You try to discredit logic (and by this I mean formal logic, not your wishy washy idea of what you would LIKE logic to be) by using what you call "religion logic".
Please tell me where I can get a definitin of this "religion logic".
In your 1st post you say: Religion is a matter of beliefe not reasoning. Abstract reasoning without ethics will lead to no where, (Ethics=Religion).
I have reached it after many years of study and reasoning. I don't reject reasoning as a principle, but we have to stick to rules. These rules are ethics, which shape our personality and behaviour. Even an atheist believes, he believes in Atheism. So he has some sort of Ethics. All ends up in the Supreme Power again. In this case Shamiri believes in Evelotion. Its ok, this is his (Religion), even if he dose not call it so.
You never mentioned logic or "religion logic" at all. In fact you say religion is a matter of beliefe (sic), not reasoning. Reasoning and logic are two very closely related and interlinked disciplines. Thus bringing up something called "religion logic" is a very poor effort on your part. As far as I know, the Quran never even mentions logic, nevermind "religion logic". Also see the end of this post regarding ethics and religion.
"Oh, I never said I didn't respect them. But just because I respect them doesn't mean I discard all logic and believe their story."
I never said or implied that you said that. Prove it if you are reading posts carefully. Come on pal you are confusing things now.
And I never implied you did. Who is confusing what?
"There is also a need filled by stories like Spiderman, Aesop's Tales etc. But just because they fill a need does not make them true."
So you agree that religion fills a gap.
1. Yes, it fills a gap. On a personal level it can help you feel you have an edge, someone to improve your chances in a scary world. It can reduce the sense that the world is an unjust place by suggesting that it's all part of god's "plan" and anyway it will be put right in eternity, and of course it saves having to face up to the stark reality of death - of self and of loved ones - by putting in place the illusion that you and they will meet again "in a better place."
On a social level, it can be a uniting force - at least so long as everyone in your group beleives the same things. If one individual can't go along with it, it can be cruelly isolating - and if a large number can't go along with it, it can become devisive, ulitmately leading to wars to establish who is top god. As the opium of the masses it instructs the poor and exploited classes to be content with their lot and not challenge the wealthy and priveledged. And ulitmately, it is a source of political power, as Machiavelli knew well.
It good. But these stories are stories as they admit it. What is important is the role and purpose. In the previous post, we were talking about god. which is the pillar of any religion. religion versions are images of this Super Natural Power. And this is important not the tit bits or stories. Its up to you to believe in it or not. Just go for the big issues.
2. Actually, this bit of writing makes little sense. You talk about role and purpose and religion versions and super natural power. But with no coherent thought connecting them. Maybe you can explain what you mean?
"Well, so far you've only shown me one wing of the the bird. Now show me the "reason" wing."
I mean, reason and religion are two wings of one bird or life on this earth. We can't live without ethics.
What utter nonsense. Show me how reason is part of the bird that religion is attached to. Come on ... quote me some passages from your scriptures that show this.
As to us not living without ethics, I FULLY agree. But that has NOTHING to do with religion. Sure, religions incorporate a lot of ethics, but ethics can stand on it's own without religion. Ethics does NOT require religion.
---
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Sigh ....
My dear friend mayankhob,
You try to discredit logic (and by this I mean formal logic, not your wishy washy idea of what you would LIKE logic to be) by using what you call "religion logic".
Please tell me where I can get a definitin of this "religion logic".
In your 1st post you say: Religion is a matter of beliefe not reasoning. Abstract reasoning without ethics will lead to no where, (Ethics=Religion).
I have reached it after many years of study and reasoning. I don't reject reasoning as a principle, but we have to stick to rules. These rules are ethics, which shape our personality and behaviour. Even an atheist believes, he believes in Atheism. So he has some sort of Ethics. All ends up in the Supreme Power again. In this case Shamiri believes in Evelotion. Its ok, this is his (Religion), even if he dose not call it so.
You never mentioned logic or "religion logic" at all. In fact you say religion is a matter of beliefe (sic), not reasoning. Reasoning and logic are two very closely related and interlinked disciplines. Thus bringing up something called "religion logic" is a very poor effort on your part. As far as I know, the Quran never even mentions logic, nevermind "religion logic". Also see the end of this post regarding ethics and religion.
"Oh, I never said I didn't respect them. But just because I respect them doesn't mean I discard all logic and believe their story."
I never said or implied that you said that. Prove it if you are reading posts carefully. Come on pal you are confusing things now.
And I never implied you did. Who is confusing what?
"There is also a need filled by stories like Spiderman, Aesop's Tales etc. But just because they fill a need does not make them true."
So you agree that religion fills a gap.
1. Yes, it fills a gap. On a personal level it can help you feel you have an edge, someone to improve your chances in a scary world. It can reduce the sense that the world is an unjust place by suggesting that it's all part of god's "plan" and anyway it will be put right in eternity, and of course it saves having to face up to the stark reality of death - of self and of loved ones - by putting in place the illusion that you and they will meet again "in a better place."
On a social level, it can be a uniting force - at least so long as everyone in your group beleives the same things. If one individual can't go along with it, it can be cruelly isolating - and if a large number can't go along with it, it can become devisive, ulitmately leading to wars to establish who is top god. As the opium of the masses it instructs the poor and exploited classes to be content with their lot and not challenge the wealthy and priveledged. And ulitmately, it is a source of political power, as Machiavelli knew well.
It good. But these stories are stories as they admit it. What is important is the role and purpose. In the previous post, we were talking about god. which is the pillar of any religion. religion versions are images of this Super Natural Power. And this is important not the tit bits or stories. Its up to you to believe in it or not. Just go for the big issues.
2. Actually, this bit of writing makes little sense. You talk about role and purpose and religion versions and super natural power. But with no coherent thought connecting them. Maybe you can explain what you mean?
"Well, so far you've only shown me one wing of the the bird. Now show me the "reason" wing."
I mean, reason and religion are two wings of one bird or life on this earth. We can't live without ethics.
What utter nonsense. Show me how reason is part of the bird that religion is attached to. Come on ... quote me some passages from your scriptures that show this.
As to us not living without ethics, I FULLY agree. But that has NOTHING to do with religion. Sure, religions incorporate a lot of ethics, but ethics can stand on it's own without religion. Ethics does NOT require religion.
---
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan