

I know it's not all religious who harm others, so what is the ideal worldview people should hold so they won't harm other people based on that worldview (if indeed its the worldview that causes harm and not just how they interpret it)?

If they were intent on convincing me of the reality of "God" but weren't willing to provide me convincing evidence, then yes. Yes I would.

There are plenty of things I am convinced of. Plenty of them. Just tons and tons of items. Gravity is a force to be reckoned with, many objects feel solid to me based on my limited means of perception, my family exists, and I exist to my family, my dog is laying on my couch right now snoring. The quality of evidence I have for the reality of those items is greater in magnitude by some exponential degree when compared to the evidence anyone has for their god's existence.

So yes... if they were intent on trying to get me to believe without evidence, then I might just try to talk them out of belief themselves - they have no warrant to be holding the belief. It is exactly the same as trying to talk a conspiracy theorist down out of their theories when they can't produce any cogent evidence. Most likely though? I'd just tell them to come back to me when they had some acceptable form of evidence. Which is most of what I do. It isn't even nearly that I am completely unwilling to believe. I am merely unwilling to believe given the terrible state of the evidence for such things as it stands.

Okay. I honestly wouldn't know what to say since it's from your personal experience and opinion.

If you mean psychological effects that then go on to cause detriment to the body, I get it. But again... is it possible for them to believe and just keep it to themselves? Is that possible? Can they get all the "needs" for believing in a God by doing just that - believing in it, but just not try to parade it around in front of others? That really solves all of the problems you seem to think exist in my rebuking them based on their beliefs. Then I don't even have the chance to question them, nor criticize. It would be an item that literally would not matter to me because I don't even know about it! Just think of how peaceful everything would be. It would be just as you seem to want it! What's the problem that I am not seeing here?

My point is I don't see how convincing them that god doesn't exist (for example) solves anything. Belief in god isn't the "illness." If it was, it's heavily generalizing the entire world population in one way or another. Usually, people change their beliefs when they are confronted with something that challenges it-not debates, objectivity/subjectivity, and so forth. For example, if a christian had a homosexual child may realize later down the road that they shouldn't define their child as someone the child is not. Some parents leave their faith because the challenge or situation was strong enough to make them see how much they harm their loved one.

Debates and so forth cannot do this. So you'd have to challenge their experiences if you really want them not to believe in god anymore.

I will continue to criticize people whose behavior I find inappropriate or annoying. I simply will. I don't care how you think it should be done or could be done. I am trying to set boundaries. If that's a problem, then take it up with "the boss" (note - there isn't one, that's why there are quotes around the reference).

Criticizing belief and criticizing behavior are two totally different things. You can criticize a person's behavior without shaking up their worldview about god.

I don't care what they do, so long as they aren't trying to get me to believe unsubstantiated claims. Again - if they kept it to themselves it wouldn't be a problem. I wouldn't even know they believed now would I?

I don't live around christians that closely to get affected by this outside of legal issues and a random god bless you. Are you around christians or maybe upbringing that makes this topic more personal for you?

I don't offer an alternate explanation for "reality." All I state is that if something isn't present in the reality we can readily share, don't try and convince me of it. If it is, however, and you have the goods to demonstrate its existence, then by all means! I am all ears at that point. But that sort of quality of presentation has never once been put forth by any theist in the history of mankind. Plenty of other things have had enormously well-accepted presentations - like the computer, which (guess what?) actually worked as predicted and did so consistently for just about (providing they had the standard sensory function, before more accessible options were invented) anyone and everyone who used it!

Again here - it bears repeating - they can have God all they want - to themselves. To themselves. Don't tell me about it. Unless you have actual evidence that is going to shock me out of my pants, don't even tell me. once youo have something like a computer to put in front of me, you're golden. Until then, keep it to yourself.

You're right... if it was just "hearing voices" then there's really not much of an issue. It is when those voices present a danger to the person listening to them or the people around them. That's when there is an issue. When the voices are, in effect, shared with people who don't hear them, and don't understand what is going on, and aren't going to stand for being the target of violence or harassment.

The problem isn't the religion or god then (like a patient to his voices). It's the actions and "spreading the word". In my opinion, sounds like your focus is less on god and more on what people who believe in god do to you. About the people not the belief. A lot of people dislike christianity and belittle the idea of god as if (in my opinion) that addresses the actual problem-the dislike of christians actions because of their god.

So, based on this very analogy, let me ask you. Should I just put up with someone who "hears voices" telling me what those voices inform them that I should do? Or should I just put up with what those voices told that person to do to me if that involves something detrimental to my person or even causes me some amount of mental or emotional or social discomfort? Please don't tell me that you believe I should just humor the person who hears the voices in order not to "hurt their feelings."

This doesn't answer my question. It just poses an argument that doesn't need to exist. It's nothing personal.

Okay. Thanks for letting me know.

You're welcome.

The person who holds the evidence that can readily and easily be shared with basically anyone at any time. That's who. That is who.

Okay. But your post makes it seem like you have the solution to this problem with christian behavior.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Okay. But your post makes it seem like you have the solution to this problem with christian behavior.

I do, and I already gave it to you multiple time: They keep the beliefs to themselves.

Now please tell me the downside to my solution.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do, and I already gave it to you multiple time: They keep the beliefs to themselves.

Now please tell me the downside to my solution.

You're taking this too personally.

I never said you were wrong and I said this isn't about you. No one is telling you you have to believe this or act this way in this discussion and on RF.

 

[halbhh]

so what is the ideal worldview people should hold so they won't harm other people based on that worldview

Good question.

It's this one:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

(repeated dozens of times/ways throughout the common bible,
e.g. Galatians 5:14 The entire law is fulfilled in a single decree: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
or if you like many instances:
Loving Your Neighbor verses)

With a guideline for varied situations:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

Now the thing is though, a person has to actually believe in order to actually follow (put into practice) what Christ said. Not all churches or "Christians" actually do. We have some churches now that are a kind of new thing, a political worldly church, like a separate new religion of some kind, even though they want to keep a pretense or banner of Christianity for it's cover/legitimacy. You cannot assume someone believes in Christ merely if they say they are Christian. Christ said to look for the specific fruits of real faith, and we can learn those and then discern with them who believes.)

 

[Bird123]

I don't agree with a lot of what you said. It makes me wonder specifically, though. How a child came to the conclusion there is a santa would be just as logical (but different criteria to come to that conclusion) as one who believes in god? Regardless how silly or true or false it may be to many people, they both make sense, no?

As in god exist god can be found and all of that, though off topic god's existence depends on the person. God isn't a universal being that one can "find" if he or she looked hard enough. Not sure of atheist and theist needing each other. As long as a believer sees the atheist has something missing either to himself or telling an atheist directly, it keeps to believer at a distance. Believers (since not all theists are like christians, muslims, etc) need to in their own minds and to others have some insight into not believing god's existence without "strings attached." Instead, maybe it's just not ideal for believers to be around atheists the evangalists goal is to convert and tolerate those who don't believe what they do.

On that note, it's not very clear. I think many people just don't get what they are doing to others but at least we're not killing people over it. Even though I can think of other things near just as worse.

your quote:God isn't a universal being that one can "find" if he or she looked hard enough.
My Answer: Doesn't this assumption keep you from even trying? When one limits one's view through choice, isn't that the same as walking away from truth and reality? Should not one always be open to all possibilities?

All the secrets of the universe stare us in the face. How much is one blind to simply by choosing a narrow view? How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? The knowledge was there all along waiting to be Discovered.

Life is about choice. Choice is too valuable to allow others to make for us. If one chooses not to look for God, that is perfectly alright because finding God is really not what it's all about. On the other hand, representing beliefs as fact clearly demonstrates a side of which one is blind. This invites the lesson of Discovering what that blind side is all about.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You're taking this too personally.

I never said you were wrong and I said this isn't about you. No one is telling you you have to believe this or act this way in this discussion and on RF.

Haha... and the choice you make is to continue to ignore my solution (my guess is that you simply don't like it, but can't come up with anything in rebuttal because it is just too good). And with that, my mind is made up. It is absolutely worthless conversing with you. I simply won't bother in the future.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Haha... and the choice you make is to continue to ignore my solution (my guess is that you simply don't like it, but can't come up with anything in rebuttal because it is just too good). And with that, my mind is made up. It is absolutely worthless conversing with you. I simply won't bother in the future.

This is so odd Vestigial.

I never said you were wrong.

I just said you're taking this personal. It's totally unnecessary.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

your quote:God isn't a universal being that one can "find" if he or she looked hard enough.

