Personally, I think it's wrong to raise kids on religion. They're at a young age where they are very impressionable. You could teach them anything and they'll believe it. It is blatantly a form of brainwashing, as they are in a state that is so easy to influence.

Why is this not seen as being wrong and immoral?

I was raised United Anglican.
our ministers could marry and we even had two lady ministers.
I remember a bit about that time form 3-10 going to sunday school and the such.
I beleive it got me in touch with a spiritual side of myself. I was taught to love one's neighbout and the golden rule.
I was taught bout a man named jesus and the wonderfull things he did.
but I was never taught that god hates fags or that we were all sinners.
and there was always cookies after church in the basement.

good times.


but in relation to the OP I believe choosing a religion to teach your kid is good as long as it teaches normal moral things (ie thou shalt not steal, kill blah blah blah) and to be kind to others of all faiths.

"When you're for it, it is education. When you're against it, it is indoctrination."

^ Good point.

I think the most blatant forms of religion as child abuse--there is actually one radical Xian group that sells little clubs online--just the right size for "not sparing the rod"-- are mercifully rare.

For every looney mom who shoots her kids because she says that God told her to, there are zillions of fairly decent, if essentially clueless, parents who think they are doing the right thing by their kids by hauling their little butts off to church. If nothing else, the kids get a quick and salutory--if inadvertant-- course on the rampantness of hypocrisy in America.

Morals can be taught to children without the Brother's Grim and their folklore with morals. You do not need to confuse and trick a young mind with fantastical stories that have a moral at the end. Children are so inquisitive and if raised properly will learn from their parents what is right and what is wrong.

Explain to them what is considered right and wrong without telling them about a zombie man they should worship. Without telling them that the invisible genie in the sky decided we should all die b/c the man he created listened to a woman made from a rib bone when SHE listened to a TALKING SNAKE and ate a piece of evil fruit.

I remember thinking BULLSHIT myself even at a young age 6 or 7. I never stopped thinking BULLSHIT my entire life. I tried to shut down and dampen the logical parts of my brain so I could fully by into it but I could not and for that I am grateful.

ALL CULTS prey upon the young, weak willed and those with low self esteem. ALL CULTS do this. It is easier for a child who has an imaginary friend to believe in an adults imaginary friend. The only difference between a child's belief in Santa and a child's belief in Christ is that at some point in time the adults tell the child Santa is not real. The ONLY difference.

The problem with religious indoctrination is that it emphasizes and encourages ignorance; "Goddidit" becomes an acceptable answer so that actually searching for real answers falls to the wayside. Talking to people who are otherwise intelligent about religion, this becomes abundantly clear. Cognitive dissonance forms and people become unable to apply logic to certain areas of their lives because on some level, they've been taught to believe that "Just because I want it to be true" means that it is true, or can be true, and for no other reason than that. That's not healthy, and it's a crappy way of figuring shit out about yourself and the world around you.

Religious indoctrination as a child, even being taught that "Yes, this is all very illogical and makes little sense but you can believe it's true if you want it to be true" effectively fucks up the ability to think logically on some level for a lot of people, and that translates to an unbelievable load of stupid shit in society as they get older.

Not only is it child abuse, and it "breaks" a part of their minds, but it pisses me off because I have to deal with these dumbfucks when they grow up.

Not only is it child abuse, and it "breaks" a part of their minds, but it pisses me off because I have to deal with these dumbfucks when they grow up.

YES. So fucking true. Can I get an Amen?

YES. So fucking true. Can I get an Amen?

I'll upgrade that amen to a hallelujah!

What hasn't been considered yet is that religion is steeped in tradition. The tradition is what keeps the child branded with the belief system until he/she reaches an age when their own traditions are set in place and then practiced ritualistically with their own offspring.

Like you pointed out, BrokeProphet - children have the capacity to believe or not believe what their parents preach to them at a very young age. They may be forced to accept their parent's religious tradition at the surface, but they are still capable of drawing their own conclusions at some point. They will be bound to the rituals of their parents as long as they're below the age to start calling the daily shots in life, but that's just a result of not having certain independent freedoms that adults have.

IMO, for most moderate, Sunday-morning-only Christians, the connection they feel towards their traditions is probably far stronger than any connection they feel towards God. The religious rituals, holidays and fellowshipping they've experienced throughout their young lives have turned them all into habitual junkies who feel that an absence of all this would turn their lives topsy-turvy.

Also, parents are going to teach their offspring every coping mechanism they've managed to muster up during the course of their own lives. It's just what parents do. You would probably do the same, as far as raising any of your own offspring with a secular mindset.

I'd like to think that if I ever had children, I'll teach them as much as I possibly can about the history of religion and try to span as many different cultural beliefs as possible, exposing them to not the piousness of such organizations, but the diversity of them. Hopefully this in itself will drive home the fact that there is an underlying attraction to all the different religious concepts - the belief in belief itself.

...and then we'll finish off our studies by reciting to each other passages from The God Gene, by Dean Hamer, starting a secular tradition that is simmered in science, while still leaving room for my child's own self-discovery...

:D

So, in some way, parents do indoctrinate their children, have always indoctrinated their children, and will continue to indoctrinate their children. That's their role, as parents.

As the child's brain starts to develop more and they become little critical thinkers of their own, shedding their parent's insights and gaining their own - they either find their own reasons for continuing the traditions of their parents, or they abandon them altogether. Reconciling their own requirements of truth-seeking with their parent's style of truth-seeking is the turning point, the catalyst that gives them that final push into thinking independently.

To me, the child abuse lies not in the continuance of familial tradition, but in the labels that are slapped on a child from the day they are born.

I like how Sam Harris put it, after commenting in public how there truly are no Christian children, no Muslim children, no Hindu children, to speak of. He quickly defended questioning on what he'd call his own children, educated with the Harris brand of "indoctrination":

"Using the term “atheist” is a mistake. There are no “non-racists,” so why are we defining ourselves by something that should simply be the case? Victory for our side would not result in a world where everyone called themselves an atheist; rather, atheism would just be an obvious afterthought."

(and he managed to write The End of Faith without ever using the term atheist or atheism)

I wouldn't ever label my child an atheist, even if every tradition (or lack thereof) we practiced in our family reflected the absence of a God figure.

"When you're for it, it is education. When you're against it, it is indoctrination."

Yippie

I wouldn't ever label my child an atheist, even if every tradition (or lack thereof) we practiced in our family reflected the absence of a God figure.

A good friend of mine, who is very into secular humanism, has this awesome little boy about 7. Really smart kid. My friend is an athiest and so is his wife. His parents and grandparents are southern baptist. He let his son go to church with his grandparents anytime he wanted.

His son asked him after awhile if he believed in God. He told his son that he did not. His son said "If you don't then I will not". His father told him this will not be acceptable. He told his son that he must make a choice on his own and not let any other person influence that decision. This seems a bit daunting to a 7 year old I am sure, but his son did not have to make the decision after all.

His son came back from Sunday school one morning very upset. He started crying and begged his father to go to church with him. He told his father the people at Sunday school told him his father would burn in hell and he would be all alone in Heaven. Told him (a 7 year old) to talk with his father and help save his soul from hellfire for all of eternity. His son has not been permitted to attend Sunday school with his grandparents every since.

I think my friend (who abhors religion as much as I) was more than tolerant of his son's budding theistic belief until they turned his son against him in an effort of conversion. My point is teaching a child religion or exposing them to it damages them. I think it noble that you, my friend, and probably myself would not force a belief on our children such as atheism, but I am not sure how effective that will be when a young, underdevoloped mind encounters the spiritual vultures of religion who are bound and determined to mind fuck that underdevolped mind.

