Blizzhackers

And there you go again ignoring my whole point and pulling out from nowhere the statement that 'I know just because i know'. I have already stated my reason numerous times, but you seem to avoid commenting about that. Unfortunally, a debate cant continue if only one side chooses what should be said. It makes it seems like you have pre-made posts on debate about this topic.

What point of your post did I ignore? Your claims that religion is logical when it's not? Nope, I covered that. Your claim that the absence of answers from empirical evidence makes any alternative theory viable? Nope, I covered that too. So tell me, what exactly are you giving as your reason for belief other than irrationality or misapplied logic? And what points in your posts did I miss? It seems to me that you're just making up excuses because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

...
NO, you didnt cover my whole point. Let me go back to it, ffs:
- I posted that Religion is necessary to answer that Science cant
- You talk about the Spaguetti Monster
- I answer that Spaguetti or God makes no difference
- You pull out pagan gods
- I stay the same
- You forget about it (?)

EDIT: I like how you begin using bad language to prove your point.

Oh, so you want to return to that point. You said that god explains what science can't. I pointed out the obvious fallacy that christianity isn't necessarily the correct deity. You then acknowledged that you have no reason to believe in christianity more than any other religion, including that of the flying spaghetti monster or that of ancient pagans who worshipped fertility gods. My main point in this was to disprove the idea that christianity was unquestionably the correct religion, and you readily agreed. Thus, I abandoned this point to focus more on your core logical fallacy that I have explained before; the absence of answers from empirical deduction does not mean that it is logically correct to substitute any random belief you want in place of science to answer questions. In order to have faith, you must have irrationality or misapplied (and thus invalid) logic. This is an incontrovertible fact.

I use whatever language flows when I'm trying to articulate my point in the simplest terms possible. If it really hurt your feelings, go blog about it.

In response to the Hamburger/Hotdog thing:

Just because God knows we will choose the hotdog, that doesn't mean we didn't make the choice of choosing one, he just knows which one we will pick. This made sense to me, maybe not to y'all though...

So, using Religion to answer isnt logical, but instead not having an answer is totally logical. Oh? Sorry, but I prefer the so-called irrationality than having no answer at all. Simply not having an answer and so be it is at least as "irrational" than using religion.

Not having an answer is logical. It may not be what you prefer, but it is logically correct. You may think that it's psychologically irrational not to choose the blissful ignorance of illogical religion over logical lack of knowledge, but that is what makes up your faith; your inability to cope with not knowing.

Some people call it "desire of knowlegde".

But you have gained no real knowledge. Attributing what you do not empircially know to some random higher power gives you no more [real] knowledge than you would have without religion. At best you may have a tiny sense of comfort knowing that you have an answer for any questions that may otherwise nag at you, like 'why are we here?', and 'why do bad things happen?'. You are just using religion as a shield from reality.

Its as a shield from reality as ignorance. For example, not knowing that a bomb will explode the earth in 5 hours is as conforting than believing that 'god will stop the bomb'. This is hypothetical of course, not that I would believe in something like that. Therefore, atributing the status of 'reality shield' to religion does no good from making it worse than not having an answer.

So you admit that religion is only there to make you feel better about not facing reality? Maybe I misunderstood your post. If you acknowledge that, my work here is done.

If you consider not knowing everything a shield from reality...

Huh? I never said that not knowing everything was a shield, I said that falsely believing that you know everything through religion is a shield from facing the uncertainties of reality.

You didnt, but I did... Re-read =p

Quote flamingcows: *I'm going to assume that this is wilful ignorance because I can't believe that anyone is seriously this fucking stupid. Almost every culture on earth has developed religion to explain phenomena, and to say that there are people that have no conceptualization of a higher power is outright wrong. Further, missionaries throughout history have been far from peaceful, often forcing chirstianity on natives conquered by a European power with the threat of death.*

I was talking about most missionaires today, sorry I didn't clarify that.