You have to reply to this in context:

As long as a believer sees the atheist has something missing either to himself or telling an atheist directly, it keeps the believer at a distance. Instead, maybe it's just not ideal for believers to be around atheists if they think something is missing without belief in an abrahamic god.

My Answer: Doesn't this assumption keep you from even trying? When one limits one's view through choice, isn't that the same as walking away from truth and reality? Should not one always be open to all possibilities?

Many atheists and other non-believers who are interested in believing in god may keep on trying. They probably have a pull in their heart to believe in the christian god and have a crisis of faith.

Truth and reality are in my bloodline and the deceased in spirit that I communicate with daily. But there are those who need to find the christian god and seek that as their calling. Each person's truth or "limitations" if you like is unique to themselves.

All the secrets of the universe stare us in the face. How much is one blind to simply by choosing a narrow view? How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? The knowledge was there all along waiting to be Discovered.

There are no secrets of the universe.

Why would you consider people blind because some people don't want or find importance to know the secrets of the universe?

Everyone has different goals. Discovering of the mystery of the universe may be one person's goal but not others.

Life is about choice. Choice is too valuable to allow others to make for us. If one chooses not to look for God, that is perfectly alright because finding God is really not what it's all about. On the other hand, representing beliefs as fact clearly demonstrates a side of which one is blind. This invites the lesson of Discovering what that blind side is all about.

I would say this makes more sense than the rest of your post. I would also say, though, that truth and reality isn't owned by one set of people-to many it isn't a mystery and truth.

So, is there a way to say that others hold their truth without them needing to be blind to reality do so?

 

[MikeF]

Simple question about god and all of that jazz.

If you have a child who believes in santa claus, it's fine. Your child is happy. It's logical that he would believe in santa because as a child he looks forward to getting toys and gifts etc. So he waits for santa to give it to him. While he doesn't know santa is actually his parents, the reasoning behind his thinking santa is real is logical regardless.

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy. It's logical one would believe in god because in christianity, they look forward to the afterlife, god's love, and so forth. So waiting for god (or jesus) to arrives is fine. The reasoning behind the believer believing in gods is logical regardless how ridiculous one may think it is both in the case of santa and of god.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

I also noticed in reading the logic afterlife thread and remembering others even some believers don't consider their belief in god logical. Going by the above, why not?

To derive logic doesn't mean you have to use science. It just means you're using whatever it means that makes sense to you to justify why you believe what you do "and" how it makes sense to the reality you live in. (In addition. It's hard to defend one's belief in god if it doesn't logically make up one's view of reality and with justification behind such reasoning).

I have a different take on children's belief in Santa Claus. For me it is more about trust and less about logic. We are born into this world knowing nothing about it. As we grow, we are quite dependent on our caregivers to supplement our understanding of the world, beyond our mere bumping around in it. A bond of trust is developed between the child and the caregivers. Depending on the age and cognitive development of the child, trust can range from absolute and unquestioning, to a growing independence and less reliance on the words of others.

Where I think we see logic exerted by the child is when they begin to question some of described characteristics of Santa Claus. And why the growing skepticism? Because what they have been told about Santa's abilities conflicts with the child's growing understanding and experience with how the world works. They become skeptical that a large fat man can fit down a chimney. They are skeptical that a person can visit every house in the world in one evening. This is where logic comes in. Santa Claus is not logical.

And yet some parents may adamantly reinforce the charade. They cajole and threaten the child that if they do not believe in Santa despite their skepticism, Santa will not come and bring them presents. Faced with that dilemma, what child would not back down? This is how we train our children to suspend disbelief and accept that which is not real.

What other mythical entities are children indoctrinated to believe in? Why the entities labeled, gods/god, angels, spirits, demons, devils, etc. They are told that if they do not believe, despite their skepticism, they will not only miss out on an eternal happy afterlife, they will actually be eternally punished. If it is not hard to suspend disbelief in order to ensure toys at Christmas, how much harder it obviously must be to maintain skepticism in a mythical entity when so much more is riding on maintaining the belief. This is especially true when this belief is not only insisted upon by immediate caregivers, but by all the trusted adults in the child's community.

And so, no, logic is not involved in the belief in Santa Claus or mythical entities. It is actually a suppression of logic that is required in these beliefs, a skill that we have been indoctrinated and trained in from the beginning, and which we carry with us into adulthood.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is so odd Vestigial.

