What? There are many religious people who are perfectly capable of forming logical arguements about their beliefs.

Assuming that religious people are essentially irrational and illogical about their beliefs is an insult especially when you remember that logic and science are two things.
It's also very counterproductive and all you will achieve is a mess full of rage and trolls (as you can see).

I suggest you leave this silly argument behind and move on to something more interesting.

The end result of their 'logical' reasoning is illogical. So no, you're wrong.


'Assuming' is positing without proof. I haven't assumed anything. I, and Cow, have given valid reasoning.

As for your other point, science and logic go hand-in-hand. Don't join the discussion if you're just going to say stupid shit.


Sure. Let's never posit something controversial. How silly of me.
Oh wait. No. You're wrong again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink


Yep. I'm the idiot, not you. Right?

Unfortunately logical arguments based on illogical assertions are illogical :/
And if you read the quote, I don't /expect/ religious people to be able to think logically, but there are some that can. Here is an example of the more common variety:



Naturally. If someone is unable to apply basic logic in one area, why should I expect them to apply logic in other areas? Any argument from a religious person should be held as highly suspicious.

If someone is willing to use the "you can't disprove it therefore it's true" argument once, what's to stop them using it twice?

No, I'm saying that I don't expect someone with a history of being illogical to miraculously (by the grace of God, lel) be able to offer a logical argument.

That said, it's not like I accept anyone's argument as being logical without actually thinking about it first. It's just that I grab a few extra grains of salt before accepting that argument of someone I know often makes no sense. This isn't limited to religious people, I don't take oofun or Deak or that other troll account seriously either.

I like how you extend my argument in the most ridiculous way possible.

What I said was "It's pointless to try and start a thread expecting logical arguments from religious folk, they are by definition illogical people"
What you seem to think I said is "I never listen to anything religious folk says because they are stupid and everything they say is stupid"
Do you see the difference? I don't /expect/ logical arguments from people that are illogical, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore their posts or anything. I still read them and think them through. Hell, when Ray is talking about non-religious topics he makes some very logical posts.

I have no obligation to consider each post as if the poster has no history. I will always hold Hyde, Odlov, yourself, Ray, and some others in higher regard, and I will always be suspicious of religious posters.

Some people think ideas aren't anchored to those who conceived them, but that's not the case. You should always think about who is posting and why, not just examining that single idea in isolation. It's a cute ideal, but it doesn't work in the real world.