All parents try to raise their children to take up the values that they themselves hold. In fact, I'd bet a large number of people who express outrage at teaching religion to children were themselves taught at a young age that people should be free to form their own ideas.

Oh, and if Surak's vision of christians was anywhere close to accurate, either they would have all died off a long time ago or the importance of logic is grossly overstated. Since they haven't died off, then either logic is not as important as it seems or a religious upbringing does not seriously limit logical thought. I suspect the latter. People with what you think of as logical deficiencies are simply people who choose premises that are in opposition to your own.

Teaching a child religion damages them? Only from your perspective of atheism. From the perspective of a religious parent, not to teach the child would be seen as damaging them. And since both value different things, the very definition of damaging is not agreed upon, so this kind of discussion is quite useless.

Right on target, fallinghouse.

As usual.

All parents try to raise their children to take up the values that they themselves hold. In fact, I'd bet a large number of people who express outrage at teaching religion to children were themselves taught at a young age that people should be free to form their own ideas.

Oh, and if Surak's vision of christians was anywhere close to accurate, either they would have all died off a long time ago or the importance of logic is grossly overstated. Since they haven't died off, then either logic is not as important as it seems or a religious upbringing does not seriously limit logical thought. I suspect the latter. People with what you think of as logical deficiencies are simply people who choose premises that are in opposition to your own.

Teaching a child religion damages them? Only from your perspective of atheism. From the perspective of a religious parent, not to teach the child would be seen as damaging them. And since both value different things, the very definition of damaging is not agreed upon, so this kind of discussion is quite useless.

this is refreshing, in stead of the chanting of the mob that honestly believes its the minority.

A good friend of mine, who is very into secular humanism, has this awesome little boy about 7. Really smart kid. My friend is an athiest and so is his wife. His parents and grandparents are southern baptist. He let his son go to church with his grandparents anytime he wanted.

His son asked him after awhile if he believed in God. He told his son that he did not. His son said "If you don't then I will not". His father told him this will not be acceptable. He told his son that he must make a choice on his own and not let any other person influence that decision. This seems a bit daunting to a 7 year old I am sure, but his son did not have to make the decision after all.

His son came back from Sunday school one morning very upset. He started crying and begged his father to go to church with him. He told his father the people at Sunday school told him his father would burn in hell and he would be all alone in Heaven. Told him (a 7 year old) to talk with his father and help save his soul from hellfire for all of eternity. His son has not been permitted to attend Sunday school with his grandparents every since.

I think my friend (who abhors religion as much as I) was more than tolerant of his son's budding theistic belief until they turned his son against him in an effort of conversion. My point is teaching a child religion or exposing them to it damages them. I think it noble that you, my friend, and probably myself would not force a belief on our children such as atheism, but I am not sure how effective that will be when a young, underdevoloped mind encounters the spiritual vultures of religion who are bound and determined to mind fuck that underdevolped mind.

That's exactly why I disagree with forcing religion on children. I don't think it constitutes child abuse, but it is pretty damn abusive. What I mean is, I don't think a parent should get in trouble for teaching their child religion, but I don't condone it either.

I went to Catholic school, CCD, church, and those religion summer camp things when I was little (my mom can be a little excessive at times...), and up until about 7th grade or 8th grade, I never questioned religion. But once we actually started learning about science, and I realized how much it contradicted everything that I had been taught, I lost all faith in religion.

What made it worse was the fact that when I was in 8th grade, my mom signed me up for confirmation classes. I told her repeatedly that I didn't want to get confirmed yet because I wasn't sure that I wanted to be catholic, but she gave me the ultimatum of either doing the classes or my life being a living hell until I turned 18 and/or moved out. Needless to say, that experience didn't exactly help foster my religious beliefs.

It still amazes me though how there are people out there who are so ignorant that they can believe in Catholicism.

Good post fallinghouse!

Personally, I think it's wrong to raise kids on religion. They're at a young age where they are very impressionable. You could teach them anything and they'll believe it. It is blatantly a form of brainwashing, as they are in a state that is so easy to influence.

Why is this not seen as being wrong and immoral?

I don't think it's complely wrong, parents raise their kids with the religion they adhere to because they believe it is the right thing.

However I think it is slightly messed up because it makes kids develop a rather skewed view of the world, not to mention cognition.

"Oh, and if Surak's vision of christians was anywhere close to accurate, either they would have all died off a long time ago or the importance of logic is grossly overstated."

Sadly, this is not the case. Quite simply, people who have a fully functioning capacity for logical thought accomplish more than you worthless idiots do.

"Since they haven't died off, then either logic is not as important as it seems or a religious upbringing does not seriously limit logical thought."

No, the infrastructure for you idiots is already in place thanks to logical thinkers and you take advantage of it; that's all.

"I suspect the latter. People with what you think of as logical deficiencies are simply people who choose premises that are in opposition to your own."

Your premises have no basis in reality, as has been proven repeatedly. You and every other theist are nothing more than a freeloader.

Surak: Your attempts at taking the logical high ground are quite laughable in light of your blatant use of logical fallacies to attempt to make your points, namely, ad hominem.

I have no intention of debating with a child in the midsts of tantrum, so I will not respond to you in the future unless you manage to improve your attitude to a level approaching civility.

Sadly, this is not the case. Quite simply, people who have a fully functioning capacity for logical thought accomplish more than you worthless idiots do.

All I see here is a conclusion. Is there an argument to back it up?

No, the infrastructure for you idiots is already in place thanks to logical thinkers and you take advantage of it; that's all.

An interesting hypothesis, but I see no reason to choose it instead of my own. In fact, the necessity of logic is so ubiquitous that in order for someone incapable of using it to survive, just about every one of their actions would have to be controlled by one of those logical thinkers you speak of. Unless there is some kind of mind control device that I don't know about, this situation is simply not how it is in reality, so your hypothesis falls apart.

Your premises have no basis in reality, as has been proven repeatedly.

That's funny because I can't remember a time when that has been proven. Maybe you could remind me?

i find mindless rejection of god and religion as amusing and ironic above all things.

Teaching a child religion damages them? Only from your perspective of atheism. From the perspective of a religious parent, not to teach the child would be seen as damaging them. And since both value different things, the very definition of damaging is not agreed upon, so this kind of discussion is quite useless.

By the definitions of reason, rational and logic; you have to forego reason, rational and logic to believe in miracles or magic of any kind. This is a fact.

Now we need to determine if thinking illogical, irrationaly and unreasonably are negative things or positive things. Which is more positive and which is more negative? Pretty clear, I think, that logical thought has more positives in store than illogical thought.

You see no matter what faith you are, or are not, the definitions of logic and reason do not change. Faith is not logical. PERIOD. Having faith is to train the mind to think outside of reason and logic. PERIOD. Therefore, the perspective of an illogical person (religious parent) is moot. Their perspective is filled with angels, demons, zombies, and magic. All highly illogical perspectives.

You cannot render this discussion as useless when the thing we are discussing is the mental damage theism does by saying "this argument is useless b/c a theists thinks differently." FAIL. FUCKING SUPER FAIL.

i find mindless rejection of god and religion as amusing and ironic above all things.

I find doing ANYTHING midlessly as very, very foolish.

Rejecting God and religion is NEVER mindless. It is a mind saying "where's the proof, where is the evidence so my MIND CAN ACCEPT IT"

By the definitions of reason, rational and logic; you have to forego reason, rational and logic to believe in miracles or magic of any kind. This is a fact.


assuming YOUR postulates. LOGICALLY, until supernatural activity is disproved, it can not be discounted. you base most of the things you accept off of authority on a much grander scale; don't mock people who's chosen source for authority is a old, old book thats not yet been proven wrong on any occasion. +1 narrow mindedness point for you.



