Are you religious?

[Killswitch]

In that instance we werent discussing whether it was true or not, we were discussing the authenticity of the source
As i said above, imo science will end up prooving religion ultimately as i have highlighted in previous posts.

The problem is though, at the moment there is no evidence for the existence of God, no logical proofs that aren't just a word-game and every question that religion tries to answer is answered more thoroughly and with more evidence by science. Anything that might be left over can be answered with simple probability.

You say religion will be proved by science. When science proves that eating 3 burgers a day will make me healthier, I'll start doing it. Until then, it's just a bad idea. Right now, with no evidence, no real positive aspects and a great deal of harm being done by it's followers, religion isn't even a theory.

I'm sure that if science ever comes up with a shred of evidence to support the existence of God, every religious person on Earth will jump up and scream "I told you so!". However, while more and more of religion is proven to be fairy stories ("nonono! that's just a story, it's not real! Oh, but that bit really happened!) the religious types stick their fingers in their ears and just go "nanana I can't hear you!".

Noah's Flood was widely believed to be a true event (and still is by more people than you might think!). Now most Christians say it was just a story to show that good people do alright.

If it was somehow proved that Jesus did NOT return from the dead (or even exist)...would that become just a story as well? How much of the foundations of religion need to be shown as complete fiction before it's followers realise how untenable their position is?

This is the difference between science and religion. If it was proved tomorrow that evolution (for example) was flawed and only intelligent design could "make" a human, then every real scientist would stand up and say "we were wrong, there must be a higher power". Can any religious person really say the same?

 

[old.Tohtori]

But what would be "enough proof" to people of some form of gods existence?

 

[Chronictank]

yes i am, and no its not a valid way to prove anything.
im better than fanatics because:
1) im to no harm, i dont try and push my beliefs upon people or preach in public
2) i've made my own desicion based on what i know from school. i havnt listened to anybodys ideas and followed them. im as you on the other side.

didnt mean it like that , i was simply picking up on the fact you said it bothers you people discussing if god exists

 

[Chronictank]

The problem is though, at the moment there is no evidence for the existence of God, no logical proofs that aren't just a word-game and every question that religion tries to answer is answered more thoroughly and with more evidence by science. Anything that might be left over can be answered with simple probability.

I gave you some example of content in the qu'ran being backed by science, that is the basis of my belief that at least some of it is accurate.
Alot of science in the 15th/16th century in the middle east originated in the book.
MY reason for believing that it contains at a minimum, some truth is that fact that people in the 14th century couldnt possibly have known what is written/derived from it yet its in there.

no real positive aspects and a great deal of harm being done by it's followers

This argument is getting old, and is no more valid than it was before.
You can take anything and bend into something bad, and is plain retarded (no offence intended to retards), to say religion is to blame for all the trouble in the world.
If it wasnt religion, it would be something else such as governing methods to "spread democracy", or spread communism, or spread facism, etc etc
If people were to actually follow religion then there world imo would be a better place

However, while more and more of religion is proven to be fairy stories

Noone here so far had provided anything of the sort,

Noah's Flood was widely believed to be a true event (and still is by more people than you might think!). Now most Christians say it was just a story to show that good people do alright.

As i said before, you have to take a educated guess based on what information you can find, seeing as there is alot of cross-correlation between other sources such as greek and latin texts thats about as close as you will get

If it was somehow proved that Jesus did NOT return from the dead (or even exist)...would that become just a story as well? How much of the foundations of religion need to be shown as complete fiction before it's followers realise how untenable their position is?

Afaik Jesus was proven to exist, but re-itterating what tohorti said, what would it take for people to believe god exists?
You will find you are in the same problem, hell if someone saw a hand come down from the sky and a booming voice yelling believe, do you honestly think people would believe you?
You could video tape it and still people would say its fake

Anyway home time

 

[Saggy]

Afaik Jesus was proven to exist, but re-itterating what tohorti said, what would it take for people to believe god exists?

God(s) to do the stuff they are claimed to be able to do so that everyone can see it. Everyone probably believes in "some form of god(s)" since that can mean pretty much anything and no one cares about it really.

If people were to actually follow religion then there world imo would be a better place.