I never said you were wrong.

I just said you're taking this personal. It's totally unnecessary.

Yes, you didn't say I was wrong because I am simply not wrong. But what you did was try to gloss over it, not even answer to it one way or another, and tried to weasel out of any sort of reply by attacking my character, after a fashion. Claiming that I am "just taking this too personally." Why does it matter how personally I am taking something if I am correct in a point that I make? If what I offer is sound and cogent, what does it matter that I am taking something "personally?" And there's how I can know you are simply trying to discredit me because you have found that I am all too correct in a point you simply don't like. It doesn't matter one bit - and yet that's where you went. Not any admission that I was correct (still not this - for all you said is "I never said you were wrong"), nor any points made to contradict. Just an attempt at escape.

And do you know what? That I "take something personally" is not an insult to me. I feel no shame in taking something personally. Your mentioning that I "take it too personally" does nothing to deter me in the slightest. Because let's be honest - isn't that exactly what you were trying to do? Get me to relent in my making points on the topic because it was becoming entirely too cumbersome to respond without conceding some point? And goodness knows that no one wants to have to concede anything at all to a person as rude and insulting as myself. Too bad rudeness and insults have absolutely nothing to do with "truth."

 

[dybmh]

The most important aspect of being logical is being open to new information and adapting to that new information. We see this all the time here on RF. A person makes a claim, has a belief, could be religious, could be political, and then ignores any information which qualifies or discredits what they said. Refusing to adapt a belief to new information is illogical.

If you have a child who believes in santa claus, it's fine. Your child is happy. It's logical that he would believe in santa because as a child he looks forward to getting toys and gifts etc. So he waits for santa to give it to him. While he doesn't know santa is actually his parents, the reasoning behind his thinking santa is real is logical regardless.

It's logical for a child to believe their parents; it's illogical to remain steadfast in their belief when they find out their parents have been delivering their christmas presents each and every year. It's illogical to ignore the new information.

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy. It's logical one would believe in god because in christianity, they look forward to the afterlife, god's love, and so forth. So waiting for god (or jesus) to arrives is fine. The reasoning behind the believer believing in gods is logical regardless how ridiculous one may think it is both in the case of santa and of god.

It's logical until the believer ignores information and doesn't adapt their beliefs. In the example you gave above, the believer justifies their belief based on the desire to feel god's love in the afterlife. If a credible source shows that existence of an afterlife is unlikely, then the belief can remain logical if it adapts to the new information. The adapted belief might be: "Eventhough belief in the afterlife is optimistic, I believe in it because maintaining optimism gives me comfort and purpose." The belief adapted to the new information and is justified based on the individual's personality not on whether or not the after-life is real. The belief would be illogical for someone else, but for this individual, the belief is still logical, because it adapted to new information.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

These beliefs may start out logical, but become illogical if the person ignores information from others which makes the existence of god and/or the afterlife unlikely.

To derive logic doesn't mean you have to use science. It just means you're using whatever it means that makes sense to you to justify why you believe what you do "and" how it makes sense to the reality you live in. (In addition. It's hard to defend one's belief in god if it doesn't logically make up one's view of reality and with justification behind such reasoning).

Here you're describing one facet of deriving logic: justification. But that's not all that's needed to derive logic. Deriving logic needs three things: justification, qualification (critical thinking is applied), and adaptability. When a person is being illogical, they are usually missing these last two. When critical thinking is lacking, the belief is usually presented as a large sweeping statement without qualification. The belief is deemed illogical because there are obvious exceptions which are not taken into account. Applying critical thinking to an idea flushes out these exceptions and the belief becomes more refined, precise, and less broad. As I mentioned above, ignoring new information is clearly ignorant and is not logical. So, in order to be logical, a person needs these three things, not only justification.

Does a person need science in order to consistently derive logical beliefs? No. But science defines a method for testing whether an idea is justified (based on observable phenomena) and is qualified (critically assessed via peer review). It also encourgaes adapting to new information. Using the scienific method is logical, but, if a person justifies, qualifies, and adapts their ideas without it, then it's not needed to be considered logical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, you didn't say I was wrong because I am simply not wrong. But what you did was try to gloss over it, not even answer to it one way or another, and tried to weasel out of any sort of reply by attacking my character, after a fashion.

