A Quick, Simple Formula

[graymachine]

Religion=Belief

Belief="Faith"

"Faith"=Belief In Magic

Belief In Magic=Support of Magic

Support of Magic=Support of Chaos

Support of Chaos=Support of Madness

Therefore...

Religion=Support of Madness

Or, to abbreviate,

Religion=Madness

Anyone disagreeing feel free to post a response; I'll be happy to explain how you are wrong. Goodnight.

Comments

[aszhinra]

Consider that you accept most scientific theory and study as fact, without understanding all the minutue nuances that constitute the process leading to that result

[graymachine]

Actually, this is a fallacy of reason. Scientific fact is not accepted on "faith"; by virtue of my understanding of the Scientific Method and Logic, I am capable of understanding the process that any given theory is tested on and furthermore, it is not the case of "faith-in-authority" or "faith-in-experts" as the religious will desperately try to make it be. Experts (at least on real things) are not respected in opinion because we trust in what they say, being experts (circular logic), but because they are experts precisely because they employ reason and logic

[ex_ka]

"Actually, this is a fallacy of reason. Scientific fact is not accepted on 'faith'; by virtue of my understanding of the Scientific Method and Logic, I am capable of understanding the process that any given theory is tested on and furthermore, it is not the case of 'faith-in-authority' or 'faith-in-experts' as the religious will desperately try to make it be."

You personally do not know the forumlae and essence of quantum physics, but you are more willing to ascribe to them than religion, because a man in a lab coat tells you he does, and you believe he has the credentials to be trusted.

I see no difference between this and someone that trusts a man in a black robe who claims to have a higher connection to God and is capable of advising people on the nature of the universe, because those people instill trust in that same form of authority."Experts (at least on real things) are not respected in opinion because we trust in what they say, being experts (circular logic), but because they are experts precisely because they employ reason

[cercops]

>I see no difference between this and someone that trusts a man in a black robe >who claims to have a higher connection to God and is capable of advising >people on the nature of the universe, because those people instill trust in >that same form of authority

Stefan was right, you are not.

[kaptainmorgan]

Allow me to show you how

Logical Fallacies of Chaos and Macaroni

[cercops]

purely obvious logical nitpicking ...
= means "is an only is". I can't say david=male, because, even if david has 12 penises like george washington, he is not the only male.

So, even if we accept that religion is a type of belief (i would argue it is much more than that), is not belief, just a memeber of that set. Same with belief=faith (although in this case faith is a member of the belief set rather then the other way around).

Further "belief in" does not equeal "support" of. I believe in the KKK and Nazis; I do not support them. Also "magic" does not equal "chaos".

As to macaroni however, morgan is quite correct that the only time people are truly at one with each other is when doing arts and crafts, and specifically while making macaroni picturs. The only true religion _is_ macaroni picutures, and the only true god is Elmer, of Glue fame.

Re: Logical Fallacies of Chaos and Macaroni

[graymachine]

I agree with both of your points on the logic of the statement; it wasn't intended to be an literal logical formula, just something that I thought amusing. I would ask, though, Morgan are you supporting the statement that logic can lead to absurdities and is therefore invalid??

Re: Logical Fallacies of Chaos and Macaroni

[kaptainmorgan]

No. I'm not saying that. Logically speaking, I was actually writing it