Could pick lots of sentances you wrote and ask the same thing but this one will do - what is this "religion" you are talking about? That, too, can mean pretty much anything :S

Science can prove religions' theories to wrong/right and science may figure out why people tend to believe in God(s). Take the concept from movie "The Village" and teach the children some totally fucked up religion and see will they follow it and how far will they go to defend it. Religions have been born all over the world to support the local needs which, imo, is better proof for "men greated God(s)" than any religion can come up with "God(s) greated men".

 

[Killswitch]

But what would be "enough proof" to people of some form of gods existence?

Anything that disproved Darwinian Evolution would pretty much do it for me. There has never been any other theory that even comes close to explaining the development of life on Earth. In the absence of Darwin, we're basically down to Intelligent Design and God. All it would take would be for one fossil to be found out of place, like a human fossil with dinosaurs, for the theory to be busted.

However, of the thousands of fossils ever properly recorded, this has never happened...funny that

 

[Killswitch]

This argument is getting old, and is no more valid than it was before.
You can take anything and bend into something bad, and is plain retarded (no offence intended to retards), to say religion is to blame for all the trouble in the world.
If it wasnt religion, it would be something else such as governing methods to "spread democracy", or spread communism, or spread facism, etc etc
If people were to actually follow religion then there world imo would be a better place

Oh gawd

"If people were to actually follow religion". Which religion? Also, should they follow the examples set in the Bible where Moses told his followers to kill their neighbours and take their lands and kill their families and suchlike? Should we also misrecord history to our own ends? How about all the smiting, the exclusion, the racial cleansing?

To the best of their knowledge, Islamic suicide bombers ARE following their religion. They are taking a shortcut to Heaven and doing the right thing in their minds, the most perfect thing someone can do, lose their life in a Holy War. Should we do that too?

I never said religion was to blame for all the evils in the world, but nothing is so divisive and so instantly inflammatory as religion. Parts of America are extremely religious...places like the South where racism and violence are still endemic. Sunni and Shiite muslims in Iraq. Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold water

Noone here so far had provided anything of the sort,

Sorry...I guess I didn't need to prove that there was no Great Flood. As it happens, the census that Joseph and Mary were supposedly going to actually happened in 6 AD according to official records. In fact, the only reason for this part of the story was to put the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem to fulfil some Jewish prophecy or another. Want me to go on?

As i said before, you have to take a educated guess based on what information you can find, seeing as there is alot of cross-correlation between other sources such as greek and latin texts thats about as close as you will get

No no no no! You take an educated guess based on what you WANT to be true. Humans are great at pattern matching, but I bet I could find a massive amount of evidence for all kinds of unlikely stuff by cross-referencing old documents. There is at least as much evidence for the existence of Vampires as there is for the Resurrection. In fact, probably more so. If you believe in Vampires, you're mad...but a man coming back from the dead and being the Son of God? No problem!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Anything that disproved Darwinian Evolution would pretty much do it for me. There has never been any other theory that even comes close to explaining the development of life on Earth. In the absence of Darwin, we're basically down to Intelligent Design and God. All it would take would be for one fossil to be found out of place, like a human fossil with dinosaurs, for the theory to be busted.

However, of the thousands of fossils ever properly recorded, this has never happened...funny that

Well, that's a bit of a controversial subject as some claim there have been discoveries that have both, and some claim they are just claims.

Nothing "proof" has been unearthed, yet, i guess, but as i said, the issue is rather controversial at the moment still.

But would that be the only way to prove the existence of a god/gods? By destroying a scientific theory?

There is at least as much evidence for the existence of Vampires as there is for the Resurrection.

Just had to comment that, yes, quite a bit of proof actually. Not sure if there's more though. Vampires are, if not as "magical" as the stories tell, quite a reality

 

[Olgaline]

actually thats very much posible, but you cannot claim, just becuase they were found at the same place and depth, that they then died at the same time or within the same era even, especially in area's with high geological activity. you'd have to proove some form of physical interaction between the two, to proove that.

 

[old.Tohtori]

actually thats very much posible, but you cannot claim, just becuase they were found at the same place and depth, that they then died at the same time or within the same era even, especially in area's with high geological activity. you'd have to proove some form of physical interaction between the two, to proove that.

For it to be definite enough for the scientists to go "Ok, you win." and think evolution over completely, you'd basically need a caveman lodged in ones stomach.

Though i'd settle for an axe and axemark on dino bone, hunting patters(footsteps) etc.

 

[Saggy]

But would that be the only way to prove the existence of a god/gods? By destroying a scientific theory?

