Must religion be logical?

I'm not sure, maybe ask you to hurry up.Can we just get to the point of the experiment without actually having to walk through it? I have stuff to do at work today.

Sure. What I was getting at is that the next reasonable step would be to consider likely items such as coins etc, then maybe less likely ones. However, you might have varying degrees of confidence, but could never be certain, without checking, as you set out to do. Even in this simple case, a range from "pretty likely" to "I don't know" seems to me to serve. In any case, would you say you would be comfortable stating a "position" prior to checking?In fact, I had a pen, a grocery bill, and a radiation dosimeter (I use it for my work). I expect you would easily think of the first two, but not the last.Thank you very much for patiently humouring me in this.

About the contents of your pocket, no.I'm confused with what this has to do with the thread, though. Are you checking soil densities for construction? That's for sure! You're welcome.

It's just that, although one can certainly "consider the possibilities" and be somewhat further ahead, one has to wait for the information to "really know".I wear a dosimeter while I test things for radioactivity. We test things such as soils, drinking water, rocks etc and even do some simple dating measurements.best regards

Ya know, some christians believe that they have already gotten the information.I don't know if you read the thread, but I was saying that the seemingness of the existnace of my soul has lead me to conclude that god exists and that reviewing the teachings of Jesus has lead me to believe that he was god, so I don't really feel that I'm just 'considering the possibilities', I think I believing the truth.

I think two issues are being debated here;1. Is religion logical, (as in, the wisdom and claims of the religion conform, formally) and/or
2. Do religious acts/rules apply with common sense?The example of the dairy and meat, for example, would fit no.2. category. "illogical acts" so to speak.I think number 1 would be an example of validly inferring, and "following". For example, if some god says not to murder, then in a later passage, he gives an order to murder, then this wouldn't follow logically. The logic of the religion would be farcical.Also, the theology "following logically" could mean meeting requirements formally, but could still be unsupported, such as Sideline's example, when he mentions that the belief in God itself, is assumed.A religon might not be formally fallacious, but it could be informally fallacious, and also, religion never offers credence to the premise, because it always has to be an assumed absolute dogma.Conclusion; validity and none validitycan be established formally, but not the religion's dogmas' truth/credence, therefore religion can't be sound, logically.The "form" of an argument is not the only problem, because it will be a vacuous argument if it has no credence in the premise/s.Example;Joe saw God.
His life changed.The religion could then provide a valid life-changing formula.Th logic might follow, but the premise, "Joe saw God", is worthless, logically. This means that a religion, to my knowledge, is never conclusively sound.Sorry for boring you with this post.

One has to be careful about which red flag one waves at which bull! As an analytical chemist, I'm really, really picky about how observations get to be considered information. However, let's leave that one for another time.

Religion is nonsense.However, Theology must be Logical. Its a Science.

Religion are never logical. They cannot be.Religion are only logical for thoses who have grew up indoctrined in it.Christian thinks there religion are logical.
Muslim thinks there religion are logical.
Boudhists thinks there religion are logical.
Scientologue thinks there religion are logical.
[insert any religion] thinks there religion are logical.
They all think the others religions are illogical.It's like the Boiling Frog Syndrome
Put a frog in boiling water he'll try to escape.
Put a frog in cold water and rise the temperaure slowly. He will eventually die without a fight.That's the same thing that happens to our mind. Scientology is logical to thoses in it for a reason. Bcause they slowly give you pieces of information that seems to be logical. And slowly they "rise" the temperature.Gradually you will find everything so..so logical, and you will defend your belief because its SO logical to you. You even will have confirmation by personal experience. Many follower of every religions claim to have thoses personal experiment that proves in there eyes the validity of there belief.And yet, they must be wrong, since one thing IS for sure, there isn't 2 religions that can be simultaneously true.Religion cannot be logical, the follower of the religions are the only one that find it logical.
Everyone outside of the believer's bubble thinks he's making zero sense.EDIT :
I forgot to answer the topic title.Yes religions MUST be logical for thoses who follow it. But to the non-follower, it usually makes no sense.Alien
Invisible force that can do anything and cares for you
Pregnancy with no sexAll theses make no sense unless you ve been indoctrined to believe the premiss that will lead you to the path of believing the whole assertion....Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

Well, no. I do not think Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or Confucianism or Taoism or Buddhism or Satanism or Wicca or any other religion is illogical. Again, simply a false dichotomy.All religions can be both partially right and partially wrong.As I have explained to you before, religions are but Maps. There will be places where they correspond very closely to the Territory, and in other areas be incorrect or out of date.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Heh, so, as nonsense, they don't have to be logical.

Jar as I try to explain to you tooJesus cannot be both God and Man. He is either God, or he is either Man.
Islamic version of Jesus do NOT fit with the christian version at all.So again, you might not think that Jesus is the son of God literrally. But most christian do, and when I use the term christian, I use it to represent the majority of what christian believe. Hence that Jesus wasn't a just a man, he was the son of God.Islam says that God cannot have either sons or kins, he is unique, and if you are christian you MUST believe in the trinity.So again, IF islam and christianity were the only option, well one of the belief would have to be wrong. Either God can have a son (jesus) or he Can't. And if you are christian you believe that muslim are wrong on there interpretation , and if you are muslim you believe the christian are wrong.So again, its very easy to grasp, different religion preach different things and sometimes they come in conflict. And in this conflict either both are wrong or one of them is right.Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

Or they are both wrong or they are both partially right and partially wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Exactly how can they be both partially wrong and partially right.Here it is,God has a son
God cannot have a sonHow can theses be both partially right and wrong ?
If you are muslim you hold the second statement to be true
If you are christian you hold the first stament to be true.Even if by some crazy logic you could come up with some middle ground between theses simple statments, is not the christian way and it is not the muslim way.

It is the religions that can be partially right and partially wrong.Islam and Christianity are two religions.Islam and Christianity have many beliefs where they are in agreement as well as areas of disagreement.Many questions such as the divinity of Jesus cannot be tested or verified by anyone living.Other things such as ways of treating others can be tested and verified.Where such things, such teachings can be tested against the Territory they can be confirmed or refuted.The other untestable ares will remain as unknowns.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion