I love religion!

[Zagreus]

You bring up empirical evidence yourself as an acceptable alternative but non-empirical deductional proof is valid also in debate. Still you put the words in the mouth of the atheist that all evidence must be empirical.

I disagree here if we are trying to prove existence. Deductional proof does not validate the existence of a deity. You can logically prove things by definition, but that does not mean they exist. It can work in debate if it’s theoretical, but not in physical reality.

Hmmm. In fact with this stance I think you have a more restrictive approach than I have. You're assuming a dichotomy between that what exists and that what can be thought. And most of us accept this dicotomy as truth. I accept it myself as the most probable model of reality but leave open the possibility that some evidence in the future might lead to other conclusions. Like in The Matrix we cannot be 100% of such a dichotomy. I leave open the possibility that deductive reasoning some time in the future might lead us to conclude that something necessarily exists. IMO however it is not possible to conclude conclusively from deductional proof that things in reality either exists or don't exist. BTW, this touches on a subject that interests me much, the relation between mathematics and reality.

No, I’m not assuming that dichotomy. What I mean is that you can’t define something into existence, in the same way you can’t define it into non-existence. For example, I have seen it argued many times that if God is all loving and all knowing, then why does He allow evil. This then leads into semantic tricks, flaws, and so on. However, the fact that people define ‘God’ one way, and then others find contradictions does not then necessitate that a deity does not exist. Off the top of my head, it’s kind of like me asserting that black holes are pink, and because there are no pink black holes, then they don’t exist. Crap example I know, but you see what I mean? A deity could exist regardless of people’s ideas that it has to be omnibenevolent. That sort of thing is fine when dealing with literalist interpretations of religious ideas, but I don’t feel is satisfactory in the broader sense.

The bit you said after I am in agreement with. I mean, it was (as far as I know) deductively worked out that black holes should exist, or that there is a tenth (now ninth I guess, poor old Pluto) planet which is causing gravitational pull on other things of mass. Maths isn’t my strong point sadly, but I’d be interested to hear your ideas on the relation of mathematics and reality, so much so I think it’ll like a bit with the next bit.

In trying to see "things from another point of view in order to examine your own" you stretch yourself beyond the boundary of logic and forget that both theists and atheists implicitly or explicitly accept the rules of informal logic in which circular reasoning is fallacious when engaging in debate. This is necessary to be able to communicate. If a theist or atheist chooses to accept what is considered illogic such as the circular reasoning in your examples all gates to hell are open for we should accept on word alone all assertions being made. There is no halfway into the realm of illogic. Once you let in illogic all argument disintegrates.

Hmmm, not quite, but I agree with you. Thing is, once you get really into theological ideas you inevitably get into symbolic and codified language. Many religious ideas aren’t quite ‘illogical’ if you see them from their point of view; i.e. Qur’an is proof of God’s existence. I am going beyond my logic, but I can still try to see other’s views. Once you go into the philosophical ideas deeply, they create their own logic rather than working by simplistic means. The Qabalah could be an example of this.

Circular arguments should be dismissed now though, that was more a dig at those who use them, as opposed to a serious attempt to justify them.

Firstly, using symbols and codified language as in theology or popular bible interpretation is not necessarily the same as using logic but can easily amount to a case of mimicking logic. The popular bible interpretation you can find in church on sunday is too loosely defined to constitute anything that comes near logic. The shift in some churches from literal to metaphorical interpretation testifies about that fact. The range of 3000+ christian denominations testifies about that fact.

---

What I meant by symbols and codified language was that there are specific ideas related to words being used, and that they refer to quite abstract ideas that are not immediately comprehensible by normal usage of language. To relate to your interest in mathematics; if we had a conversation about advanced mathematics I would get lost very quickly, you would have to explain various phrases to me, and I’d have to understand their definition, context, etc. in order that we had a meaningful discussion. Once you get into abstract mathematics it becomes purely logical and you are dealing with ideas the average person does not understand the intricacies of. I could not hold an equal discussion about quantum physics with a physics graduate, that’s just the nature of it.

