haha I must have been high when I wrote all that... =P I go to prove my own point. Anyways... regarding your post:/Hang on, there... Insanely illogical? Science is all logic. And religion is not logic at all. If science becomes illogical then it is no longer science. If mathematics was illogical it would be wrong and would then be irrelevant.
If religion was logical, I would believe it. I don't. And that isn't meant as an insult to anyone who is religious. Anyone who believes in some religion also, by default, believes that their deity or deities are not bound by the comprehension and logic of mankind. Religion is supposed to be illogical.
So your statement here is illogical.
Also, I like that you say that debate is "annoying" when it is taken to "emotional levels" and then proceed to tell us that global warming pisses you off.
If you are going to be picky then so shall I. "Science is [not] all logic." True logic is an absolutely defined system. Science cannot be an absolutely defined system by definition. Examples of actual logic: 1+1 = 2 in any base numbering system above binary. 1 or-ed with 1 is 1. 1 Nor 1 is 0...ect. AKA math is logic where as science is a system for coming with up with the most likely explanation for a given observation. To call science pure logic is too impede the progress of science itself for it eliminates the inevitable fact that your theory is probably wrong in some shape or form. Your confusing logic with rationality.
That is exactly the mentality that I was irrationally ranting about in my previous post. Humans are irrational, biased, and illogical begins. Calling yourself a devoted scientist won't change that fact. When people formulate a basis for a belief regarding a topic, they are going to approach it with their own inevitable bias. The same goes for defending or sharing their beliefs.
As for religion being illogical, you sir are very religious and so are many of your beliefs. =P In reality none of us on this forum probably are adequate to even approach the topic of evolution for debate, yet many of us do so frequently and with great conviction. To argue against species evolving would indeed be one hard task. However, to what degree living organisms evolve and at what pace this process takes place...ect is a matter still in question. For us to debate it is the equivalent of a bunch of politicians having a heated debate about the electron hole theory in semi conductor devices. Most of us hold very strong opinions on evolution and scientific topics that are more religious than they are logical. The reason for this is because we rarely if ever verify our beliefs.
So what is religion? Religion is a belief(and or system) based upon faith. Faith is the basis for region. Faith is believing in something that you have not independently verified. I sat down in my chair having "faith" that it would hold me before independently absolutely verifying this fact. My views regarding this chair were in a sense religious. :na: You are confusing religion with your pre associated beliefs regarding people who religiously believe in divine begins.
For example and further elaboration, many of my views regarding modern science are simply based upon faith as opposed rationally verifying what I am told. For example, I believe in meiosis and mitosis as common means for cellular reproduction. I believed in the process simply because my science teacher told me, it appeared to make rational sense, and I had observed other sources agree in a common consensus regarding the process. I'm guessing you share my belief and reasons regarding the concept. However, such a belief is not logical because I haven't independently verified/proven that such a process even takes place. Furthermore, my reasoning for believing is by appealing to authority which is a fundamental logical fallacy. Therefore, my belief regarding meiosis and mitosis is more properly classified as religious(a belief based upon faith) than logical(a absolute principle by definition).
The closet belief system to being logical/rational in principle is agnosticism. As opposed to believing in faith based principles, they choose to believe in literally nothing. They acknowledge that everything is subjective and accept the fact that nothing can be absolutely verified. While this ideal may truly be in principle more logical than other systems of belief, I wouldn't exactly call it a productive approach to life... I would go insane if I didn't make faith based beliefs regarding topics and move on from there...
However.... this whole argument kinda hinges on how i'm defining religion and how well I can think and write at 2a.m. in the morning...(not very well at all) so i'm going to bed. Gnight! =P Before I go to bed, to give the illusion that this post was somewhat on topic... What is reality? It is belief system that is subjectively defined by our perception of existence.