Does anyone agree?

[MachineMuse]

Cogent Dream

I'm a bit tentative about starting a post here but I was curious if anyone had considered this before.

Religion is a logical redundancy. It is an attempt to explain the unexplainable with something that cannot be explained (god).

As Carl Sagan once said, why not just skip a step and say that it's unexplainable, rather than invent something even harder to explain? (Ignoring, of course, that physics can explain most things).

I think your avatar is not very well colour-coordinated, so the likelihood that what you are saying is true is very low.

[Haha Coffee]

dh8d1

Haha Coffee

Cogent Dream

Haha Coffee

Oh no...no one here has ever EVER considered that.

*Wanders away muttering*

Oh..welcome to the Atheists and Religion forum.

As I haven't had the luxury of perusing every thread here, I honestly would not know. Care to tell me what the typical response to this thought is then?

Complete agreeance, over 2/3's of M&R regulars are Atheists or anti-religious Agnostics.

Us religious types are in short supply.

I find a startling correlation between those who are learned, educated, and deeply knowledgeable about religion and those who do not believe it.

As do I, religion is inherently illogical.

So you will find that those people who rely purely on Logic, and verifiable evidence(traits which abound in the well educated) come to the conclusion of Atheism.

It's sad really.

[Victoria of Gallifrey]

Cogent Dream

I'm a bit tentative about starting a post here but I was curious if anyone had considered this before.

Religion is a logical redundancy. It is an attempt to explain the unexplainable with something that cannot be explained (god).

As Carl Sagan once said, why not just skip a step and say that it's unexplainable, rather than invent something even harder to explain? (Ignoring, of course, that physics can explain most things).

I agree. I think many religions have done their people a great diservice by struggling to constantly prove themselves. By attempting to break down and quantify the divine on basic, human terms, I can't help but feel much of the divine message gets lost. Let's say God tells us not to wrongfully kill another. Then we take that and think, well, how do I use this message to make me seem more legit? Oh, I got it, the Lord said you can't wrongfully kill, so anyone who believes the way I believe must be right, which also means anyone who doesn't believe like me must be wrong. So killing people who are not like me couldn't be wrongful. So then he goes and tells the people killing is wrong, but only so long as it's against people who think like X, and that killing people who think like Y is okay. Then we get political, we make laws to address what is and isn't right further. The line between law and religion begins to merge until that which is law is religion, or that which is religion is law. But then, instead of looking for the basic message God sent to us, we delve deep into scripture written by people who did their own thinking, and we make our assessments based of what people tell us, instead of what God tells us. It's so bad, that if you ask most religious leaders about talking to God, they will insist that voice of God cannot be real if it doesn't agree with what his followers wrote about him. To me, this is downright absurd.

[BlackBeltMan]

Hehehe you made me giggle a bit smile
But I agree with you, religion should be looked at with a grain of salt and a smirk upon your face biggrin