Ok, so you’re making up your own definitions of words. In that case you shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t know what you’re saying. What you’re writing here is not logical, it’s ridiculous. It’s an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy, and it doesn’t make much sense.
And that’s an appeal to tradition. The age or popularity of an idea has no bearing on its accuracy. Those are substitutes people use when they don’t want to explain why they think what they think.
You really don’t know what rational is if you take some of these stories literal as Jesus did. I know you like yours to be more metaphoric, despite how Jesus took such stories. And why would atheists want to have something comparable to that? It would be embarrassing.
The OT was written by many different people too, not sure where you’re getting the scholar part at, although some may have been educated in their day, after all just to read and write was a rare occurrence then. Nobody knows who wrote most of it, most of the names were added much later, large portions were borrowed, somebody named Paul probably wrote a fair portion of the NT, but the bible as a whole had some 40 main authors or so, hundreds of others adding interpolations, and at least an equal number of contradictions, and even higher number of absurdities along with the cruelties and atrocities.
I’ll take your word for it, at that time the educated rationally believed the earth was round. After Copernicus and Columbus, it was established logically.
No; the matter was settled long before then. And again; Copernicus’s work had nothing to do with the Earth being shown to be round. Even Columbus’s voyage was at best tangential to that, and he was wrong; he thought the world was quite a bit smaller than it really is, and ran into lands he didn’t know existed by sheer luck.
My point is, if the vast majority of people believe a proposition to be true, it has always (throughout time) been considered logical.
However, certain propositions have changed their status from being rational (fewer people believing the proposition) to logical more people believing it to be true. Also works in the reverse direction. At one time it was logical to believe that the earth was flat. Let’s go back a few thousand years…at that time it was logical earth was flat.
Not at all. Especially in the case of something like faith, where people are often expected to believe a particular doctrine regardless of what logic says.
And some atheist would probably say at one time religion seemed logical but now it no longer is. I am sure you wouldn’t give that argument much thought, so why should we do the same with this stuff?
So? Lots of people being wrong are still wrong. A million illogical people are still illogical.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, that’s just not what logic and rationality are. How many people believe something is simply besides the point as to whether something is rational or illogical.
They didn’t burn atheists; they burned people who interpreted Catholic doctrine in ways that differed from the Church. The fact that dissenters were burned at the stake shows that this had nothing to do with logic, and the inquisitors did not cite logic in killing people who challenged their dictates. The belief was enforced by violence, and the people in power wouldn’t accept any challenges to their authority. Notice how we don’t execute people for denying evolution or global warming?
And on that note, what do you think about the god those people were killing for? The one who (according to them) said it was OK to execute heretics, said feudalism was fine, approved of wars for power and all manner of corruption, and felt women were property?
It’s in the Declaration of Independence. I do want to apologize to people for not answering all your questions. I’m under time pressure like I suppose many of you are. Sometimes, it’s difficult to respond in as complete a manner as I would like.
I’m not saying everybody should adopt my definition of logical and rational. However, it makes it easier for me to understand and approach religious and philosophical issues.
Instead of a proposition being logical and unchangeable through time, I started the rules of logic themselves have changed through history. Who is to say they won’t change again. So instead of permanence of a religion or philosophy being paramount, I started focusing more on experiences. It became more important how I felt about a religion or philosophy and the people involved.
Sure, I wouldn’t want to be part of a religion where God was a sadist. Christianity isn’t like that, at least to me it isn’t. The people I know in the church have rational explanations for why they believe what they do. Our God is rational but not perfect.
The rules of logic and/or the definition of logic is not yours to change. If you mean to say something, go find a word in the dictionary that already fits, because the world isn’t going to adapt to your made-up definitions just to make it easier for you.
You still haven’t given us your definition of “atheism”.
This is the part of your points that makes sense to me: based on the above, your religious views are emotional, and not based on logic or reason. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hold them; it if makes your life better, than stick with it. That would be the rational response. It doesn’t make the religion itself rational or logical, but belonging to the religion can be if it benefits you, through a sense of community, access to a hub for charitable activity, peace of mind, a source for friendships, access to the advice of others, moral guidance, help in trying times, and so forth.
Some atheists struggle with the truth that most modern Christians take what they want from the Bible, and thus pointing out Old Testament passages of bloodshed and cruelty doesn’t have much effect at all on modern Christians’ faith.
I’ll absolutely do that and I’ll be the first to admit it. Although at one time Christianity may have been considered logical, I don’t believe it is at this time. At least for me it’s not a matter of logic. It is a rational system based on experiences and thought.
I know that there have been great atheists in history and some say that Buffett and Gates are atheists. All I have to say is that atheists don’t give me a sense of community and they don’t give me an answer as to why I should persist.
Like that hypothetical I gave earlier, if you were the grandfather and every fiber of your being wants to scream out this God makes no sense. What would you do? I would say with conviction that your son has gone to a better place and God has a plan.
Everybody knows that. I think he was disagreeing with you about the “it was logical” part. It wasn’t. That was the belief and the prejudice of the time.
Of course it does: it lets you redefine words like “logical” and “rational” so they support your beliefs even when logic and reason don’t do much for your beliefs.
Of course. And you’re willing to agree that you’d describe some concepts of god as sadistic, right? So perhaps you can see where people might feel that way about the Biblical God?
Please quit misusing the words “logical” and “rational”. You have no right to assign new definitions to those words, and it is shear arrogance to expect us to adapt those new definitions.