Now we need to determine if thinking illogical[sic], irrationaly[sic] and unreasonably are negative things or positive things. Which is more positive and which is more negative? Pretty clear, I think, that logical thought has more positives in store than illogical thought.


logic is arbitrary, it is end-based and self-determined. it is, most of all, not your possession.


You see no matter what faith you are, or are not, the definitions of logic and reason do not change. Faith is not logical. PERIOD. Having faith is to train the mind to think outside of reason and logic. PERIOD. Therefore, the perspective of an illogical person (religious parent) is moot. Their perspective is filled with angels, demons, zombies, and magic. All highly illogical perspectives.


logic and reason are simply structures of the mind. of course others look incoherent when you fail to look at the situation from their point of view- which you do.

you silly hypocrite, you utilize faith based mind training as much as every human being. you aren't special, or different; you have had the the same type of training any catholic, muslim or Christian has had, just different variables.

first of all, whatever they are, angels demons zombies and magic are not perspectives.

second of all, its rather illogical and irrational of you to assume that because you disagree with someone, they are not only wrong, they are flawed. thats a rather primitive way of looking at things. far more primitive the someone who, say, has faith in the christian religion. because, see, the average christian could explain to you very clearly and logically why they believe what they believe. you can only rant like caliban.


You cannot render this discussion as useless when the thing we are discussing is the mental damage theism does by saying "this argument is useless b/c a theists thinks differently." FAIL. FUCKING SUPER FAIL.

sure, that makes sense. no one is sure about religion, but the people who don't sway your way are stupid. Aristotle would slap you.

go worship at the "temple of the modern materialist" and leave us alone.

By the definitions of reason, rational and logic; you have to forego reason, rational and logic to believe in miracles or magic of any kind. This is a fact.

How so?

You see no matter what faith you are, or are not, the definitions of logic and reason do not change.

Au contraire, definitions are constantly in flux. For example, Aristotle would be aghast at the use of the word logic as if it was a commitment to certain ideas you deem reasonable instead of a way of finding out more information from what one accepts as known.

Faith is not logical. PERIOD. Having faith is to train the mind to think outside of reason and logic. PERIOD. Therefore, the perspective of an illogical person (religious parent) is moot. Their perspective is filled with angels, demons, zombies, and magic. All highly illogical perspectives.

Consider any logical argument. Call it argument 1.

Argument 1:
p1
p2
p3
∴ c1

But why should I believe p1? Well, consider:

Argument 2:
p4
p5
∴ p1

But why should I believe p4? Well, consider:

Argument 3:
p6
p7
p8
∴ p4

But why should I believe p6? You might come up with an argument in support of p6, but I can just as easily question the premises of that argument, and so on to infinity.

You see, for logic to have any application at all, requires that there be some premises which are unquestioned, taken without evidence or any reason or argument other than because we want them to be true. So, at its heart, logic is built upon faith. To deny the latter is to deny the former.

assuming YOUR postulates. LOGICALLY, until supernatural activity is disproved, it can not be discounted. you base most of the things you accept off of authority on a much grander scale; don't mock people who's chosen source for authority is a old, old book thats not yet been proven wrong on any occasion. +1 narrow mindedness point for you..

You are right until something is disproved it cannot be discounted. For example the moon COULD still have cheese in the center of it. Have not "DISPROVED" it by digging to the center. I however will not believe it. If you believe it JUST B/C it hasn't been disproven I MAY call you a fucking idiot.

I found it funny you call me narrow minded for not staking everything I know on a couple thousand year old book of Jewish folklore.


logic and reason are simply structures of the mind. of course others look incoherent when you fail to look at the situation from their point of view- which you do..

I am terribly sorry. Perhaps you would be so kind as to present the logic and reason behind the Christian God's existence?

second of all, its rather illogical and irrational of you to assume that because you disagree with someone, they are not only wrong, they are flawed. thats a rather primitive way of looking at things. far more primitive the someone who, say, has faith in the christian religion. because, see, the average christian could explain to you very clearly and logically why they believe what they believe. you can only rant like caliban.

I do not assume b/c I disagree with someone they are flawed. I believe the mind of a Christian MUST possess flawed logic if they try to surmise their belief as anything but BLIND FAITH. I know a Christian can explian in a logical fashion WHY they believe. I never said they couldn't. They can TRY to explain their BELIEFS logically but will fail as there is no logic in God.

How so?..

It is simply not rational to believe in something you cannot interact with and have only heard stories of. No matter how many people tell you the fucking story. I just shit a handful of diamonds. RIGHT NOW. As a rational human do you believe me on faith alone?

But why should I believe p6? You might come up with an argument in support of p6, but I can just as easily question the premises of that argument, and so on to infinity.

You see, for logic to have any application at all, requires that there be some premises which are unquestioned, taken without evidence or any reason or argument other than because we want them to be true. So, at its heart, logic is built upon faith. To deny the latter is to deny the former.

I suppose you would like to fill in your premises now in an effort to present a logical argument for your GOD?

It is simply not rational to believe in something you cannot interact with and have only heard stories of.

I have shown above that rationality not only accepts such a belief, it requires it. Unless you mean rationality to be more than the ability to apply logic, in which case you probably mean the acceptance of your premises. But, if that is what rational means, then condemning something as irrational is no different from saying you happen to disagree, so being irrational is not particularly troubling.

I suppose you would like to fill in your premises now in an effort to present a logical argument for your GOD?

I have no such desire, and the demand is quite irrelevant.

^Sorry, but all you've done is shown that you're an idiot.

^Sorry, but all you've done is shown that you're an idiot.

What, fallinghouse?

Seriously, he's one of the few that have shown any kind of understanding in this thread.

If you can show me where he is wrong then maybe we could agree he was an idiot.

What, fallinghouse?

Seriously, he's one of the few that have shown any kind of understanding in this thread.

If you can show me where he is wrong then maybe we could agree he was an idiot.

B/C he took the time to ATTEMPT to show how logical an argument can be for theism. How rational it can be by presenting a syllogism.......ahem.......WITHOUT ANY PREMISES OR A CONCLUSION.

I asked him to fill in his syllogism to SHOW us the logical argument that exists for God. He refused. Know why? B/C he is smart enough to know he CANNOT show a logical arguement for God, yet continues to try to argue on the side of logic.

It is an excercise in futility and he knows it. Thus, full of shit, fucking idiot like Surak noted. It is a classic theistic ploy to present half or psuedo science. Science or logic WILL NOT BACK UP THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD.

House is good at twisting words, thus would make a good preacher, but a terrible scientist.

B/C he took the time to ATTEMPT to show how logical an argument can be for theism. How rational it can be by presenting a syllogism.......ahem.......WITHOUT ANY PREMISES OR A CONCLUSION.

I asked him to fill in his syllogism to SHOW us the logical argument that exists for God. He refused. Know why? B/C he is smart enough to know he CANNOT show a logical arguement for God, yet continues to try to argue on the side of logic.

It is an excercise in futility and he knows it. Thus, full of shit, fucking idiot like Surak noted. It is a classic theistic ploy to present half or psuedo science. Science or logic WILL NOT BACK UP THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD.

House is good at twisting words, thus would make a good preacher, but a terrible scientist.

its obvious you have great faith in science. in fact, a almost mystical trust in your chosen priests. its funny. you smash people for faith in god, and yet, you have no explanation yourself, and your chosen faith has no explanation for any big issues. like the existence of the universe. like life itself.

you're no different then a christian, my friend, except they acknowledge their own faith as being precisely that- faith.

