rational thinking vs religion

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2324005980922&id=1272787049

main post by ED:
Is god all powerful, in that he can do anything he wanted to? If so, then he can create a plan where all his children could return to live with him WITHOUT having to murder one of his children to make it possible. Christianity FAIL. Reason wins.

Nick Humphrey: and what kind of "loving father" lets his kids rape and murder each other? i dont know of any. i usually step in and stop my kids' from fighting when it gets violent. i am really forgiving too and certainly wouldnt ban them from ever being in my presence again if they were to deny the existence of an invisible spirit. =)

TB: So E, let's say "Christianity fails, reason wins". Now what?

Nick Humphrey: ‎TB "Now what?"
* tell your friends =)
* lobby for teaching of rational thinking, skepticism and logic starting in the public elementary education level
* study to build your own repertoire of rational arguments to use in debate with theists
?

TB: What makes you think that reason alone, or empirically justifiable beliefs alone, can ever serve as a substitute for religion, Nick? Haven't you met any of your fellow humans? They don't operate that way. Your war is a war against humanity itself, because humanity is innately religious.
Besides, there is no historical basis for assuming that cold, hard reason cannot itself be made into an idol and worshipped, with its worshippers acting as wickedly as any religious believers. The French Revolution is only one example.
The bloodletting there was orgiastic, and was done entirely in the name of reason and atheism.
If I could have told my friends in France 220 years ago anything, it would have been to continue on as believing Catholics, because they were much better as believing Catholics than as atheists.


Nick Humphrey: ‎TB "What makes you think that reason alone, or empirically justifiable beliefs alone, can ever serve as a substitute for religion, Nick?"
you incorrectly assume at least 2 things:
1) that humanity needs to replace religion with something, instead of just doing away with it.

maybe *you* personally need to "establish contact with a perceived higher power". i dont.

2) that religionists are completely DEVOID of rationality.

they at least put it aside when it concerns their views of the existence of supernatural entities and interpretation of sensory perceptions and coincidences.

your argument is a straw man.

"They don't operate that way. Your war is a war against humanity itself, because humanity is innately religious."

this is known as the "naturalistic fallacy", but what IS does not imply what OUGHT to be. if homo sapiens are inclined towards religion, it doesnt mean we *should* be religious.

"there is no historical basis for assuming that cold, hard reason cannot itself be made into an idol and worshipped with its worshippers acting as wickedly as any religious believers."

this behavior IS *religious* just without an extra-terrestrial deity. assuming that rational thinking alone leads to such behavior is simply fallacious.