It's not science's job to prove religions wrong, it's religions' and their gods job to prove them right. We have scientific facts of how thunders are born - does it prove that god(s) couldn't make thunders too? Imo, no (and the scientific facts behind the born of thunder could be considered as "god" if someone likes -> the proof of that god to exist).

From now on though when I say god(s) I mean a humane god(s) (such as the one in Christianity) since I dont care about flying-radioactive-fart-turning-rocks-into-living-things and when I say afterlife I mean humane afterlife instead of some pile-of-energy-knowing-nothing-of-previous-life

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's not science's job to prove religions wrong, it's religions' and their gods job to prove them right.

Yes exactly to the point i meant. But to prove something right, you'd still need some sort of goalpost to aim for, something that would make others go "Ok, you're right." (instead of proving science wrong that is)

Some god popping by would only suffice? Some atoms that scientists claim are "un scientific"? Enough people seeing this "god"?

It's kinda hard to prove something to exist, if you can always say, "Nope, not enough proof."

Also, different point:

How how things like a mother knowing that something happened to her child, or twins knowing things "telepathically", can be explained?It would seem that those things, telepathy etc, intuition, are some things that can't be explained by evolution.

 

[Olgaline]

hmm well, it would need to be unquestionably supernatural, it's actually not enough for it to be simply be unexplicable.

 

[Saggy]

It's kinda hard to prove something to exist, if you can always say, "Nope, not enough proof."

Depending on the description of each god but the god unable to prove own existance isn't worth the tittle god or is a very weak one and laughable, imo

How how things like a mother knowing that something happened to her child, or twins knowing things "telepathically", can be explained?It would seem that those things, telepathy etc, intuition, are some things that can't be explained by evolution.

Animals are way better with this stuff than people and science will figure it out eventually. This has nothing to do with gods though? Or with which god?

 

[Jeremiah]

As it happens, the census that Joseph and Mary were supposedly going to actually happened in 6 AD according to official records. In fact, the only reason for this part of the story was to put the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem to fulfil some Jewish prophecy or another. Want me to go on?

Care to venture a source for this claim?

Anything that disproved Darwinian Evolution would pretty much do it for me. There has never been any other theory that even comes close to explaining the development of life on Earth. In the absence of Darwin, we're basically down to Intelligent Design and God. All it would take would be for one fossil to be found out of place, like a human fossil with dinosaurs, for the theory to be busted.

However, of the thousands of fossils ever properly recorded, this has never happened...funny that

I could give you some points which Darwinian Evoultion still has to address in order to come close to expaining the origin of life? (I just want to say that I'm in no way an expert and these points may have already been addressed by science! Let me know if they have)

The Stanley Miller Experiment

This experiment is said to recreate the creation of amino acids in an atmosphere similar to that of early earth. This experiment demonstrated that life could have started without the help of any creator. However, as far back as 1966, this experiment has be discredited, with Millers choice of atmosphere being heavily critised as being unrealistic. At present, there is still no definate opinion on what the atmosphere was like, and hence no way of proving of how life came to be.

Sources:
Florkin, "Ideas and Experiments in the Field of Prebiological Chemical Evolution", Comprehensive Biochemistry (1975)
Fox and Dose, Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life (1977)
Abelson, "Chemical Events on the Primitve Earth", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (1966)

Darwin's Tree of Life

Darwin's tree showed how (he theorised) all living creatures had a common ancestor. Darwin expected fossil records to eventually back up this claim and yet this isnt so. In fact events such as the Cambrian explosion really show this tree to be unrealistic. Now I know Naetha made the point in a previous thread about organisms before this time being too soft shelled and miniscule to be preserved, but there are microfossils of bacteria dating back 3 million years, not to mention soft-bodied animal fossils found before and during this time period. While its true more fossils may turn up to explain this, at present the fossil record doesnt support Darwins Tree.

Sources:
Schwartz, "Homeobox Genes, Fossils, and the Origin of Species", Anatomical Record (New Anatomist) (1999)
Valentine and Erwin, "Interpreting Greate Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record", Development as an Evolutionary Process (1987)

So as you can see, things which are taught as fact in Evolutionary text books are actually either false or mis-leading. Evolution theory has a long way to go imo.