*loads his evolutionist-hunting gun*

its obvious you have great faith in science. in fact, a almost mystical trust in your chosen priests. its funny. you smash people for faith in god, and yet, you have no explanation yourself, and your chosen faith has no explanation for any big issues. like the existence of the universe. like life itself.

you're no different then a christian, my friend, except they acknowledge their own faith as being precisely that- faith.

*loads his evolutionist-hunting gun*

LOL.

There is NOTHING AT FUCKING ALL mystical about my feelings towards science.

Definition time:
Mystical: having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence <the mystical food of the sacrament> b: involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality <the mystical experience of the Inner Light>

I will not post the definition of priest and religion. You can look it up yourself. Calling a scientist a priest is a misunderstanding of the word priest. To call science a religion is misunderstanding the definition of the word religion.

Faith: 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Faith is a poor way to describe a belief in science as faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. This is NOT science...at all. To say the only diffference between me and a thiest is that they acknowledge their faith and I do not is incorrect. There are many differences but I need only add an adjective to a thiests faith to properly demonstrate the difference:

Blind. That is the fundemental difference. A theist believes blindly in God. Blind faith is the only kind of faith most theists can have. You cannot prove God. TO believe in something without evidence is believing or having faith in something blindly. Since faith ALMOST always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof, throwing blind in front of it is redundant. I put blind in front of it to properly acknowledge what a person HAS to mean when they talk about faith in God as opposed to faith in science.

*watches you shoot self in foot with evolution-hunting gun*

I have shown above that rationality not only accepts such a belief, it requires it. Unless you mean rationality to be more than the ability to apply logic, in which case you probably mean the acceptance of your premises. But, if that is what rational means, then condemning something as irrational is no different from saying you happen to disagree, so being irrational is not particularly troubling.

I am well aware that theists are not troubled by their irrationality. Rationality does not accept blind belief. I understand that a very abstract minded person could question every premise and somethings need to be taken as fact at their level. Such as

P1:All men are mortal.
P2:Socrates is a man.
C1: Socrates is mortal.

Men are mortal, may actually NOT be true. There could be an immortal out there who humanity has never discovered. Until this immortal proven, at fucking all, we take men are mortal at it's value BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW.

YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN A RATIONAL THIEST ARGUMENT IN THE FORM OF A SYLLOGISM. You filled NOTHING in for your Premises and have declined to do so. You showed how a syllogism works (not for a thiest) and that is all you have done.

If you think you are gonna put god or anything else magical in a premise and have it accepted as easily as men are mortal you are a half-wit at best.

Rationality does not accept blind belief.

And yet my argument that it does remains standing. Am I supposed to abandon it because you would happen to assert the opposite?

I understand that a very abstract minded person could question every premise and somethings need to be taken as fact at their level. Such as

P1:All men are mortal.
P2:Socrates is a man.
C1: Socrates is mortal.

Men are mortal, may actually NOT be true. There could be an immortal out there who humanity has never discovered. Until this immortal proven, at fucking all, we take men are mortal at it's value BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW.

So you are going to accept a premise as true until it has been proven false? That's an interesting reversal of the burden of proof.

Nevertheless, allow me to show you how this still falls to my argument.

Argument 1:
P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
∴ Socrates is mortal.

I ask, "But why should I believe P1?" You respond with:

Argument 2:
P3: If a premise agrees with what we know, then we have reason to believe it until it is proven false.
P4: P1 agrees with what we know.
∴ there is reason to believe P1

I ask, "But why should I believe P3?" You might come up with an argument in support of P3, but I can just as easily question the premises of that argument, and so on to infinity. All you have done here is take the loop through one cycle.

Furthermore, even if this did solve one infinite regress, it would still create another with pretty much the same properties. This is because you relied on the word 'know', meaning that I could just ask, "How do you know that?" repeatedly instead of "Why should I believe that?".

B/C he took the time to ATTEMPT to show how logical an argument can be for theism. How rational it can be by presenting a syllogism.......ahem.......WITHOUT ANY PREMISES OR A CONCLUSION.

I asked him to fill in his syllogism to SHOW us the logical argument that exists for God. He refused. Know why? B/C he is smart enough to know he CANNOT show a logical arguement for God, yet continues to try to argue on the side of logic...

...YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN A RATIONAL THIEST ARGUMENT IN THE FORM OF A SYLLOGISM. You filled NOTHING in for your Premises and have declined to do so. You showed how a syllogism works (not for a thiest) and that is all you have done.

Why did I not fill in the premises? Because the demand to do that was just an attempt at sidestepping my arguments against your claim:

"Faith is not logical. PERIOD. Having faith is to train the mind to think outside of reason and logic. PERIOD. Therefore, the perspective of an illogical person (religious parent) is moot."

You have repeatedly attempted to turn this thread into a debate over the existence of God, when the existence of God matters very little to the topic at hand. If we assume that parents have a right to teach their children any reasonable beliefs, then what matters is whether religion can be reasonable.

If you think you are gonna put god or anything else magical in a premise and have it accepted as easily as men are mortal you are a half-wit at best.

If I was going to do that, then it would matter little whether it was accepted or not, because deniers would just be judging my premises using their own, and conclusive arguments cannot be provided in support of any set of premises. The situation would devolve into nothing more or less than a conflict of opinions.

Faith is a poor way to describe a belief in science as faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. This is NOT science...at all. To say the only diffference between me and a thiest is that they acknowledge their faith and I do not is incorrect. There are many differences but I need only add an adjective to a thiests faith to properly demonstrate the difference:

Blind. That is the fundemental difference. A theist believes blindly in God. Blind faith is the only kind of faith most theists can have. You cannot prove God. TO believe in something without evidence is believing or having faith in something blindly. Since faith ALMOST always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof, throwing blind in front of it is redundant. I put blind in front of it to properly acknowledge what a person HAS to mean when they talk about faith in God as opposed to faith in science.

The regress means that all belief systems are, at their deepest level, based on premises for which there is no argument in support. This means that your faith is no less blind then the faith of the religious and that religious beliefs are no less reasonable than the beliefs of yourself.

Faith, as I understand it, requires that there be no conclusive proof.

If there is proof, then it ceases to be faith, and is simply knowledge.

If God's existence were to be proven, then faith would lose it's power.


As a believer, I must accept that God created everything, and that includes the laws that govern existence, known as science.

My God created your science.

To the OP...Christianity, like ANY belief, can be mistaught, and misunderstood. That's why we have the ability to reason, and are held accountable if that ability fails us.

My parents raised me to believe. Does that make me mentally deficicent?

I might not agree with someones beliefs, but that doesn't give me reason to blindly hate them. BrokeProphet thinks it does. Where's the logic in that?

I wouldnt call it child abuse,brainwashing yes,but not child abuse....When I have a child I will not tell him about any kind of god.I will wait until he is around 8-12 then sit them down.Son,do you know the diffrence bettween good and bad? Do you know who god is and who a man named jesus is?*if he doesnt* Well a long time ago,people worshipped this man.They thought he was so powerfull he could cure deadly illnesses.They say he created everything you know.

Well,some time passed and some people didnt belive in god so much.The church,which is where you go to pray to god and jesus,didnt like the way these people thought. They said it was bad so they found these people and killed them. Do you think this was bad?*waits on answer* Well the way they saw it,they were trying to get to heaven by doing this.To them it was good and they were right.

Now,I dont belive in god. I used to,but then one day it seemed like the fog that I was walking though had cleared.It was if I was sleeping and had suddenly awakend.I could no longer belive what these people were telling me any longer.I had made up my own mind,and this made people very angry.My mom,your grandmother,said that she no longer had a son and she refused to speak to me ever again.Alot of my family saw me as a bad person and that I had no morals.

