Which Religion Makes The Most Logical Sense?

[Meclazine for Israel]

Scientifically, Islam.

Christianity makes no sense in terms of a geological timeline.

Saying that the world is 5,000 years old is a real challenge.

Making stories up about angels, beasts and a single man and woman is a reflection of the power in story telling in ancient times.

I guess the author of Genesis would never had expected to have his facts checked through scientific process.

Since Google has come into being, we just dont have any fanciful storytelling anymore.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since Google has come into being, we just dont have any fanciful storytelling anymore.

Obviously you don't watch Faux News.

[Mopsus]

Scientifically, Islam.

Christianity makes no sense in terms of a geological timeline.

Saying that the world is 5,000 years old is a real challenge.

Making stories up about angels, beasts and a single man and woman is a reflection of the power in story telling in ancient times.

I guess the author of Genesis would never had expected to have his facts checked through scientific process.

Since Google has come into being, we just dont have any fanciful storytelling anymore.

Obviously you haven't read the Quran.

[James Monroe]

Scientifically, Islam.

Christianity makes no sense in terms of a geological timeline.

Saying that the world is 5,000 years old is a real challenge.

Making stories up about angels, beasts and a single man and woman is a reflection of the power in story telling in ancient times.

I guess the author of Genesis would never had expected to have his facts checked through scientific process.

Since Google has come into being, we just dont have any fanciful storytelling anymore.

Obviously you haven't read the Quran.

Neither has he read about the collapse of the sciences after the Golden Age of Islam.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson laid Islamic fundamentalism to rest when he pointed out that despite composing 18% of the world's population, only three people in the history of the Nobel prize have identified as Muslim. All because All-Ghazei was upset people were becoming rational, which he saw as the work of the devil.

[DC Al Fine]

Scientifically, Islam.

Christianity makes no sense in terms of a geological timeline.

Saying that the world is 5,000 years old is a real challenge.

Making stories up about angels, beasts and a single man and woman is a reflection of the power in story telling in ancient times.

I guess the author of Genesis would never had expected to have his facts checked through scientific process.

Since Google has come into being, we just dont have any fanciful storytelling anymore.

Obviously you haven't read the Quran.

Neither has he read about the collapse of the sciences after the Golden Age of Islam.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson laid Islamic fundamentalism to rest when he pointed out that despite composing 18% of the world's population, only three people in the history of the Nobel prize have identified as Muslim. All because All-Ghazei was upset people were becoming rational, which he saw as the work of the devil.

Tyson is even more of an Intellectual Yet Idiot than I thought. By the same logic we can conclude that Dr. Tyson's race is patently irrational

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Scientifically, Islam.

Christianity makes no sense in terms of a geological timeline.

Saying that the world is 5,000 years old is a real challenge.

Making stories up about angels, beasts and a single man and woman is a reflection of the power in story telling in ancient times.

I guess the author of Genesis would never had expected to have his facts checked through scientific process.

Since Google has come into being, we just dont have any fanciful storytelling anymore.

Obviously you haven't read the Quran.

Neither has he read about the collapse of the sciences after the Golden Age of Islam.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson laid Islamic fundamentalism to rest when he pointed out that despite composing 18% of the world's population, only three people in the history of the Nobel prize have identified as Muslim. All because All-Ghazei was upset people were becoming rational, which he saw as the work of the devil.

A Nobel Prize winner list should be the deciding factor in matters of Spirit!?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Scientifically, Islam.

Christianity makes no sense in terms of a geological timeline.

Saying that the world is 5,000 years old is a real challenge.

Making stories up about angels, beasts and a single man and woman is a reflection of the power in story telling in ancient times.

I guess the author of Genesis would never had expected to have his facts checked through scientific process.

Since Google has come into being, we just dont have any fanciful storytelling anymore.

Obviously you haven't read the Quran.

Neither has he read about the collapse of the sciences after the Golden Age of Islam.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson laid Islamic fundamentalism to rest when he pointed out that despite composing 18% of the world's population, only three people in the history of the Nobel prize have identified as Muslim. All because All-Ghazei was upset people were becoming rational, which he saw as the work of the devil.