Claiming that I am "just taking this too personally." Why does it matter how personally I am taking something if I am correct in a point that I make? If what I offer is sound and cogent, what does it matter that I am taking something "personally?" And there's how I can know you are simply trying to discredit me because you have found that I am all too correct in a point you simply don't like. It doesn't matter one bit - and yet that's where you went. Not any admission that I was correct (still not this - for all you said is "I never said you were wrong"), nor any points made to contradict. Just an attempt at escape.

1. Assumptions are the root of all evils. You're taking this personally (Weasel, ignore, etc)... all of your posts are argumentative that I can't find what you're point is without you're assuming I'm ignoring you or something. It's hard to keep track of a decent conversation with so many "you's" and defensive remarks. (I'm guilty of it too but I'm letting you know it's throwing off your points)

2. Another assumption. I'm not sure how I'm discrediting you. You'd have to find where you came to that conclusion or it seems like you're arguing an assumption that I am not aware of to even defend or clarify it.

3. If you want a decent conversation, you have to drop the accusations and assumptions and just state your points.

And do you know what? That I "take something personally" is not an insult to me. I feel no shame in taking something personally. Your mentioning that I "take it too personally" does nothing to deter me in the slightest. Because let's be honest - isn't that exactly what you were trying to do? Get me to relent in my making points on the topic because it was becoming entirely too cumbersome to respond without conceding some point? And goodness knows that no one wants to have to concede anything at all to a person as rude and insulting as myself. Too bad rudeness and insults have absolutely nothing to do with "truth."

4. I never said it was an insult to you (assumption again). Maybe you're having a bad day?

5. Taking something personally means you're assuming that what I (and whomever) says is an attack to you as in it discredits what you say or claims you're wrong or don't have a claim to your opinions. It means taking time to defend your emotions. Instead of seeing things negatively like that, focus on the topic at hand and try not to defend yourself. The comments "on the topic" I made has really nothing to do with you.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1. Assumptions are the root of all evils. You're taking this personally (Weasel, ignore, etc)... all of your posts are argumentative that I can't find what you're point is without you're assuming I'm ignoring you or something. It's hard to keep track of a decent conversation with so many "you's" and defensive remarks. (I'm guilty of it too but I'm letting you know it's throwing off your points)

2. Another assumption. I'm not sure how I'm discrediting you. You'd have to find where you came to that conclusion or it seems like you're arguing an assumption that I am not aware of to even defend or clarify it.

3. If you want a decent conversation, you have to drop the accusations and assumptions and just state your points.



4. I never said it was an insult to you (assumption again). Maybe you're having a bad day?

5. Taking something personally means you're assuming that what I (and whomever) says is an attack to you as in it discredits what you say or claims you're wrong or don't have a claim to your opinions. It means taking time to defend your emotions. Instead of seeing things negatively like that, focus on the topic at hand and try not to defend yourself. The comments "on the topic" I made has really nothing to do with you.

While it may be perfectly well understood why a particular person is religious, or holds certain beliefs given their background, up-bringing, various psychological dispositions, scope of education, etc., the problem of those beliefs being challenged, or the religious person's sensibilities being insulted is an obvious and demonstrable result of their bringing their religious ideas into the public sphere.

To alleviate all of the torment and potential harm that a religious person faces in the rebuking (or even loss due to continual rebuttal/dismissal resulting in loss of morale/confidence) of their religious beliefs, I propose that religious believers be advised to keep their beliefs to themselves.

Benefits of religious believers keeping their beliefs to themselves:

• They don't have their beliefs challenged or questioned.
• They are not told by anyone that their beliefs are not to be believed
• They are not asked to provide evidence
• They are not mocked or "attacked" by anyone at any time

"Status quo" items:

• They can still believe
• They can still ask their god for whatever it is they need to ask it for
• They could still express themselves, and, if questioned as to the nature of the expression, give a simple, singular response that let's the questioner know that they make the expression for their religious beliefs, and leave it at that
• They could still congregate and compare notes with one another

Therefore, I submit that the "needs" that religious belief meets for religious people could basically still all be met even if they kept their ideas to themselves, did not attempt to convert others, did not attempt to make arguments in the public sphere using their religion as the basis for said arguments, did not reprimand or scold others using as the basis for their judgment the tenets of their religion.