Morals are what let you know the diffrence bettween good and bad.Now I knew that I knew what was good and what was bad.They tried to say that without a god I couldnt have any morals.That is why I asked you that when we started talking.The reason I have never told you about god before was because I wanted you to make your own mind up.

Alot of parents teach thier child from the day they are born about thier god.I didnt because I wanted you to make up your own mind about it.Start looking at diffrent belives and talk to people who belive in them. You can also ask athiest like me what they think of the subject.But before you go asking let me give you some advice. The people who belive in god will tell you people like me are bad people and you shouldnt talk to people like me.Dont listen to them when they say this,you ask as many questions as you can and if you have any now feel free to ask away.No matter what you choose to belive I will love you.

So you are going to accept a premise as true until it has been proven false? That's an interesting reversal of the burden of proof.

LOL. Is this really how your mind works. Let me explain it for YOU again. You should check out burden of proof and what it means before you attempt to use the term.

P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man.
C1: Socrates is mortal.

A person foolish or stubborn enough COULD say "You don't KNOW 100% that P1 is true, there COULD be a man out there who is not mortal." Problem is P1 is ALREADY PROVEN. IT IS PROVEN. I could prove it to you before your very eyes by killing a man. There is MORE evidence that men are mortal then there is evidence that some men are mortal. In fact, there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest men are not mortal. Based on evidence take ONE FUCKING guess who the burden of proof falls upon. Without proof (which IS this fucking idiot's burden) he would just be wasting his time and looking like a fucking idiot, wouldn't he?

So your logic that we must accept certain premises without question falls the fuck apart. We can only question a premise if the premise itself lacks empirical evidence OR if we have more empirical evidence for our replacement premise. Thus, your argument falls the fuck apart.

Why did I not fill in the premises? Because the demand to do that was just an attempt at sidestepping my arguments against your claim:

No. You did not fill in your premises b/c you do not have a logical argument and you KNOW it. You know the second you fill in your premise to present a logical syllogism for the existence of a God, you will be DESTROYED by everyone with half a brain reading this thread.

You sir, are a coward and you lack the conviction of the horse shit you are spewing on screen to defend your position. THAT is why you will not fill in your premises. Shit or get off the fucking pot, bud.

LOL. Is this really how your mind works. Let me explain it for YOU again. You should check out burden of proof and what it means before you attempt to use the term.

P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man.
C1: Socrates is mortal.

A person foolish or stubborn enough COULD say "You don't KNOW 100% that P1 is true, there COULD be a man out there who is not mortal." Problem is P1 is ALREADY PROVEN. IT IS PROVEN. I could prove it to you before your very eyes by killing a man. There is MORE evidence that men are mortal then there is evidence that some men are mortal. In fact, there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest men are not mortal. Based on evidence take ONE FUCKING guess who the burden of proof falls upon. Without proof (which IS this fucking idiot's burden) he would just be wasting his time and looking like a fucking idiot, wouldn't he?

So your logic that we must accept certain premises without question falls the fuck apart. We can only question a premise if the premise itself lacks empirical evidence OR if we have more empirical evidence for our replacement premise. Thus, your argument falls the fuck apart.

All you've done here is taken the loop through another cycle.

Argument 1:
P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
∴ Socrates is mortal.

I ask, "But why should I believe P1?" You respond with:

Argument 2:
P3: If a premise has evidence then there is reason to believe it.
P4: There is evidence for P1.
∴ there is reason to believe P1

I ask, "But why should I believe P3?" You might come up with an argument in support of P3, but I can just as easily question the premises of that argument, and so on to infinity. If you say we should simply accept P3 until it has been disproved, then you are reversing the burden of proof.

No. You did not fill in your premises b/c you do not have a logical argument and you KNOW it. You know the second you fill in your premise to present a logical syllogism for the existence of a God, you will be DESTROYED by everyone with half a brain reading this thread.

You sir, are a coward and you lack the conviction of the horse shit you are spewing on screen to defend your position. THAT is why you will not fill in your premises. Shit or get off the fucking pot, bud.

You would claim to know me better than I know myself?

For someone who claims to value evidence so highly, I doubt anything you said in those two paragraphs can be given evidence to back them up.

I ask, "But why should I believe P3?" You might come up with an argument in support of P3, but I can just as easily question the premises of that argument, and so on to infinity. If you say we should simply accept P3 until it has been disproved, then you are reversing the burden of proof.

LOL.

There is no reversal of the burden of proof there is only your feebleness and misunderstanding of who carries the burden.

Here are the rules:

You can question the validity of a premise anytime you want. You can get as abstract as you like in order to question it. You will not be taken seriously and CANNOT be taken seriously and will FAIL in your objection of a premise IF YOU LACK MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT, THAN IT HAS GOING FOR IT. Period. That is the way it works. That is the way it HAS to work. THESE ARE THE SIMPLE, SIMPLE, SIMPLE RULES.

To address your refusal to show us a syllogism that is a logical representation of the existence of God is cowardice. If you have such convictions then I challenge you to present the syllogism. This entire argument would go much more smoothly, for both of us, if you would fully present your case.

Present your syllogism that we continue to argue the logic of. Present the full syllogism showing how right you are or concede the debate.

Your continual attempts to detour this thread into an irrelevant debate on the existence of God as well as your repeated silence on a number of my points as well as your use of ad hominem all leads me to the conclusion that either you are incapable of participating in a proper debate or you are attempting to draw attention away from the deficiencies in the position that I am actually arguing against. Either way, I am quickly losing interest in communicating with you.

You can question the validity of a premise anytime you want. You can get as abstract as you like in order to question it. You will not be taken seriously and CANNOT be taken seriously and will FAIL in your objection of a premise IF YOU LACK MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT, THAN IT HAS GOING FOR IT. Period. That is the way it works. That is the way it HAS to work. THESE ARE THE SIMPLE, SIMPLE, SIMPLE RULES.

No, that's not how the burden of proof works I'm afraid. Consider the classic example of Russel's teapot. The burden of proof is on the one who asserts that it exists, however, if we were going by your idea that "You will not be taken seriously and CANNOT be taken seriously and will FAIL in your objection of a premise IF YOU LACK MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT, THAN IT HAS GOING FOR IT." then even though the person making the assertion has no evidence, the burden of proof is not on them. If your idea of the burden of proof were accurate, then it would be up to the person who thinks the teapot does not exist to provide evidence.

Your continual attempts to detour this thread into an irrelevant debate on the existence of God as well as your repeated silence on a number of my points ....... Either way, I am quickly losing interest in communicating with you..

Irrelevant debate on the existence of God? You said a thiest argument for God was logical. I say that it is not. You have provided ZERO evidence that there is a logical argument for God. You have provided evidence for how syllogisms work. You have yet to actually create a syllogism that illustrates your point. You have reached for straws in telling me that a premise has to be accepted. If I can provide evidence that you have a false premise or you lack evidence to support your premise your conclusion will fail. PERIOD. In short, you have failed to prove your point...so I imagine you are losing interest in "communicating" your ideas to me.

I have challenged you to make clear your point. Show me your logical argument for God. Your point of theists possessing a logical argument. MAKE YOUR POINT. Do not illustrate HOW a syllogism works (without entering in your data that WOULD actually make your point) and accuse me of side-tracking again, please.

....If your idea of the burden of proof were accurate, then it would be up to the person who thinks the teapot does not exist to provide evidence.

This is Russel's teapot:

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

[I]If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

How does this help your argument. It is not the skeptics job to provide a burden of proof. If he had EVIDENCE for his teapot and I had less evidence against it GUESS WHO CARRIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

YOU DO NOT POSSES A LOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD. Admit it. You CANNOT or WILL NOT show it. You hinted that you could but will not do so as you see no point in it. I am BEGGING you to humor me and show me this logical argument.