Tyson is even more of an Intellectual Yet Idiot than I thought. By the same logic we can conclude that Dr. Tyson's race is patently irrational

Tyson was indeed likely wrong about Al-Ghazali’s role in the end of the Islamic Golden Age, but is this really comparable to race?  There was indeed a deemphasis on nonreligious learning in the Muslim world due to certain schools gaining prominence, which reverberates to this day.  Ideology can affect what a society pursues, no?

[TJ in Oregon]

Scientifically, Islam.

Christianity makes no sense in terms of a geological timeline.

Saying that the world is 5,000 years old is a real challenge.

Making stories up about angels, beasts and a single man and woman is a reflection of the power in story telling in ancient times.

I guess the author of Genesis would never had expected to have his facts checked through scientific process.

Since Google has come into being, we just dont have any fanciful storytelling anymore.

Obviously you haven't read the Quran.

Neither has he read about the collapse of the sciences after the Golden Age of Islam.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson laid Islamic fundamentalism to rest when he pointed out that despite composing 18% of the world's population, only three people in the history of the Nobel prize have identified as Muslim. All because All-Ghazei was upset people were becoming rational, which he saw as the work of the devil.

Tyson is even more of an Intellectual Yet Idiot than I thought. By the same logic we can conclude that Dr. Tyson's race is patently irrational

Tyson was indeed likely wrong about Al-Ghazali’s role in the end of the Islamic Golden Age, but is this really comparable to race?  There was indeed a deemphasis on nonreligious learning in the Muslim world due to certain schools gaining prominence, which reverberates to this day.  Ideology can affect what a society pursues, no?

Perhaps Tyson was correct about Al-Ghazali’s role in the end of the Islamic Golden Age (or if not him specifically, at the very least the idea of the Incoherence of the Philosophers), but it's still silly to go from that thought to counting up the number of Muslims with Nobel prizes? Adopting occasionalism makes scientific study rather pointless, as you suggest.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Scientifically, Islam.

Christianity makes no sense in terms of a geological timeline.

Saying that the world is 5,000 years old is a real challenge.

Making stories up about angels, beasts and a single man and woman is a reflection of the power in story telling in ancient times.

I guess the author of Genesis would never had expected to have his facts checked through scientific process.

Since Google has come into being, we just dont have any fanciful storytelling anymore.

Obviously you haven't read the Quran.

Neither has he read about the collapse of the sciences after the Golden Age of Islam.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson laid Islamic fundamentalism to rest when he pointed out that despite composing 18% of the world's population, only three people in the history of the Nobel prize have identified as Muslim. All because All-Ghazei was upset people were becoming rational, which he saw as the work of the devil.

Tyson is even more of an Intellectual Yet Idiot than I thought. By the same logic we can conclude that Dr. Tyson's race is patently irrational

Tyson was indeed likely wrong about Al-Ghazali’s role in the end of the Islamic Golden Age, but is this really comparable to race?  There was indeed a deemphasis on nonreligious learning in the Muslim world due to certain schools gaining prominence, which reverberates to this day.  Ideology can affect what a society pursues, no?

Perhaps Tyson was correct about Al-Ghazali’s role in the end of the Islamic Golden Age (or if not him specifically, at the very least the idea of the Incoherence of the Philosophers), but it's still silly to go from that thought to counting up the number of Muslims with Nobel prizes? Adopting occasionalism makes scientific study rather pointless, as you suggest.

I definitely agree that Tyson could have made his point in a better way.  I just wanted to say that ideology, religious or otherwise - something which manifestly affects someone's will, desires, intentions, and motivations - makes a lot more sense as a direct causal agent for inter-group discrepancies in scientific progress than race, which isn't even all that meaningful of a characteristic biologically.

[Greatest I am]

http://alternativeresearcher.com/which-religion-makes-the-most-logical-sense/

Well? (Yes, I know a deep subject!)

Those religions that seek God are following what Jesus taught.
Those religions that name a God, like Yahweh or Allah are idol worshipers and not worthy.

The only worthy religions are those that will put man above God.