One could attempt to argue that one of the "needs" that religious people have is to be able to share their religion with others, and to otherwise voice all of their judgments, desires to convert, and arguments using religious justification. And if that is deemed the case, then I propose that we should all readily accept that they have every right to do so! However, under the umbrella of protection that provides those same rights to believers, nonbelievers should, of course, be allowed to voice their own judgments of the religious people, any desires to de-convert, and also argue against their religious justifications. It seems to me, that this is only fair. Thoughts?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have a different take on children's belief in Santa Claus. For me it is more about trust and less about logic. We are born into this world knowing nothing about it. As we grow, we are quite dependent on our caregivers to supplement our understanding of the world, beyond our mere bumping around in it. A bond of trust is developed between the child and the caregivers. Depending on the age and cognitive development of the child, trust can range from absolute and unquestioning, to a growing independence and less reliance on the words of others.

That makes sense. I'd add trust is less dangerous a word than logic.

Where I think we see logic exerted by the child is when they begin to question some of described characteristics of Santa Claus. And why the growing skepticism? Because what they have been told about Santa's abilities conflicts with the child's growing understanding and experience with how the world works. They become skeptical that a large fat man can fit down a chimney. They are skeptical that a person can visit every house in the world in one evening. This is where logic comes in. Santa Claus is not logical.

True. Do you think a child at a certain age is ideally more apt to be more skeptical than someone indoctrinated with the same doubts that what he or she believes doesn't align with how the world works (cognitive dissonance)?

And yet some parents may adamantly reinforce the charade. They cajole and threaten the child that if they do not believe in Santa despite their skepticism, Santa will not come and bring them presents. Faced with that dilemma, what child would not back down? This is how we train our children to suspend disbelief and accept that which is not real.

Without the parents coercion and threats, do you feel that's wrong in itself to hold beliefs contrary to what others would consider reality?

What other mythical entities are children indoctrinated to believe in? Why the entities labeled, gods/god, angels, spirits, demons, devils, etc. They are told that if they do not believe, despite their skepticism, they will not only miss out on an eternal happy afterlife, they will actually be eternally punished. If it is not hard to suspend disbelief in order to ensure toys at Christmas, how much harder it obviously must be to maintain skepticism in a mythical entity when so much more is riding on maintaining the belief. This is especially true when this belief is not only insisted upon by immediate caregivers, but by all the trusted adults in the child's community.

I think the problem is more the indoctrination rather than the belief. It's fine that someone believes santa is real as an adult. However, if that belief conflicts with his living and so forth or people verbally or physically abuse or accuse him because of it, that's where the problem lies.

And so, no, logic is not involved in the belief in Santa Claus or mythical entities. It is actually a suppression of logic that is required in these beliefs, a skill that we have been indoctrinated and trained in from the beginning, and which we carry with us into adulthood.

The question is who holds the definition of what's logical and what's not?

To many believers belief in god isn't separate from life. It all "makes sense." Ideally, it's not a separate belief system so how would one say god isn't logical if the way the world works is all a function with god in it?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Simple question about god and all of that jazz.

If you have a child who believes in santa claus, it's fine. Your child is happy. It's logical that he would believe in santa because as a child he looks forward to getting toys and gifts etc. So he waits for santa to give it to him. While he doesn't know santa is actually his parents, the reasoning behind his thinking santa is real is logical regardless.

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy. It's logical one would believe in god because in christianity, they look forward to the afterlife, god's love, and so forth. So waiting for god (or jesus) to arrives is fine. The reasoning behind the believer believing in gods is logical regardless how ridiculous one may think it is both in the case of santa and of god.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

I also noticed in reading the logic afterlife thread and remembering others even some believers don't consider their belief in god logical. Going by the above, why not?

To derive logic doesn't mean you have to use science. It just means you're using whatever it means that makes sense to you to justify why you believe what you do "and" how it makes sense to the reality you live in. (In addition. It's hard to defend one's belief in god if it doesn't logically make up one's view of reality and with justification behind such reasoning).

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy.

I seriously question the validity of that claim. I've seen zero evidence that people who hold a god belief are happier than people who don't. In fact, when I see people who believe in a god rioting on the streets because they feel that their god has somehow been insulted, it seems to me that they are far from 'happy' people. When I see people who live in almost constant fear that they've somehow insulted their god by their thoughts or actions, they appear rather miserable to me, not happy in the least. When I look at the religious right in America I don't see a bunch of happy people, I see a bunch of very angry people who like to pretend like they're constantly being persecuted.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy.

