log⋅i⋅cal
/ˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [loj-i-kuhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.
3. reasonable; to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats.
4. of or pertaining to logic.
Reason is a matter of perspective, and so logic follows suite. What is reasonable to you is not reasonable to someone else, your definition is not more right than anyone elses.
The 'facts' you stated are never a matter of god, they are a matter of people, the way humans live, and rule in this world does not represent anything other than the way humans live, and rule this world. Atheism does not have facts. It is not a religion. It has no dogma, or rules that could govern the creation or representation of 'facts' on its behalf. I don't get why hell would be a fact against religion either, that doesn't even make sense.
If you are a 'grasshopper' in debating, you shouldnt present yourself so strongly.
While I am leaning more toward saying that religion is less logical than science (Science tends to fit together more snugly than religion), I wouldn't be so bold as to say that religion is completely ILLOGICAL. (The definition of religion I'm using for this post is "the hypothesis that an all-powerful being created the universe")
Gyohcologistodon, religion, if true, has it's own consistancy and logic, and I have learned that in my years of debating. There are no facts, and there can be no facts, that support religion, and it works out like that.
What follows isn't a matter of whether you think it all sounds PLAUSIBLE, but whether you choose to believe it is true.
Therein is the true problem. You're believing in something for no physical reason: there's no catalyst, no focused BEGINNING.
To understand what I mean, I'll borrow the old "teapot" argument: Some believe that there is a celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. It is undetectable in any way, not with infrared, radio, or visible light. Not even smell can detect it.
Pretend that there's a book about it, written in the same style the Bible was written, and this book was put together by man, but was "divinely inspired" by the teapot.
Now, why would anyone think that it exists? There's no evidence, except for the bible and a few people who claim to have seen signs and "smelt it's warm, half-caf scent wafting from the heavens." It's also impossible to prove or disprove.
The point I'm trying to make is not that there is no reason to be religious (Even if I think there isn't). I'm trying to point out the nature of religious beleif. In my scenario, note that I make no indication as to whether the teapot does or does not exist. I only say why people believe so.
What is true for the teapot is also true for the bible. There's no proof (No matter what some brainwashed idiots like to say) either way, in support of or against religion. There're a few phenomena that we see and can't explain, and religion tends to provide an explanation, whether it is right or wrong.
So, what you get is an interesting conundrum. The only way people begin to believe in God is through either the bible, word of mouth/books about the bible, or childhood indoctrination, just as with the teapot.
Science works in a different way. There is no dogma involved: everything that science says is the result of the process of observing, experimenting, and concluding. So, support for science arrises from seeing it's effects: "there's proof, so it must be true."
To close my post, I'll explain what I am trying to do by making this post.
I'm not saying anything in support of or against religion. I do not say that supporting science is inherently better than religion, or that religion is inherently better than supporting science. I'm only trying to help others understand a bit of why there can be no proof for religion, but that isn't a bad thing, and that the lack of proof both supports religion and tears it down at the same time: that all depends on what you think the lack of proof shows about religion.