Those would include Buddhism, Karaite Jews and the best of the lot, Gnostic Christians.

We create all of our Gods and should not idolize our own creations.

Jesus was a perpetual seeker after God and so should we all be so as to not become idol worshipers.

Regards
DL

[anvi]

In the first place, a few comments about an assertion in the piece and some of the assertions above.

Regarding the piece's claims, materialism, I assume, describes a fairly wide variety of positions, and there are plenty of them that would reject the ideas both of god, an afterlife, spirits, and so forth, and there is no incoherence in that.

The system of Śaṅkara is highly metaphysical; its central tenet is a unitary, eternal, spiritual self (ātman) that is the essence of all conscious, living beings.  It is said to be the complete logical opposite of all physical forms and yet serves as the luminous awareness of all sentient beings.  The system employs a number of standard classical Indian syllogisms in its defence, as well as to critique positions of opponents, even then Śaṅkara and other Advaitins ultimately reject perceptual and inferential forms of knowledge in favour of immediate mystical experience and scriptural (Vedic) authority.  My point here is that Śaṅkara's thought is quite metaphysically committal.

Daoist thought also depends on a number of ideas that are, at the very least, cosmological as well as metaphysical.  Dao for one is often simply the process of the natural world, but is often also associated with an originally state of nothing or "nothingness" (wu), as well as the so-called "two kinds of qi" (er qi), yin and yang, which are the basic oppositional but complimentary and interacting forms of vital vapor (qi) that is the finest form of all matter.  These ideas are at the root of Daoist explanations of all kinds of natural interaction and even social forces (since people are also natural creatures). 

The cosmological or metaphysical ideas Ruism depends on shift depending on which era of thinkers one is talking about, but notions of tian (heaven), li (natural pattern) and even shen (ancestral spirits) do play shifting roles in Confucian ideas from early to modern thought.

Anyway, I mention these only to name some metaphysical or cosmological commitments these traditions of thought have.  Whether a religion is "logical" depends on the soundness of its claims and the coherence of principles that make up its worldview.  It's a large and complicated topic.

[twenty42]

The existence of the universe is evidence that a higher power exists, but beyond that everything is up for debate. George Carlin was an avowed atheist, but he made the case that the universe may be the creation of a higher order that he called “The Big Electron.” He posited that this force neither punishes nor rewards, but simply exists to maintain balance in the universe. While I personally am a Christian, I believe Carlin’s theory is the easiest way to jive a higher power with completely non-religious beliefs.

I will say that the Planet Earth itself has displayed tremendous survival instincts over billions of years, and it is somewhat far fetched to believe that is the result of a cosmic accident. Some people point to the law of large numbers to explain why there would be at least one functional planet out of billions of galaxies, but that still doesn’t explain how the Earth acquired such an ability to persevere through so many destructive events. It’s certainly easier to believe that a force of some kind has been behind this, rather than chalking up the miracle of Earth to a five billion year long coincidence.

[°Leprechaun]

One problem I have with Christianity is the "God in three persons" dogma. That is a self contradictory statement. Why isn't a belief in three separate persons polytheism? That seems to lack common sense, intuition and logic. It might be logical to believe that God is three persons (assuming that a belief in God is logical to begin with), but why isn't that polytheism? Does it suggest that "God" has a multiple personality (disorder?).

[Greatest I am]

The existence of the universe is evidence that a higher power exists,

How do you get that?

If you are going to say first cause, who created the creator?

Yours is a supernatural faith based assertion and the ancients thought that only fools thought they could know anything of the supernatural and that is why they said and still say that God is unknowable and unfathomable, yet here you are saying you fathom the unfathomable and know of the unknowable.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

One problem I have with Christianity is the "God in three persons" dogma. That is a self contradictory statement. Why isn't a belief in three separate persons polytheism? That seems to lack common sense, intuition and logic. It might be logical to believe that God is three persons (assuming that a belief in God is logical to begin with), but why isn't that polytheism? Does it suggest that "God" has a multiple personality (disorder?).

You have to remember when you use logic, reason and intuition that those are frowned on by the religious.

