Religion and Logic, Part II

The point to be made in highlighting the use of Greco-Roman argumentation by religionists to prove the existence of God, is that the tactic works to detour the thoughts of opponents from the nature of scripture itself. Reason and logic can’t be used to explain talking snakes, cherubim, giant peoples, the temporary division of seas, talking bushes, magic tablets in gold boxes that kill people when touched wrong, the tearing down of stone walls with trumpets, etc. In this manner, the argument for God in the modern age has to be made in non-biblical ways, in order to keep notions of fiction out of the picture.

The way I see matters, if reason and logic is used to argue the probability of God, then what need is there for biblical text? What if I were to go ahead and let myself agree with someone who has argued successfully, that I have been convinced through reasoning: What then? Is this the part where the religionist says, “Okay, Great! Now let’s discuss how the Lord made the donkey speak…”

At this point, the very use of reason and logic that once reeled me in, it becomes irrelevant. I become a student to mythical fiction. In other words, I have been duped into believing things that have no basis in reason or logic, by the tactical efforts of someone who has used reason and logic to reel me in.

Talking Donkeys

This entry was posted in atheism, LIfe, philosophy, Psychology, religion. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Religion and Logic, Part II

  1. silence of mind says:

    Religion is faith-based just like atheism.

    The Bible is not meant to be a logical proof of the existence of God.

    But whereas the existence of God can be proven through reason, atheism cannot be proven by any means whatsoever.

    That makes atheism nothing but a personal opinion.

    • LEjames says:

      I don’t know what to do with your response, but thank you for sharing.

    • john zande says:

      Apologies, LE, but i’m going to take up some space.

      Silenceofmind…. let me just paste my latest post here to dismiss your rather poorly thought-though claim:

      Few tacitly proselytised Christians ever recognise it because few baptised-without-consent Christians ever bother to take even a modest step back to gaze at their assigned religion with even a mildly independent eye, but if they did they’d see that there exists no external reason to have ever heard of, let alone believe in the particular Middle Eastern god detailed in the bible outside of the claims made in the bible itself. The god of the Pentateuch (re-invented in the New Testament, then again revised in the Qur’an) is invisible and inaudible. It gives off no odour and has no perceptible taste. It generates no heat signature, produces no electromagnetic field and provokes no resonance at any frequency. It cannot be detected with any instrument and no measurement of any natural phenomena has ever indicated its presence. Its influence cannot be inferred from any secondary observation, no earthly geological record speaks of its intervention, and no examination of any biological or astronomical system has ever alluded to its agency. It is massless, it displaces neither liquids, solids, gas nor plasma and has no perceptible gravitational effect on anything. No disturbance in the fabric of spacetime suggests it’d once moved through any region of the cosmos, and the last remaining place where the Christian god could possibly reside (undetected) is a place where the Christian god cannot reside; beyond the last Schwarzschild radius of a black hole where events can no longer affect an outside observer. Temporally speaking, the god of the Pentateuch is entirely absent from all but the last 1.25% of human history, and even after its literary debut in the 6th Century BCE failed to register as anything other than a minor Middle Eastern artistic anomaly envisaged by no other culture on the planet. It didn’t materialise independently in mainland Europe, emerge unassisted on the British Isles, or rouse a single word across the entire Far East. It inspired no one in any of the 30,000 islands of the South Pacific, energised nothing across the African continent, stirred naught in North America, and didn’t move anything or anyone in Central or South America. No one across the vast Indian Great Plains or Russian steppes ever heard of it. No Azorean fisherman suddenly spoke of it, no Scandinavian shipwright carved its name in a stone, no Japanese mother ever thought she’d heard it speak in whispered tones, and no Australian aborigine ever dreamed of it. Outside the pages of the bible there is positively nothing in the natural or anthropological landscape which might even remotely lead a person blissfully ignorant of the claims made in bible to suspect that that particular Middle Eastern god has ever inspired anything except the imaginations of a few linguistically specific Iron Age Canaanite hill tribes looking to add a little supernatural spice to their otherwise perfectly terrestrial lives.

      • silence of mind says:


        Your comment is nothing but senseless garble. I couldn’t even get through the 1st sentence.

        You are the embodiment of incoherence. Which makes you the typical atheist.

      • john zande says:

        Cheers silenceofmind…. I’ll take that to mean you have positively no answer to the wall of facts as detailed.

      • LEjames says:


        Thank you for that wonderful exposition!

        What happened with me was, I started getting entangled in silence of mind’s way of thinking and discovered something curious, something like the Wilde maxim, “Don’t argue with…then you’ll be at their level…”

        It was disturbing for a second. I had to reel myself out of the muck, but I am glad he shares.

      • john zande says:

        Silenceofmind follows the simple Christian apologetics’ rule that Bullshit Baffles Brains.

      • silence of mind says:


        John completely changed the subject. In logic that is called moving the goal post.

        Yet you became “entangled” in the expression of pure simplicity that makes up my comments.

        Your comments are an example of the unattenuated bias that dominates atheist thinking.

      • This is a beautiful reply. It is completely logical and yet poetic. Thoroughly intelligible, and I may just borrow some of your rhetoric in the future. It is one thing to say “well no one else wrote about him,” but I enjoyed the way you elaborated how insane that actually is. Insane to believe that this all-powerul superbeing didn’t manage to influence anyone outside of those who seemed to invent it. I think you have to much imagination for silence of mind, which is interesting because it would certainly take imagination to arrive at Christianity without the assistance of engrained societal traditions.

      • john zande says:

        Cheers Feministfatal. Exceptional screen-name!

    • It takes no faith to understand that there is no credible evidence for the claim that a god exists. Without such evidence there is no logical reason to think the claim might be true. It was a false claim from the start.

      • silence of mind says:


        The entire universe is evidence for the existence of God.

        Modern discoveries in cosmology have all but proven the Cosmological Argument.

        And our modern understanding of information theory indicates that the universe is the product of intelligence.

      • som,
        the cosmological argument is false. I dare you to show me how it is ‘all but proven’ is a valid argument.
        Quite contrary to what you say, modern understanding of cosmology and information theory have shown that no god is needed for existence to look as we see it today.
        Do you read the news? You seem to have been missing some rather important stories. – Hawking’s book, the Higgs Boson and so on.

      • silence of mind says:


        You just claimed that the Cosmological Argument is false.

        But as is usual with atheists, you didn’t feel the need to explain yourself.

        Why do atheists plague mankind with unsupported claims that everyone else is expected to accept as the Gospel Truth?

        Please support your claim (and please don’t cut and paste a bunch of gibberish from an atheist website like Brother John Zande and every other atheist does) so that our conversation can move forward.

      • Try this link:

        72000 results for the refutation of the cosmological argument.

        The first problem that I see with it is that it assumes a definition of beginning for the singularity. I don’t see that as meaningfully true. Krauss’ talk about ‘something from nothing’ gives basis to discuss existence as not starting with the ‘big bang’ so it is possibly true that there was no beginning.

        If you want to go with WLC’s use of KCA there are other problems like his assumption of timeless, spaceless creator and that such a creator is the very god he believes in.

        Just like flat earth refutations, I did not expect that you would need to see evidence of the obvious.

        Google is your friend.

      • silence of mind says:


        I hate to break it to you but you don’t get to determine what is meaningfully true.

        We know for certain that the universe began as a singularity. So there you are, the atheist who states a personal opinion as fact, but which science has proved otherwise.

        You can’t just say, “I don’t see that as meaningfully true,” and then drop a name and change the subject.

        What you think passes for reason is nothing but you expressing an outdated, factually wrong opinion followed by name dropping and changing the subject.

        You suffer from the exact same intellectual malady that you accuse religious people of having.

        That means your atheism is nothing but the projection of a mental illness onto a hallucinated population of fictitious dummies you call Christians.

      • silence of mind says:


        OMGosh! You gave me an Internet link just like I said every atheist does.

        Can’t any of you think for yourselves?

        I can give the Cosmological argument in 3 sentences. I developed it myself.

        Can’t you develop any ideas on your own?

      • Clearly you seem only to want to argue and make angry noises. You have not answered any points I’ve made and continue to do what you denigrate others for.

      • I suppose you have corroborating opinion and evidence for your opinions stated here? Does that ‘you can’t just say…’ stuff only work for other people?

        It appears that you are reading something into my words that I did not intend. I did not change the subject and it’s not name dropping to refer to someone’s work. It is specific to them. Like saying President Obama’s innagural address. Both named references used were exactly relevant to the discussion at hand. What part are you not understanding as relevant?

    • jk2k8 says:

      Sure, God’s existence may be proven through reason, such as what natural theology attempts. But concluding that God exists because of design inference in nature doesn’t get you the God of Christianity automatically. That is a huge leap. And atheism can be proven through reason and logic. You’re just flat out wrong about that.

      • jk2k8,

        The God of the Jews and the God of Christians is know through Revelation.

        That God, the Creator exists is a matter of reason.

        Therefore atheism is irrational since it denies what is knowable through reason.

  2. silence of mind says:


    Your rather verbose commentary was nothing but a bigoted tirade against religion.

    However, the topic at hand is the claim that Greco-Roman reasoning should somehow be off-limits to religious apologists.

    In my comments I proved that claim to be false.

    If you should ever write a comment that has anything to do with reality and not simple bigotry, I would be happy to respond to it.

    • LEjames says:

      Nowhere do my comments suggest it should be off-limits. My meme states how I get sick of it, and this post states why.

      • silence of mind says:


        You are simply making yourself sick by conjuring up a rather distasteful hallucination.

        My comments explained very simply why there is nothing wrong with Christians using logic of any sort, Greco-Roman or otherwise.

        Very simply, explained in only one sentence, your post has no foundation in reality since both the Bible and Christian intellectual tradition make heavy use of the same reason, human reason, that was used in Greco-Roman culture.

        Most atheist nonsense and irrationality can be destroyed with only one reality-based sentence or two.

  3. myatheistlife,

    My every comment is a response to you.

    You exist in such a state of hallucination that anything from the outside just doesn’t penetrate.

    I answered your post in one simple, easy to read and understand sentence.

    And somehow you missed even that.

    • Frankly SOM, you are clearly very convinced that you are right. And also very convinced that no one here can present you with an idea to change your mind, so why do you even bother trying to discuss? Obviously you have gained nothing and neither has anyone else.

      • silence of mind says:


        You don’t have the authority or the knowledge to tell people what they do or don’t think or what they can or cannot think.

        Such thinking is so horribly damaging because it relegates such a thinker to perpetual, ingrained ignorance. It places them beyond the reach of reason.

        Which this conversation proves. I lay out simple reasoning. You respond with authoritarian denial.

        And that is precisely my problem with postmodern thinking whether it be of the atheist variety or the Christian variety.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s