[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,

You are saying that in order for a religion to be "believable", it has to be consistent (in some sense, it doesn't matter now). But what is the sense in this a priori restriction for a religion? All the religions in the world are _existing_ religions, i.e, people believe in them, i.e, they are believable. So either you are saying they are ALL logical and consistent (and there's no sense in criticizing any of them), or you are saying that logic has nothing to do with them existing and being true/consistent by their own rules (and again, there's no sense in criticizing any of them).

(There is a strange, third option: you mean to say that some people believe in unbelievable things. But this is self-contradictory, of course).

What is the right one?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about I put it this way:

No-one can believe something unbelievable.
No-one can play a game that has unplayable rules.

These are logical statements. Any game that requires you to play with unplayable rules is illogical.

Any religon that requires you to believe the unbelievable is illogical.

If people can believe '3=1' then they may be ok but I can't and so I find any religon that claims '3=1' to be illogical.

I go further and say that its impossible to believe '3=1' (because of the meanings of the terms involved) and so any religon that requires belief that '3=1' is illogical.

[ QUOTE ]
(There is a strange, third option: you mean to say that some people believe in unbelievable things. But this is self-contradictory, of course).

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it is, its nonsense. People claim to do it, some have even claimed that logic is 'fallen' and if we believed this nonsense it would make sense. Pure gibberish (imo) but thats what some people claim.

chez