Now, regarding theology, the word ‘god’ has a lot of baggage and people bring with them their own preconceptions, some of which may or may not be entirely accurate. I have seen people in discussions simply lump the Muslim concept of Allah and the Hindu concept of Brahman together, and then dismiss them both as the same thing. This comparison just is not accurate, and it’s like comparing Zeus with the Tao, when they are totally different ideas.

Comparing popular Bible study with abstract theology is like me comparing the times tables with Lefschetz hyperplane theorem.

Secondly, since it's basis is strictly dogmatic all of theology is special pleading, the logic of it is not attached to reality by means of critical examination of the validity in reality of premises from which argument departed. Sure you can have all kinds of logic in that way, as you can have all kinds of academic math that probably will never have an application in reality. That logic is airborn, it has no roots in reality. The thing is that all conclusions arrived at from such air suspended logic are totally irrelevant yet they are claimed to be extremely important. Sure, I can follow the reasoning of airborn god concepts and I may even wonder about the splendour of human imagination, I may even agree with moral conclusions arrived at in this way, but at the end of the day it amounts to speculation and fabulation. And that seems a pretty miserable basis for all things important in this life to me.

So the real challenge is not about being able to see the 'logic' of the believer but about the rooting of that in reality and about the best method to arrive at meaningful conclusions about reality.

I totally agree. In the same way that some of the academic math will have no application to reality, nor does my interest in theology. As I’ve said, personally I think of it as a branch of philosophy, and at the end of the day, a lot philosophy has no application to reality either.

My interest is not in trying to find some sort of spiritual truth, but is just a general interest in our species, its history and its ideas. I see what you are saying, but religious ideas do have an impact on reality, as people act on them. It is reality for them, whether or not it is for me also.

---

Why do you think that because I don't respect religion I don't understand it?

I'm going by the information you give me, which so far has been that religion doesn't let you wank, all religious people believe in a Santa in the sky, and Buddhism isn't a religion. Not really showing an in depth understanding of the ins and outs of theology are you?

It's because I understand it that causes me to disrespect it.

I can understand that would lead you to disagree with religious ideas and / or religion, but the childish disrespectful comments you make are the sort of thing that even the 12 year olds I used to teach didn’t make. If your comments were disrespectful in a witty way, then that would be interesting, and there are loads of comedians who do just this. I have not seen anything insightful from your posts so far, so I have to assume you don’t really know much about it other than your biased presumptions.

I find War(as a human institution) fascinating and have many books on it.

That doesn't mean I wish to be a soldier.

*Bangs head on keyboard*

THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING FOR THE LAST FEW PAGES!!!!

Just because I find religious ideas interesting, that does not mean I have to agree with them or be religious myself.

If war is a mutual interest between us then please allow me to use it to demonstrate a point.

If I simply said to you “I think war is gay and Hitler wanted to go to war as he didn’t like Jews as he thought they all masturbate at pictures of banks” would you think I was showing an understanding of the subject of WW2?

That’s how you are coming across to me on the subject of religion.

But I'm amused by your inference that because we don't like religion and dismiss it

that we don't know anything about it.

Hang on a sec, it’s only you that I’ve said doesn’t understand it. There’s no ‘we’ here, unless you’re referring to yourself in the Royal plural. Quite a few other people’s responses have been interesting, showing different understandings of the subject, and there have been some book recommendations.
In my experience, some atheists do just dismiss religion without really going into the subject and knowing that much about it. Others, however, like myself or some others on this forum, seem to know a fair bit about the subject, and have based their atheism on that.

Whilst the title of this thread was meant a little tongue in cheek, I didn’t imagine it to be the equivalent of turning up at a Klan rally and saying “actually, I think blacks are alright.” Sorry to disappoint, but I know full well there are many atheists who are interested and knowledgeable in the subject. I was just interested to see other people’s views on the matter, whether they took a dislike to religion or an interest in the subject, that’s all. I haven’t inferred anything about all atheists, in the same way I wouldn't lump all theists together either.