For humanity to evolve, religion must be discarded


Religion and religious fanaticism has caused more strife and hardship than anything else. For humanity to evolve, reason and rationality must be embraced, and even God must be questioned. The false security of religion, rooted in fear, and which stands in stark opposition to the reality of the uncertainty of life, must be discarded if we are to become fully human and use the intelligence we have, that we may have been given, fully.


Well brother it’s the God of the gaps, now I’m not saying that there isn’t a higher power. Cuz I personally believe there is however, my idea of GOD differs from most people. The ideas that started the whole kennard that is religion has wandered so far from the original truth it’s crazy to think about. So me I read whatever I can about what ever I can but, at the end of the day the wise man know that in the scope of reality and the endless vast amounts of knowledge he knows nothing. Its important to have knowledge about anything and everything you can learn about. There are good things religion has to offer but how we use it now and in the past has been used for nothing more than control of hearts and minds. So in the scope of things we must learn that’s our purpose for being here, we are the explores of GODS creation. No matter what you call it lol names are different but the original idea is the same.


Logic and rationality have each been taken as fundamental concepts in philosophy. Philosophical rationalism in its most extreme form is the doctrine that knowledge can ultimately be founded on pure reason, while logicism is the doctrine that mathematical concepts, among others are reducible to pure logic.

Religion is what man made.

Religion is what man made. Christianity is not a religion, it is His Story. But Bible is historical, mathematical, scientific, and logical. It is not mystical, and it is not just a story. You read it and you need to understand it. It takes great wisdom and understanding and God given intuition and open your eyes to understand what it really means.

Christianity is sometimes accused of being illogical, but on closer inspection is rigorously logical. The doctrine of the Trinity is often dismissed as illogical, but is only done so because it is misunderstood or mis-defined (sometimes by ill-equipped Christians). The charge that the Trinity entails a contradiction fails from a category fallacy because the doctrine is sometimes defined as “three gods and one god,” or more simply “three in one.” The doctrine of the Trinity was carefully and meticulously formulated by the early church with great attention to the laws of logic and metaphysical categories. In fact, much of the first 1500 years of the history of Christianity was marked by great intellects who recognized that, if God created the world, then rationality was one of the features of the creation and it must be brought to bear on the development of doctrine.


I agree, but I also think religion has done far more harm than good. I’ve explained that I happen to think there is a creator, just not the vengeful old man that religions portray. It’s not a belief, but more of a working hypothesis. So, an idea of what MIGHT be true, without being attached to the delusion of believing I know what the truth is. I don’t know why that seems so difficult for people to understand. It’s not so complicated, is it?


Monotheistic religious beliefs also explain the existence of rationality and logic. The laws of logic seem to have a different feature than the laws of nature. The laws of nature are a posteriori inductive observations about how the world functions. There does not seem to be an necessity to them though they are regular, nor is the violation of them in a supernatural act really the same as if the laws of logic were violated. In fact, it is impossible to imagine a real world scenario where the laws of logic could be violated. The laws of logic are discovered a priori, they are features of the mind that bear on our thinking before it even begins. There is an incumbency to them that we cannot escape. The best explanation for this seems to be a rational Designer of the universe Whose own rationality is reflected in the operation of our minds.


Were 20th century China and Russia not atheistic? Were the outcomes good? The slaughter of Christians?


You really shouldn’t plagiarize. Anyway, that’s someone’s opinion. Why not cite the author?


I agree but, the bible has been changed so much over the years it’s like reading a history book from 1984 (lol). The Council of Nicea need I say more


Morality is the same kind of case. There is an advance incumbency to morality that is not just an a posteriori observation about how humans tend to function. There is an obligation feature to morality that cannot be reduced or explained away by naturalistic theories. Other religions than Christianity, and even atheists, can offer explanations for morality, but none seem to capture our true experience of morality as monotheistic religions do. Morality cannot be explained adequately in functional or reductionistic terms because they omit a central feature of morality, namely the obligation and quality of morality. Naturalist explanations for morality have a much less satisfying explanation of the grounding requirement of obligation. Obligation seems best understood in terms of minds and persons. A “thick” naturalism, as Plato’s, may be able to account for non-physical features of the universe, such as morality, but the obligation feature is still troublesome. Obligation seems to beg for another person to be obligated to. Morality may be a natural feature like health, but it is normative in a different kind of way than mere observation of proper functioning. The obligation is best understood in terms of persons, which narrows the field of religions that can account for this feature.

Empirical adequacy is a second criterion that should guide the evaluation of possible religious explanations. Science is a deprived discipline without the possibility of theistic explanations. There are good scientific and philosophical reasons to believe that the universe had a beginning and that that cause was personal. Clearly this would rule out natural explanations for the origin of the universe. This also rules out some religious beliefs that maintain that the universe is infinite. The personal cause must be adequate for the origination of the universe, and the monotheistic religions describe this kind of God. The God of monotheism is the best explanation for certain features of design we encounter in the universe. Rationality and logic, morality, regular laws of nature all seems to suggest a Designer of a certain kind: one who reflects these kinds of features.


But Christianity certainly isn’t a monotheistic religious father, son, and the holy ghost. Not to mention all the saints and what not.


My bad I thought I had it pasted… And I always cite authors…

Everything you post is your opinion is it not??


Is Christianity’s “Trinitarianism” Monotheistic?



Depends on which version you study…


You can try to turn this into a philosophical debate, but it isn’t. Bottom line, you claim to KNOW that your beliefs are true. And I am pointing out that it is a logical fallacy to use 1) Circular reasoning to defend your argument by stating “It’s true because it’s in the Bible” and “It’s in the Bible because it’s true” and 2) Appeal to the authority of the Bible. Believe all you want, but you don’t know. Be honest. Your belief is nothing more than a belief.


I don’t copy and paste others without citing them. Nice try.


People have to find God in their own way. No one can walk another’s shoes but some seeds are cast on undesirable ground. Even that doesn’t mean Gods mysteries are unavailable to that life. But for one to have life and not comprehend where that is rooted from is what religion should beware of wiping its feet on.


And what do you call your perspective?? A lack of belief? Does that make it truth??? Does that make it right or the only perspective??


I corrected my mistake… Where do your opinions come from… How do you derive them?? Books? Quotes? Self conflation??


No one is debating that this is a possibility. But once again, if we were in fact given our capacity for logic and reason, why not use it to question even God himself? You still haven’t answered that one. It would be ungodly to use the abilities God Himself gave us.


It’s called logic and reason. What opinions have I stated that I’ve not supported with evidence?