This is Russel's teapot:

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

[I]If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

How does this help your argument. It is not the skeptics job to provide a burden of proof. If he had EVIDENCE for his teapot and I had less evidence against it GUESS WHO CARRIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

How does this help me? Well, you described the burden of proof as:

"You will not be taken seriously and CANNOT be taken seriously and will FAIL in your objection of a premise IF YOU LACK MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT, THAN IT HAS GOING FOR IT."

Now, there is no evidence for the teapot. There is no evidence against the teapot. That means that going by your concept of burden of the proof, if I used it as a premise, then in order to deny it, you would have to provide evidence that means it doesn't exist. If you don't, then 'you lack more evidence against it, than it has going for it' and there is no reason to take you seriously.

Since that is not how the real burden of the proof works, your formulation of it is flawed.



I have given my argument that teaching children religion is not child abuse, and you have been given ample opportunity to find fault with it, but have not done so. You seem to think that simply because a theist is arguing something, then they are arguing for the existence of God. This is not the case. I consider this discussion finished and will not reply further.

I have given my argument that teaching children religion is not child abuse, and you have been given ample opportunity to find fault with it, but have not done so. You seem to think that simply because a theist is arguing something, then they are arguing for the existence of God. This is not the case. I consider this discussion finished and will not reply further.

You have merely said in a round about way "The people TEACHING their children religion THINK it is helpful". This requires no refuting as you have simply stated the obvious.

I argued that it hampers logical thought. You argued that it did not. You demonstrated how a syllogism works and THINK you have made a point. You neglected and continue to neglect the fact you FORGOT to put god in your syllogism (that you think proves god is logical). You HAVE yet to show how God is logical AT ALL and refuse to do so. So my claim that it is NOT logical and therfore hampers logical thought STILL STANDS.

You refuse to "show your work" in your syllogism b/c you are wrong and you know it. If I am wrong in this assessment please (I have begged you for 2 pages now) show your syllogism representing the logic in God. If you do not, how do you think you have proven your point that teaching children religion is not child abuse, when I consider hampering logical thought process child abuse?

Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Occam and Alvin Plantinga all believed in God. Furthermore, they are all considered among the greatest logicians of all time and have a greater understanding of logic than you have demonstrated yourself to have. The problem isn’t necessarily a “God meme”, but the commonality being idiots. No offence, but you come off as one of the commonality. I look forward to your riposte of angry, bold capital letters.

Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Occam and Alvin Plantinga all believed in God. Furthermore, they are all considered among the greatest logicians of all time and have a greater understanding of logic than you have demonstrated yourself to have. The problem isn’t necessarily a “God meme”, but the commonality being idiots. No offence, but you come off as one of the commonality. I look forward to your riposte of angry, bold capital letters.

Didn't you say you are not just a pontificating philosophical name dropper? I count 5 names dropped today. Not your record by far but still impressive. (I can be a sarcastic cunt as well without all the anger)

Perhaps you can present the logic behind god. That is great that these logicians had faith, I am wondering what they did to reveal the logic behind god.

Your statement that the problem isn't a "god meme" (your quotations suggest you think a god meme false???) but idiots like me...please, by all means elaborate on your reasons behind this.

Didn't you say you are not just a pontificating philosophical name dropper? I count 5 names dropped today. Not your record by far but still impressive. (I can be a sarcastic cunt as well without all the anger)

Surely you're intelligent enough to realize that their names served a purpose? They were to point out that theists can grasp syllogisms.

Perhaps you can present the logic behind god.

What the hell does this sentence even mean? Here, please read this (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm) and stop being so overly hostile. You're creating a bad smell in My God.

Surely you're intelligent enough to realize that their names served a purpose? They were to point out that theists can grasp syllogisms.

What the hell does this sentence even mean? Here, please read this (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm) and stop being so overly hostile. You're creating a bad smell in My God.

LOL. You refer to me as a common idiot without presenting why, and accuse me of being overly hostile and creating a bad smell?

Your name dropping did serve a purpose. Theists can grasp syllogisms. I never said they could not. Your purpose here then seems just to name drop. I said to teach a child to rely on an imaginary friend that has magic, his whole life is damaging to the child and the more that child gives into this HIGHLY illogical belief the less logical that person will ultimately be.

You present me with exceptions to this rule at best. I am surprised you did not drum up Newton. My argument with fallinghouse that you decided to join and hurl philosophical names at, is that, I assert, there is no logic behind god. That believing in god damages a person's capacity to think logically. This is not what I would call a hard and fast rule. You can find exceptions to it, I fail to see how this diminishes my argument in the slightest.

I've gotta say, BrokeProphet, I agree with you so far.


My argument with fallinghouse that you decided to join and hurl philosophical names at, is that, I assert, there is no logic behind god. That believing in god damages a person's capacity to think logically.

This argument seems pretty similar to your beginning one and I still don't see any valid arguments against it.

Just thought I should come back to my thread to at least say something.

LOL. You refer to me as a common idiot without presenting why, and accuse me of being overly hostile and creating a bad smell?

I insulted you because your posts have been annoying me. For awhile discourse in My God had been civiler than ever. But wherever you appear, you’re hostile, shout in all caps, and unjustifiably attack people as theists or trying to prove the existence of God, when both of these were entirely beside the point. As a friend of mine said, who I showed your statements, you’re a sensationalist.

Your name dropping did serve a purpose. Theists can grasp syllogisms. I never said they could not. Your purpose here then seems just to name drop. I said to teach a child to rely on an imaginary friend that has magic, his whole life is damaging to the child and the more that child gives into this HIGHLY illogical belief the less logical that person will ultimately be.

I have stated this many times, but you fail to take it in: the distinction between that which is logical and that which is illogical is a misunderstanding of logic. There are only valid and invalid inferences from within given systems and the study of said inferences. Furthermore, there have been many valid logical arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument. However, its content remains controversial, but logic is not overly concerned with content, as you should know if you have actually studied logic.

You present me with exceptions to this rule at best. I am surprised you did not drum up Newton. My argument with fallinghouse that you decided to join and hurl philosophical names at, is that, I assert, there is no logic behind god. That believing in god damages a person's capacity to think logically. This is not what I would call a hard and fast rule. You can find exceptions to it, I fail to see how this diminishes my argument in the slightest.

As my above statement shows, to assert that there is no logic behind the notion of god is to misunderstand logic. Although syllogistic logic is hardly rocket science anymore, I learnt it in a day, I doubt the majority of man have an understanding of predicate logic, modal logic or deontic logic. That the majority of man also believes in God is not proof that belief in God causes this unfamiliarity of logic or is an effect of it. The commonality may just be stupid dependent of their belief in God.

It sounds more like you're trying to rationalize a belief in God, while believing in hard facts and a simpler form of logic doesn't require that much extra effort to explain.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that if you apply Occam's Razor to this, then science is the best possible answer, and therefor the more appropriate thing to teach to children as it will be less complicated for them to apply to other theories down the road.

It sounds more like you're trying to rationalize a belief in God, while believing in hard facts and a simpler form of logic doesn't require that much extra effort to explain.

I'm an atheist, so I doubt that I'm trying to rationalize belief in God. Furthermore, the notion of hard facts is a questionable one.

I'm an atheist, so I doubt that I'm trying to rationalize belief in God.

Ok, but you're arguing against BrokeProphet's statement that there is no logic behind God.

Well, if there is logic behind God, then what is it?

And, more importantly, can you put it in simple enough terms that a child would understand it? As this thread is about raising children on religion.

Furthermore, the notion of hard facts is a questionable one.

Well the facts in text books and research studies are more believable than the "facts" found in the Bible or whatever other source Theists may get their information from.