I seriously question the validity of that claim. I've seen zero evidence that people who hold a god belief are happier than people who don't. In fact, when I see people who believe in a god rioting on the streets because they feel that their god has somehow been insulted, it seems to me that they are far from 'happy' people. When I see people who live in almost constant fear that they've somehow insulted their god by their thoughts or actions, they appear rather miserable to me, not happy in the least. When I look at the religious right in America I don't see a bunch of happy people, I see a bunch of very angry people who like to pretend like they're constantly being persecuted.

The topic is that believing in santa and believing in god are both logical in that how both came to that conclusion (mother telling her child santa exists and believer indoctrinator by family) is sound.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

Not sure how the child being happy relevant. The emotion could be just any anything but that's not the point of the scenario.

 

[Bird123]

You have to reply to this in context:

As long as a believer sees the atheist has something missing either to himself or telling an atheist directly, it keeps the believer at a distance. Instead, maybe it's just not ideal for believers to be around atheists if they think something is missing without belief in an abrahamic god.



Many atheists and other non-believers who are interested in believing in god may keep on trying. They probably have a pull in their heart to believe in the christian god and have a crisis of faith.

Truth and reality are in my bloodline and the deceased in spirit that I communicate with daily. But there are those who need to find the christian god and seek that as their calling. Each person's truth or "limitations" if you like is unique to themselves.



There are no secrets of the universe.

Why would you consider people blind because some people don't want or find importance to know the secrets of the universe?

Everyone has different goals. Discovering of the mystery of the universe may be one person's goal but not others.



I would say this makes more sense than the rest of your post. I would also say, though, that truth and reality isn't owned by one set of people-to many it isn't a mystery and truth.

So, is there a way to say that others hold their truth without them needing to be blind to reality do so?

your quote:that truth and reality isn't owned by one set of people-to many it isn't a mystery and truth.
My Answer: Nothing is owned. I speak to what is.

your quote:As long as a believer sees the atheist has something missing either to himself or telling an atheist directly, it keeps the believer at a distance. Instead, maybe it's just not ideal for believers to be around atheists if they think something is missing without belief in an abrahamic god.
My Answer: Until all is known, everyone has something missing. The interaction with others supplies the missing pieces.

It seems you want to keep atheists and theists apart so there is peace. You do not understand. God's goal is not peace. That is mankind's goal. God's goal brings the answers. Mankind's goal moves one toward resolution.

your quote:Many atheists and other non-believers who are interested in believing in god may keep on trying. They probably have a pull in their heart to believe in the christian god and have a crisis of faith.
My Answer: Religious people are taught it is their duty to spread the word. This brings everyone together to interact. Let everyone be who they must. Everyone will learn more that way.

I can't count how many times people tried to convert me. I can't count how many times I've been called the devil for not agreeing with them. That doesn't matter. It's not the action that counts. It's the interaction.

Show the view the other can not see. Find the answer together. It's not we against they. It's an US.

your quote:Each person's truth or "limitations" if you like is unique to themselves.
My Answer: Truth is truth regardless of how anyone feels about it. If I step off a high rise building, I will fall regardless of what I feel or believe. So often people choose to limit themselves.

The first thing God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. I cry that!! I work on mine every day. God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. Interaction brings those views in sight.

Freedom is an important part to God's system. If people think they have a calling or a path to take, Great!! By all means take it. Be who you are. It's a part of the plan!!

your quote:There are no secrets of the universe.
My Answer: In this time-based causal universe, God's actions can be seen. God places knowledge all around. It waits to be Discovered. Contrary to the beliefs of so many, God isn't hiding anything.

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? Should I choose to limit myself with a narrow view and say: If man were meant to fly, God would have given man wings. Many said just that.
The knowledge was staring us all in the face for how long???

Discovery brings so many wonderful rewards. One should not be afraid simply because it isn't always easy. Life isn't about feel good, have it made and easy.

your quote:Why would you consider people blind because some people don't want or find importance to know the secrets of the universe?
My Answer: We are all blind to something. That is why there are so many views in the world. It helps keep discovering moving.

There are no demands on what one chooses to Discover. Choose your passion. God has placed the knowledge around us all about everything.

That is what I see. It's very clear!!