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Here is what people who think will think of the notion of the Trinity that Constantine forced down Christianity's throat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsN3IG1HtQ

Regards
DL

[Mopsus]

If you are going to say first cause, who created the creator?

Everything in the universe requires a cause. God exists outside the universe, and therefore did not require a cause. That's how the argument has always worked.

Read a book.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

If you are going to say first cause, who created the creator?

Everything in the universe requires a cause. God exists outside the universe, and therefore did not require a cause. That's how the argument has always worked.

Read a book.

How is that not just plain old special pleading?

[Georg Ebner]

One problem I have with Christianity is the "God in three persons" dogma. That is a self contradictory statement. Why isn't a belief in three separate persons polytheism? That seems to lack common sense, intuition and logic. It might be logical to believe that God is three persons (assuming that a belief in God is logical to begin with), but why isn't that polytheism? Does it suggest that "God" has a multiple personality (disorder?).

You have to remember when you use logic, reason and intuition that those are frowned on by the religious.

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Provable is only:

- cogito, ergo sum
- cogito, ergo sum non DEUS

The opposite is provably wrong; everything else can neither be proved nor disproved.

[Greatest I am]

One problem I have with Christianity is the "God in three persons" dogma. That is a self contradictory statement. Why isn't a belief in three separate persons polytheism? That seems to lack common sense, intuition and logic. It might be logical to believe that God is three persons (assuming that a belief in God is logical to begin with), but why isn't that polytheism? Does it suggest that "God" has a multiple personality (disorder?).

You have to remember when you use logic, reason and intuition that those are frowned on by the religious.

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Provable is only:

- cogito, ergo sum
- cogito, ergo sum non DEUS

The opposite is provably wrong; everything else can neither be proved nor disproved.

If you want understanding, try English please.

Regards
DL

[Mopsus]

One problem I have with Christianity is the "God in three persons" dogma. That is a self contradictory statement. Why isn't a belief in three separate persons polytheism? That seems to lack common sense, intuition and logic. It might be logical to believe that God is three persons (assuming that a belief in God is logical to begin with), but why isn't that polytheism? Does it suggest that "God" has a multiple personality (disorder?).

You have to remember when you use logic, reason and intuition that those are frowned on by the religious.

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Here is what people who think will think of the notion of the Trinity that Constantine forced down Christianity's throat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsN3IG1HtQ

Why are you so triggered by God if you don't even believe he exists?

Severe Daddy issues.

[Greatest I am]

One problem I have with Christianity is the "God in three persons" dogma. That is a self contradictory statement. Why isn't a belief in three separate persons polytheism? That seems to lack common sense, intuition and logic. It might be logical to believe that God is three persons (assuming that a belief in God is logical to begin with), but why isn't that polytheism? Does it suggest that "God" has a multiple personality (disorder?).

You have to remember when you use logic, reason and intuition that those are frowned on by the religious.

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Here is what people who think will think of the notion of the Trinity that Constantine forced down Christianity's throat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsN3IG1HtQ

Regards
DL

Why are you so triggered by God if you don't even believe he exists?

If you see the damage done over the centuries by religions and their imaginary Gods, and that does not trigger your sense of injustice, then you might wonder about your moral sense.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.
   
Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.
 
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes.
 
Do you agree?

Regards
DL

[Donerail]

Mine, of course.

[HisGrace]

I think Buddhist philosophy is much more representative of how the world actually is than Christianity/Judaism/Islam which are more how people wish it was.

Just talking about the belief system. In regards to the mysticism element none of them make sense.

[Fudotei]

Have always felt Islam has the simplest justification for its holy text. Previous texts have a muddied message and it's all clarified in one person's set of revelations carefully set down. Sitting down and trying to get two Christians to agree on the books of the Bible is a lot more strenuous than it should be.

[Mopsus]

I think Buddhist philosophy is much more representative of how the world actually is than Christianity/Judaism/Islam which are more how people wish it was.

Just talking about the belief system. In regards to the mysticism element none of them make sense.

Mysticism is the only thing that makes sense, since it’s based on personal experience. Orthodoxy trips people up because it’s subject to time and space.