Lets not forget, if you and I had a competition to see who could touch the sky by stretching, and you happend to be taller than me (I'm a midget =)), you would be the closest person to the sky - but you'd still be a hell of a long way away =)

 

[old.Tohtori]

Depending on the description of each god but the god unable to prove own existance isn't worth the tittle god or is a very weak one and laughable, imo

Animals are way better with this stuff than people and science will figure it out eventually. This has nothing to do with gods though? Or with which god?

Well, then we'd have to ask what is "enough god like behavior" for someone to believe a god is around. Show themselves? Do parlor tricks?

Every time i ask about "What is needed for proof?"(in real life as well), i don't get an answer. Atleast a straight one.

Animals may be better then humans, as they aren't clouded by thoughts, but saying "science will prove these things", is as good as "they can't prove these things" at the moment. How they relate to god/gods, is that it's outside evolution and as such, we had to get it somewhere else. Soul related if you will.

 

[Mojo]

Every time i ask about "What is needed for proof?"(in real life as well), i don't get an answer. Atleast a straight one.

An appearance, would do it. A "real" miracle would help.

After all most of the religions have followers that claim that he has appeared before them in some sort. And that miracles happen to special individuals.

Why is it that God only appears before the already devout but does nothing to prove himself to the sceptics when according to the devout he cares so much about what the sceptics do in the privacy of their own homes. After all he does see everything he therefore knows that faith is dwindling in some parts of the world.

So here we have a GOD who demands death for non believers but yet does nothing to make people believe other than rely on the teachings of people, some of which touch young boys in places they shouldn't.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not commenting on the Christians gods behavior, but i doubt he tells to kill the non believer. But again, what a god says and what the devout claim, two different things. About appearing, i think if i were a god, i wouldn't appear just for the whim of the puny humans and only saved that as a treat for those who actually believe.

An appearance, would do it. A "real" miracle would help.

See what i mean? Still, even if you tried(appreciate it) to give a straight answer, there's that, backdoor in there. With the "" around real. And still there's room for "whimsy".

Appearance to all? To few? Select few? See where it goes?

If a million people said they saw Odin in the shower on the 31st of August, would it be proof enough? Probably not.

What would be big enough to be a real miracle? Know what you rode while you were 4 from across world? Know a number between 1 and million? Walk through fire? Make an elephant disappear? Nothing even close enough to call it a miracle by the hardened scientist, and people like David Copperfield have done a lot bigger things.

 

[Ctuchik]

An appearance, would do it. A "real" miracle would help.

define a real miracle please..

for the record, i don't believe in anything i can't see, touch, hear or smell.

but whenever you read about those few ppl that had a double parachute failure and fell down 7000+ feet and survived. that just have to be something more then pure luck. or any other extreme accident that came out well.

i mean HOW can they free fall from that height, slam into the ground at 120 miles an hour and not die......

granted theres not many of them, but many enough.

 

[Mojo]

define a real miracle please..

Build an irrigation system across Africa would do (create some rivers and nice big lake) that would get a convert or 2.

Anything which other some middle age drama queen in America deep south being able to walk with out that 1 crutch she has been using.

but whenever you read about those few ppl that had a double parachute failure and fell down 7000+ feet and survived. that just have to be something more then pure luck. or any other extreme accident that came out well.

i mean HOW can they free fall from that height, slam into the ground at 120 miles an hour and not die......

granted theres not many of them, but many enough.

And the only possible explanation to this is the intervention of GOD.............yeah OK.

From an entity who created the world in 7 days I expect (demand) more than saving 1 in every 10000 or so doomed sky divers.

 

[Mojo]

See what i mean? Still, even if you tried(appreciate it) to give a straight answer, there's that, backdoor in there. With the "" around real. And still there's room for "whimsy".

Appearance to all? To few? Select few? See where it goes?

Of course, I was curious to see what reply I might get

 

[Killswitch]

Care to venture a source for this claim?

I know Wikipedia isn't the most accurate of information sources, but this seems in depth and has some "proper" references;

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that although Jesus was said to be born during the rule of Herod the Great (the King of Judea), he died in 4 BC and the tax census ordered by Quirinius occurred after the death of Herod's successor in 6AD. Most of this comes from writings at the time, when science wasn't really an exact science, so it's quite possible Luke was just plain wrong, but basing your life and belief system on a story told by people who couldn't get dates right?

