I was just wondering. I mean I have definitely heard a lot of BAD arguments that try to prove god exists, the bible is true, etc etc.
We've all heard the many faulty arguments containing fallacies and nonsense before.
But I can't think of any argument which makes logical sense that does support the existence of god, accuracy of the bible, or the justification of a religion before.
Please bring up one, I am interested to hear a good argument from a theist standpoint.
I don't really know what to say about this. I have never heard about something like this until now (and I think you said this in another discussion as well). Perhaps it's like the need to smoke, once you've stopped smoking. I don't know. Once you quit something, you're body is not really synchronized with your brain which knows you shouldn't and don't really want to do that thing again, but the body is still used to you doing that thing and it feels weird not doing it. I don't really know what to say about this without just making a guess. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, I don't know... If anyone knows more about this can give you a more informed opinion.
You're derailing this thread. I hate when people derail threads. I hate when people say they dont want to derail a thread, YET still derail it.
Sorry, just saying. I know controversial topics always can get off topic, and I can accept this, But it's really annoying when people say they don't want to post irrelevant info in a topic and STILL DO IT. It's happened twice in this thread (if not more). sheesh.
@ Fred's original post
Have you taken a course in Critical Thinking? How about any Philosophy course at least? jeez.
I'm referring to the "Critical-Thinking"-definition of Logic.
What I accept as logical sense is an argument which does not contain any logical fallacies.
How about Psychology? Have you taken a course in Psychology? What you refer to as "not doing experiments without telling people because they will become part of the setup" can be referred to as hindsight bias.
Now that I got that out, I will refer back to your message in the post you wrote.
First of all, I do not understand what you are saying. I don't know if you've taken a course in Critical Thinking, Psychology, and now, I'm not sure if you've taken a course in English.
What do you mean by this sentence? "Paul Kurtz that most likely is very proud of being very logical him a kind of philosopher and all :)" The structure is so erroneous I can barely understand it.
It is hard to interpret that sentence. What are you trying to say??? huhhh??? Also I dont understand what you say right after that, when you are trying to describe the experiment.
Okay now I will try to interpret what you said. What I understood was there's an experiment that proves only 10% of people are not needy enough to give up religion.
---Well what I will ask you now is where did you get this info? Could you provide a link to the experiment? I just want to know because you didn't do a good job explaining it to me.
And not every human experiment has to be 'unethical'. I don't know all the details of what this guy wrote, so please link me to his book/article/research/experiment. I mean like where did he come up with this statistic of "10%" without testing it already.......
I'm just so confused by your post......
Next, I really don't get your religious body/ atheist logic reference...... I mean I read your explanation below but it really just.... doesn't make sense..... sorry.
And Lastly, I would just like to apologize if this whole post of mine sounds mean, disrespectful, or just plain rude..... It's just when I read your post honestly in my mind I was just shaking my head....I was just thinking in my head, "HUH??". Honestly. sorry......
I am very glad you made this response, it clears much to me. I was just so confused by the last post you made. Again, I sincerely apologize for being rude by trying to insult your intelligence. I guess you could say I was grouchy after having so many arguments with religious people lately. It just makes me angry when I talk to so many stubborn people.
With that being said, now that I understand what you've said, I'm just not going to write my reply to your post because I'm too tired to write a response haha.
No. There are only a limited number of arguments. They keep getting re-packaged and recycled but they all boil down to circular reasoning, arguments from authority (including popularity), usefulness (which is just an admission that religion is false), lies, and threats.