Ok, but you're arguing against BrokeProphet's statement that there is no logic behind God.

Well, if there is logic behind God, then what is it?

If you have to ask this question, then you haven't read my post correctly.

If you have to ask this question, then you haven't read my post correctly.

Alright, maybe I'm just not quite understanding what you're saying...

BrokeProphet asked that you present your logic behind.

Then you went and said:

"Furthermore, there have been many valid logical arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument. However, its content remains controversial, but logic is not overly concerned with content, as you should know if you have actually studied logic."

So is that what you are choosing to present as your logic behind God?

If so, then would you mind elaborating... What exactly is this cosmological argument? And how does it prove that there is in fact a God (such as the Christian God, for example)?

(And this is still leaving the whole simplicity issue aside...)

I have stated this many times, but you fail to take it in: the distinction between that which is logical and that which is illogical is a misunderstanding of logic. There are only valid and invalid inferences from within given systems and the study of said inferences. Furthermore, there have been many valid logical arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument. However, its content remains controversial....

The cosomological argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the universe needs a cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe — generally assumed to be God — is that explanation.

The cosomological argument is little different than what every thiest prattles on about today. Big bang needs a banger is the simplist way to describe this argument. THE ARGUMENT ITSELF put forth by your hero Aristotle...makes NO MENTION OF A GOD. SO your claims that it is a valid logical argument for the existence of god is half baked at best, at worst it has NO merit.

There are numerous problems concerning the logic.....er......validity (if you prefer) of the cosmological argument. I prefer the scientific nuetering of the logic....validity....in the argument. The Big Bang theory (which is an event and not a beginning) states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into being, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time, and thus the concepts of cause and effects so necessary to the cosmological argument no longer apply.

Can a person really be this fucking retarded? You ignored my statement that logic is not concerned with content and argued against the content of a few forms of the cosmological argument, ignoring the point of my post. Before you and gadzooks post anymore, I really would like for you to at least study the essentials of logic and then, afterwards, reread my posts.

Can a person really be this fucking retarded? You ignored my statement that logic is not concerned with content and argued against the content of a few forms of the cosmological argument, ignoring the point of my post. Before you and gadzooks post anymore, I really would like for you to at least study the essentials of logic and then, afterwards, reread my posts.

Why don't you try explaining it in your words, rather than suggesting we read up from other sources.

Present the cosmological argument in a way that shows that God exists...

Can a person really be this fucking retarded? You ignored my statement that logic is not concerned with content and argued against the content of a few forms of the cosmological argument, ignoring the point of my post. Before you and gadzooks post anymore, I really would like for you to at least study the essentials of logic and then, afterwards, reread my posts.

LOL.

I re-read the part where you are critical of my hostility. Hypocrisy is what you have demonstrated first and foremost in your latest post.

The fallacy of a false premise...

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. It is important to note, however, that the validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

P1: If the streets are wet, it has rained recently.
P2: The streets are wet.
C1: Therefore it has rained recently.

You are correct in that the argument is logically valid, but the argument is also quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc.

This is piss poor logic. If you went through your whole life using logic with false premises you would be retarded.

"Hey Bob, did it rain today I see the streets are wet."

"No, you fucking retard I am holding a water hose and wetting the streets down."

"Well Bob, from my logic, it rained. I know it rained b/c I used logic???"

"Your a fucktard buddy. A real fucking retard."

If you are saying a thiest uses valid logic with false premises, I stand corrected. If you are saying there conclusions are correct you are wrong. If you are saying they have a valid argument with false premises you are wrong.

How is a theist teaching there children to use false premises in their logic (which is what they do when they assert a premise of god) healthy for them? Theists seem as disillusioned as the fucktard talking to bob in my example. My main point is still that religion is child abuse. It is an abuse of the logical capabilities of a child.

If you are saying a thiest uses valid logic with false premises, I stand corrected. If you are saying there conclusions are correct you are wrong. If you are saying they have a valid argument with false premises you are wrong.

My point was that the logical-illogical distinction is a false one, that there are merely valid and invalid inferences from within a given system, and that therefore your claim that belief in God causes illogical thinking is unfounded.

My point was that the logical-illogical distinction is a false one, that there are merely valid and invalid inferences from within a given system, and that your claim that belief in God causes illogical thinking is unfounded. Furthermore, you've yet again demonstrated that you misunderstand logic, because an argument can be valid with false premise. Such an argument is common, so common that it has a name: unsound.

I showed how an argument can be valid with false premises. It is an INCORRECT conclusion however. If you form your thinking on unsound arguments (your belief on the way the whole world works) your a fucking idiot. You have labotomized yourself. This is why I think indoctrining children at a young age leads to dumb cunts when they grow up.

God does cause illogical thinking. Is it logical to wish your cancer away? Is it logical to forego a blood transfusion when you need one to live? Is it logical to believe a man rose from his own death? Is it logical to believe there is anything after this life?

NO. It is not. Now I imagine you could form some half-baked unsound argument with false premises to still stay in this debate, but I would call it a waste of time if you have to continue to back yourself down and fall behind unsound argumentation.

You argue semantics at this point......I am just happy you quit using your google button to name drop.

I showed how an argument can be valid with false premises. It is an INCORRECT conclusion however. If you form your thinking on unsound arguments (your belief on the way the whole world works) your a fucking idiot. You have labotomized yourself. This is why I think indoctrining children at a young age leads to dumb cunts when they grow up.

If you had actually studied logic, you would know how wrong you are to say a conclusion is false because the premises are. All that can in fact be said is that the argument is unsound. For example, say someone argues that "if there is language, then there is no God; there is language; therefore there is no God". The argument is valid but clearly has unsound premise, but you wouldn't say this disproves the conclusion. So as you can see, you must either suspend judgment or produce an argument that disproves the conclusion.

God does cause illogical thinking. Is it logical to wish your cancer away? Is it logical to forego a blood transfusion when you need one to live? Is it logical to believe a man rose from his own death? Is it logical to believe there is anything after this life?

These questions are all misunderstandings of logic.

If there is a valid logical argument for god (whether valid, unsound, wrong, ugly) then there is a valid logical argument for the existence of peter pan, and the tooth fairy. May not be sound, but still logical and valid even when based on bullshit premise.

Logic is then useless as a tool for determining anything. If a cunt can twist it and mince words like WRONG with unsound, then you can pervert logic to do what ever you wish.

All animals can fly.
A pig is an animal.
Pig's can fly.

Holy shit. THIS IS VALID!!! THIS IS LOGICAL THINKING. Nevermind that the first premise is UTTER BULLSHIT. This is logical. This is valid. You can argue this with somebody and delude yourself into thinking you are right. You can then mount your flying pig mount and fly all the way to God.

LOGIC FTW.

If you had actually studied logic, you would know how wrong you are to say a conclusion is false because the premises are. All that can in fact be said is that the argument is unsound. For example, say someone argues that "if there is language, then there is no God; there is language; therefore there is no God". The argument is valid but clearly has unsound premise, but you wouldn't say this disproves the conclusion. So as you can see, you must either suspend judgment or produce an argument that disproves the conclusion.

These questions are all misunderstandings of logic.

LOL. SEMANTICAL BULLSHIT.

Please tell me how fostering a belief in a man rising from death and wishing your cancer away by talking to a space daddy who wants to party with your ghost when you die, helps a person become more logical. TELL ME.

Way I see it you have to use false premises and unsound logic to think logically about these things. Unsound logic is not a good thing, methinks. Sounds REALLY close to either Bullshit logic, or Incorrect logic.