I could give you some points which Darwinian Evoultion still has to address in order to come close to expaining the origin of life? (I just want to say that I'm in no way an expert and these points may have already been addressed by science! Let me know if they have)

I'm going to fall back on probability for this one in the absence of absolute proof either way, but with a working theory with a lot of scientific evidence (albeit incomplete) on one side and God, supported by a long history of tortuous and pretty poor logical proofs and a fairly large amount of historical references which are in general pretty inconsistent (I don't think anyone would disagree with that).

Which is more likely;

a) On one (or more) of the billions of planets in the universe at some point during the billions of years of it's existence, conditions became such that extremely simple life could begin. This event would in theory only need to happen once by the way. From there, life developed through a gradual process of evolution until we had humans and tigers and suchlike.

b) A being infinitely more complex than anything we've ever encountered and more complex than anything we can imagine, capable of changing and suspending physical laws that govern without exception every atom of matter in the visible universe came into existence spontaneously, fully-formed and proceeded to create the Universe as we see it and everything in it.

I'd say b) seems a LOT less likely than a). Over geological time, life would have a lot of chances to get started. Billions of planets for billions of years...those are pretty good odds compared to 1 science lab and 6 months on a federal grant!!

A conservative estimate of the number of planets in the universe has been made at 10 million billion, or 10,000,000,000,000,000. We'll knock a couple of orders of magnitude off that to be on the safe side. The age of the universe is estimated at 13.7billion years with a +/-200million margin for error. Let's call it a round 10billion for ease of calculation.

So if the chances of life starting spontaneously were a billion to one, it would already have happened 1,000,000,000,000,000 times in the universe!! Even if it was a billion times a billion to one, it would have happened a thousand times!!

Warning: Back of a cigarette packet maths done while hungover may not represent reality that well. I'm pretty confident that the orders of magnitude are about right though!

 

[Killswitch]

Not commenting on the Christians gods behavior, but i doubt he tells to kill the non believer. But again, what a god says and what the devout claim, two different things. About appearing, i think if i were a god, i wouldn't appear just for the whim of the puny humans and only saved that as a treat for those who actually believe.

The Old Testament god (Yahweh) told his followers to kill all kinds of people, including people who had land he wanted for his followers, people who broke the commandments. In fact, he often cut out the middle-man and just killed loads of people himself in some quality ethnic-cleansing. The Old Testament God was a bit of a meanie!!

 

[Ctuchik]

And the only possible explanation to this is the intervention of GOD.............yeah OK.

i never said that. i merely said it as food for thought. and as a example for a "miracle".


and building a irrigation system across Africa would hardly be a divine miracle more a economic one at best

 

[Mojo]

i never said that. i merely said it as food for thought. and as a example for a "miracle".

A good example of Luck maybe.

 

[Ctuchik]

guess the only thing that would actually prove anything is if "god" actually came forth and started to open a can of divine whoopass on us all

and i'm not talking about floods and other such crap. no a bigass god with lightning comming out of his eyes and stuff

THAT would probably convert me.. atleast until i cant see him anymore

 

[Killswitch]

The Old Testament god (Yahweh) told his followers to kill all kinds of people, including people who had land he wanted for his followers, people who broke the commandments. In fact, he often cut out the middle-man and just killed loads of people himself in some quality ethnic-cleansing. The Old Testament God was a bit of a meanie!!

Damn edit timer!!!

I just found this hilarious webpage that details how many people God has "killed" according to Scripture. I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously...but it's hella funny reading!

Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)

 

[Mojo]

guess the only thing that would actually prove anything is if "god" actually came forth and started to open a can of divine whoopass on us all

and i'm not talking about floods and other such crap. no a bigass god with lightning comming out of his eyes and stuff

And that's well within his skill set apparently

 

[Mojo]

Damn edit timer!!!

I just found this hilarious webpage that details how many people God has "killed" according to Scripture. I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously...but it's hella funny reading!

Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)

And that's Just from the Bible. He has been killing non believers, heretics homo's etc for 2000 years since.

Such a Loving, caring, forgiving God.

 

[Killswitch]

What would be big enough to be a real miracle? Know what you rode while you were 4 from across world? Know a number between 1 and million? Walk through fire? Make an elephant disappear? Nothing even close enough to call it a miracle by the hardened scientist, and people like David Copperfield have done a lot bigger things.

The Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

70,000+ people saw the sun "detach itself from the sky and plunge towards the earth". No-one outside of Fatima noticed this and even more surprisingly, the entire Solar System wasn't utterly destroyed...

Miracle? Who knows...I'm not convinced myself.