Conventional Logic Vs. Religious Logic

Why ? I am a devoted Chrsitian. I don’t behave in this manner. I want to read your blog. Please don’t be insulting!

Religion bashing is fine because religion is stupid.

Secondly, it’s still funny.

By the way, this “blog” just steals things from other blogs and reposts them.

P.S. Religion is stupid.

i really feel sorry for those who those who accuse religion to be stupid, since they are poor for not knowing even half the truth.

people are allowed to have their own view on different things.
dont get offended when someone expresses their view. your pretty much confirming the comic if you do.

[...] Full article read here [...]

i think involving religion with anything is stupid, well ppl have their own view why would u bring it to public when u know it might hurt some ppl …..this is stupid

re (9):

A couple of things to be aware of. . . . .

Religion and faith are not interchangeable terms, rather they are very different concepts.

Man is a unique animal in as much as he is the only animal which voluntarily travels to impose its will on other groups of the same animal.

In doing so, men will always try to mitigate its actions by giving their actions a “noble” motive – and hence avoid confronting their own evil.

Man is evil. Religion is managed by man. Religion is, ipso facto, evil.

Jesus Christ was not a human being

Marvel,

By and large, religions aren’t about “I feel good” so much as “I has a god” and that is something about which people are entitled to ask for proof. If it was about an ethical system, it would be about how you behave, but people have those independent of being religious.

Also, the comic is actually about logic, not tolerance and intolerance. You can claim it addresses logic in an intolerant way, but that would be irrelevant to its point. It’s about a system of thought: rational conventional logic, when presented with a claim, asks for proof; irrational religious logic defies the nature of proof all together as most con artists are prone to do.

People might be more accepting of the claims that being against religious arguments is intolerant or bigoted were it not a choice. A bias against someone’s race, their gender, their sexuality are things that they had no say in and have no direct effect on those around them. However, religion and religious thinking are inherently based on choices. If you want to make that choice, you are free to do so, but in so far as it negatively effect the quality of life around the world, you’re darn right I’m going to be against it.

Lastly, religion doesn’t “help not to be intolerant”. It is often a major source of intolerance, creating rifts where there wouldn’t be any. Explain how it helps people to not be intolerant to those slain in the name of a god or an irrational belief system.

Marvel, to say that religion has helped people to be tolerant is to ignore history as a whole. That’s just silly.

I loved it, bashing (organized) religion is great, especially when the comments people make about it being offensive only reinforce our point.

Go Dawkins!

this is freaking hysterical.

And true.

Thank you.

Jesus

too funny.

Syfox,

It isn’t about “everybody wins”. Besides, when that absurd line about the proof/not-proof comes up and is shot down, the “you can’t prove that I don’t” is never far behind.

Have a look at the talk of Richard Dawkins on militant atheism on http://www.ted.com.

For the sake of comparing religious thinking and science, he imagines a special issue of the Quarterly Review of Biology on the topic “Did an Asteroid kill the dinosaurs?”.

Here is a list of papers, based on different… well… methodologies.

1) Iridium layer at the K/T boundary, and potassium argon dated crater in Yucatan indicate that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.

2) The president of the Royal Society has been vouchsafed a strong inner conviction that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.

3) It has been privately revealed to Professor Huxley that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.

4) Professor O’Neil was brought up to have total and unquestioning faith that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.

5) Professor Hawkins has promulgated an official dogma bounding on all Hawkinsians that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.

Which one would you find the most convincing?

I like my explanation. I saw this pic and whipped one up myself
http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2843905157agf482e1a294otm0.jpg

[...] Conventional Logic Vs. Religious Logic | The Best Article Every day [...]

@Brian

1. people have known that the earth is a globe of quite a while. It was simply the Lay people (religious) that though the earth was flat mostly based on biblical interpretation.
2.It is generally the common people that think things are impossible. Most scientists (good ones anyway) will admit that most things are possible, given the right technology.

And conventional logic and religious logic work in a very similar manner. Religious logic simply ignores all of the progress that mankind has made in the last few thousand years.

Please read the classic debate, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate” which describes a debate between two philosophers, one an atheist, and the other a Christian. Surprisingly, at least to the prejudiced and stereotypically minded people of limited human experience perhaps, the Christian won. And he didn’t even have to have a giant, mean head. It is logical to accept the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It is illogical to reject it. Don’t worry about big angry heads. Concern yourself with closed minds.

1st Pane
“I have a tangible object”
“Prove it”
Reveal tangible object

2nd Pane
“I have an intangible belief”
“Prove it”
“I believe that by stating my belief, it proves that I have it”
“Oh, cool”

I don’t think that particular comic would have attracted this many comments.