Logic is very useful, but it’s not the saviour of man. It can aid you in keeping coherent, not being tricked by politicians who use fallacies, and drawing conclusions from collections of data. Furthermore all computers are built upon Boolean logic. But as demonstrated by you yourself, it could care less about content and is applicable with religion. You say that if something is unsound, then it is not a good thing. But I do not agree, for within philosophy, almost everything is unsound, even the scientific method.

Logic is very useful, but it’s not the saviour of man. It can aid you in keeping coherent, not being tricked by politicians who use fallacies, and drawing conclusions from collections of data. Furthermore all computers are built upon Boolean logic. But as demonstrated by you yourself, it could care less about content and is applicable with religion. You say that if something is unsound, then it is not a good thing. However I do not agree, for within philosophy, almost everything is unsound, even the scientific method.

You know more about philosophy than I, of that I do not doubt. How is the scientific method unsound? As I said unsound logic can lead one to believe pigs can fly!!! This type of thought process is NOT helpful to a person if they make it a habit (like viewing everything through the eyes of "god did it") it leads to unsound logic.

Me calling a thiest illogical was just my misunderstanding of the SEMANTICS invovled in the language of philosophy. From now on I will say a theist uses unsound logic, at best. That would be correct would it not?

How is the scientific method unsound?

Also this is direct from wikipedia:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. It is important to note, however, that the validity (in the technical, rather than popular sense) of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably W R O N G, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships.

My main problem is this:

Using logic I can make the statement that pigs can fly. This statement is both logical, and valid. It is not an incorrect or wrong statement that PIGS CAN FLY it is just unsound.

This is a logical and valid statement: Pigs can fly.

By the definitions of SOUND reason, rational and logic; you have to forego SOUND reason, rational and logic to believe in miracles or magic of any kind. This is a fact.

Now we need to determine if using UNSOUND logic generates more negative things or more positive things. Which is more positive and which is more negative? Pretty clear, I think, that SOUND logical thought has more positives in store than UNSOUND logical thought.

You see no matter what faith you are, or are not, the definitions of SOUND logic and reason do not change. Faith is not logically SOUND. Having faith is to train the mind to think outside of SOUND reason and logic. Therefore, the perspective of a person acustomed to UNSOUND logic (religious parent) is moot. Their perspective is filled with angels, demons, zombies, and magic. All highly UNSOUND logical perspectives.

THIS is my original argument. I have made minor semantical changes to it. What do you think of it now that instead of using illogical I use unsound logic? Think it is just a semantical problem you have been arguing for a couple of pages?

Pardon me for interjecting.

Logic is very useful, but it’s not the saviour of man. It can aid you in keeping coherent, not being tricked by politicians who use fallacies, and drawing conclusions from collections of data.

And parents aren't the saviour of their children. Instead of blistering their young minds with their own flavor of dogma and teaching them that people who don't worship the same supernatural entity they were taught to are wrong, they should encourage the child to constantly exercise their own critical thinking skills and reserve their judgment on religious issues until they've had ample opportunity to experience the many perspectives available to them as they mature and develop their own views of the universe and their place in it.

Exposing your child to your own religious faith is one thing. Demanding or even expecting them to follow it is another. I suppose the phrase "child abuse" could arguably be a harsher term than, say - "child manipulation" ... but childrearing is a huge task, and the effects of parental influence on a kid makes a huge impact from infancy all the way up to adulthood.

You say that if something is unsound, then it is not a good thing. But I do not agree, for within philosophy, almost everything is unsound, even the scientific method.

It's difficult to watch you nitpick over such trivial things such as a person's choice of words when it's been shown that you yourself have been exploited at times by your own parent's religion, and didn't much appreciate it.

But instead of agreeing on some level with the OP that religion can often times do more harm than good to children, and relating the missives you've shared in the past regarding your own negative experiences with it - you are slapping at BrokeProphet's wrists for not obeying the guidelines of a steadfast philosopher and adhering to a specific discipline concerning his choice of words.

Why?

I realize from reading this that his overall attitude annoys you, but ... should the speaker's personality really make a difference when the main point he is backing is a sound one that deserves consideration?

Why?

I dislike the idea of children being taught religion as truth. I am all too familiar with the downfalls of religious parents’ effects on their children. After all, I live in a family of homophobes, so I hide my sexuality. But that is not the issue I am dealing with in this thread. I have noticed a very curious use of logic within My God debates lately, a use of it as an all embracing power that divides the sane from the insane. My goal was to correct such misunderstandings. Again, as with my dislike of religious childrearing, my reasons for this probably somewhat have beginnings in personal life. I have been under the medical gaze of psychiatry, so I don’t take the categorization of people as mentally ill lightly, especially when I’m all too aware of what a sham psychiatry is generally.

Curiously enough, my only brush with psychiatry was a direct result of my religious upbringing.

If you're being forced into psychiatry much like you were once forced into religion - I offer you my deepest condolences. I've been there.

I am sorry for your own mental troubles. Really I am.

I cannot consider someone who believes a man can kill an army with a jawbone of ass, sane. I cannot consider someone who believes a virgin can get pregnant in the 1st century b.c., sane. I cannot consider someone who believes in magic, sane.

When I say believe...I mean BELIEVE in magic. If I told you I have an invisible intangible dragon in my garage and truly BELIEVED it...would you think me a mentally sound individual? A sane person?

How can you think they are sane?

So it turns out that Hare_Geist was really derailing this whole discussion into the semantics of logic.

But now I suppose we are back on track.

So raising a child on religion can be detrimental to a child's mental development.

Nobody has had any valid arguments against this.

So it turns out that Hare_Geist was really derailing this whole discussion into the semantics of logic.

But now I suppose we are back on track.

So raising a child on religion can be detrimental to a child's mental development.

Nobody has had any valid arguments against this.

The jury has decided. court is adjourned. Let's all go get some cake.








Minions Attack!

I've been there.

Me too. I quit.

...would you think me a mentally sound individual? A sane person?

I would think that they see reality differently.

How can you think they are sane?

Sanity ... insanity ... their the same things. You just label people who think the same way sane, and others insane.

We're all sane ... or insane.

By the definitions of SOUND reason, rational and logic; you have to forego SOUND reason, rational and logic to believe in miracles or magic of any kind. This is a fact.

Now we need to determine if using UNSOUND logic generates more negative things or more positive things. Which is more positive and which is more negative? Pretty clear, I think, that SOUND logical thought has more positives in store than UNSOUND logical thought.

You see no matter what faith you are, or are not, the definitions of SOUND logic and reason do not change. Faith is not logically SOUND. Having faith is to train the mind to think outside of SOUND reason and logic. Therefore, the perspective of a person acustomed to UNSOUND logic (religious parent) is moot. Their perspective is filled with angels, demons, zombies, and magic. All highly UNSOUND logical perspectives.

THIS is my original argument. I have made minor semantical changes to it. What do you think of it now that instead of using illogical I use unsound logic? Think it is just a semantical problem you have been arguing for a couple of pages?

Logical thought isn’t unsound; individual arguments within a given system are unsound. Say a theist believes Jesus is simultaneously the son of God and not the son of God. Within syllogistic logic we would obviously say one of the propositions is unsound, but within paraconsistent logic, which puts up with contradictions, the theist may have sound beliefs. Now I don’t entirely agree with paraconsistent logicians, such as Dialethists, but I think it is unsafe to use any given system beyond its means as a measuring device of good parenting or sanity.

We're all sane ... or insane.

If you reject the category of insanity, sanity collapses.

If you reject the category of insanity, sanity collapses.

Yeppers.

..... Now I don’t entirely agree with paraconsistent logicians, such as Dialethists, but I think it is unsafe to use any given system beyond its means as a measuring device of good parenting or sanity.

Raising a child to believe in magic well into adulthood is sane? Okay...