I agree with the sentiment, but what does this have to say about the truth of set theory? Or, even worse, category theory?

That's basically how I became an atheist.

If religion could be proven or disproven simply by thinking about it, what would the point of faith be? Religion is not science, it should not be treated as such, from both sides of the issue mind you. If you seek religion from the same frame of mind you seek the answers to math problems, no it won't be very appealing, but then it never claimed to be that way. Now I understand that for some people that will be enough to say, sorry not for me, and thats fine, but it doesn't mean religion is more or less true. It just means it doesn't fit in the framework you are trying to judge it by.

A rough example, In non-Euclidean geometry a triangle can have greater than 180 degrees of internal angles. Try proving that using Euclidean geometry and you prove the object is not a triangle. But that misses the point. The object never claimed to be a euclidean triangle. Your looking at it from the wrong framework. Thats not to say that if Euclidean geomtery says soemthing isn't a triangle it means it IS one in non-Euclidean geometry, its just not conclusive either way.

Likewise, scientific logic may show something not to be true, but if the trueness of the thing is not meant to be defined by science, whatever information it provides is largely irrelevant either way. It may in fact NOT be true, but thats another matter altogether.

I should also point out that there are plenty of counter examples of people who study religion and find it more compelling as a lifestyle and that it makes more sense to them personally the more they study it.

Wow, that got mangled.

let's try, "it is hard not to see the Bible as yet another primitive mythology if you take it as a whole"

If you think only blind faith makes any religious system work I think you clearly have not spent time trying to understand religions or their followers. You are certainly free to think as you like and believe as you like but it is sad to find that you think that myself, Ben, Nathan, Tracy, et al. are merely blind zealots who have been duped by empty promises and happy talk. I had hoped you would have more respect for those of us with different belief systems, and acknowledge that religion is something far more complex than you seem to be treating it as. I can tell you my faith is not blind, but whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

You have said that not only does my belief system not make ANY sense, but also said that the only way someone could follow it is through blind faith. How is that not insulting? How can I, as a believer not find that incredibly hurtful? Calling my faith blind, is not only disrespectful and insulting, it also shows that you are willing to read books and posts by strangers about the topic, but aren't willing to actually ask the people around you for whom religion is a major part of their lives why they believe what they believe, what their reasons are. Perhaps I should have phrased my response better, but as I said, i'm not only insulted, but hurt by what you are saying. Not becuase you believe something different, but because you are so dismissive of those who do the same.

Your tone in this post, and frankly i have to be honest, in a lot of posts comes across as very condescending and smug, and I say that as your friend, because I think you should consider it as part of the reason for the sometimes more hostile responses you recieve here and elsewhere from people you disagree with.

I will, of course, respect your request, this is your journal and you have the right to ask, but I think you are doing yourself a disservice by not showing more interest in understanding your friends and why they believe what they do. Even if you disagree with it, you may find it enlightening and interesting.

I never said science was the ONLY such system, merely that it was one. Somethings are beyond our understanding, doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but the frame of reference you are looking for is one in which humanity is limited and we may be incapable of fully understanding the whole scope of truth. Much like a young child has to take certain things on faith because they are incapable of the higher level reasoning and level of knowledge required to explain it. A four year old, except for perhaps an extradoinary one, is not going to be able to understand, say general relativity. That does not mean there isn't a framework in which it can be understood, just that the child you explain it to is incapable of understanding no matter what you do. Heck there is a point where young children can't even distinguish the difference between a tall glass and a wide glass holding the same amount of liquid. Or that one large cookie is more than two smaller ones.

Likewise, if a higher being exists, it is not only possible, but likely that we as humans, with very limited relative understanding of what IT understands. We may in fact NEVER be capable, again, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to explain as much as we can and expand the limits of human knowledge, but I think we should also be willing to open our minds to truths that are beyond our understanding as well. People try and explain love chemically, psychologically, sociologically, etc. Personally if thats all it is I think its not worth much, but I think its more than that, something beyond explanation and definition. I think limiting whats possible to what we can define, measure, and explain limits the joy we can have in life itself, and personally i find it hard to consider a view that welcomes the idea of something greater than me as a bad thing.

And, I suppose, to keep Gabe from getting on me again, that should be "I have yet to see any particular religion which, when taken as a whole, provides much insight."

And to clarify a little, I do not mean to imply that faith is bad. There is so much information out there that we all must have faith in something. It is a tool, like summarizing or sampling, that provides much value, but it is not inherently good.

Well then, what was the meaning of your original statement if it was not meant to make sense?

It is a valid counterexample because of the author's use of the word "instead".

- Jux

The first part of that statement is incoherent. It is like saying "If philosophy were true...". Religion, like philosophy, (and neuro-chemical patterns!) is not the sort of thing that can be true or false. That can only particular said of particular religious or philosophical statements.

As to the second part, two words: quantum physics.

It is late, so though I would say more, I will let someone else (an atheist!) do the heavy lifting.

Is keeping kosher true or false?

What does the Bible or Protestantism have to do with the statement you posted? It mentions neither, and your own introduction suggested there was no additional context worth investigating. I would happily argue with a Protestant about textual fundamentalism if I knew one of that sort and they brought it up.