Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Religion Is A Synonym For Unproven

BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.
E_Pluribus_Unum
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:59:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence.

Buddhism doesn't make any of these claims.
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:38:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now known as presuppositionalism, some apologetics has made recent attempts to migrate away from debating evidence, to making a full scale retreat back to arguing the circularity of using reason in justification for reason. All without ever noting its own susceptibility to the problem of induction.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 1:04:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.

The difference between supporting and ideas and supporting reality is that reality is supported by physical evidence and ideas are supported by philosophical evidence.

The claim "Jesus is the Son of God" is a claim that cannot be given physical evidence, rather can only be supported philosophically.

It is impossible for a circular square to exist. This cannot be proven with physical evidence, rather with philosophical evidence. The same applies to theology.
Nolite Timere
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 1:30:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 1:04:15 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.

The difference between supporting and ideas and supporting reality is that reality is supported by physical evidence and ideas are supported by philosophical evidence.

The claim "Jesus is the Son of God" is a claim that cannot be given physical evidence, rather can only be supported philosophically.

It is impossible for a circular square to exist. This cannot be proven with physical evidence, rather with philosophical evidence. The same applies to theology.

So then you agree with me. Philosophy gives questions, and science gives answers. So if religion can only be supported philosophically, but not scientifically, then your example of "Jesus is the Son of God" is thus unproven. Do you know how scientific critical thinking works?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:26:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 1:30:50 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:04:15 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.

The difference between supporting and ideas and supporting reality is that reality is supported by physical evidence and ideas are supported by philosophical evidence.

The claim "Jesus is the Son of God" is a claim that cannot be given physical evidence, rather can only be supported philosophically.

It is impossible for a circular square to exist. This cannot be proven with physical evidence, rather with philosophical evidence. The same applies to theology.

So then you agree with me. Philosophy gives questions, and science gives answers. So if religion can only be supported philosophically, but not scientifically, then your example of "Jesus is the Son of God" is thus unproven. Do you know how scientific critical thinking works?

Philosophy answers philosophical questions and science answers scientific answers. Different questions require different answers. Theology, unlike science requires philosophical answers. Things can be philosophically proven though, for example using philosophical reasoning we can deduct that a circular square is impossible.
Nolite Timere
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:33:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:26:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:30:50 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:04:15 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.

The difference between supporting and ideas and supporting reality is that reality is supported by physical evidence and ideas are supported by philosophical evidence.

The claim "Jesus is the Son of God" is a claim that cannot be given physical evidence, rather can only be supported philosophically.

It is impossible for a circular square to exist. This cannot be proven with physical evidence, rather with philosophical evidence. The same applies to theology.

So then you agree with me. Philosophy gives questions, and science gives answers. So if religion can only be supported philosophically, but not scientifically, then your example of "Jesus is the Son of God" is thus unproven. Do you know how scientific critical thinking works?

Philosophy answers philosophical questions and science answers scientific answers. Different questions require different answers. Theology, unlike science requires philosophical answers. Things can be philosophically proven though, for example using philosophical reasoning we can deduct that a circular square is impossible.

A "circular square" is a pretty trivial oxymoron. Could you give me a better example of a "philosophical proof"?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 3:53:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:33:12 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:26:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:30:50 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:04:15 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.

The difference between supporting and ideas and supporting reality is that reality is supported by physical evidence and ideas are supported by philosophical evidence.

The claim "Jesus is the Son of God" is a claim that cannot be given physical evidence, rather can only be supported philosophically.

It is impossible for a circular square to exist. This cannot be proven with physical evidence, rather with philosophical evidence. The same applies to theology.

So then you agree with me. Philosophy gives questions, and science gives answers. So if religion can only be supported philosophically, but not scientifically, then your example of "Jesus is the Son of God" is thus unproven. Do you know how scientific critical thinking works?

Philosophy answers philosophical questions and science answers scientific answers. Different questions require different answers. Theology, unlike science requires philosophical answers. Things can be philosophically proven though, for example using philosophical reasoning we can deduct that a circular square is impossible.

A "circular square" is a pretty trivial oxymoron. Could you give me a better example of a "philosophical proof"?

It is impossible that an infinite amount of time existed before now because this moment never would have happened since you cannot descend an infinite amount of moments.
Nolite Timere
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 4:12:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 3:53:12 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:33:12 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:26:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:30:50 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:04:15 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.

The difference between supporting and ideas and supporting reality is that reality is supported by physical evidence and ideas are supported by philosophical evidence.

The claim "Jesus is the Son of God" is a claim that cannot be given physical evidence, rather can only be supported philosophically.

It is impossible for a circular square to exist. This cannot be proven with physical evidence, rather with philosophical evidence. The same applies to theology.

So then you agree with me. Philosophy gives questions, and science gives answers. So if religion can only be supported philosophically, but not scientifically, then your example of "Jesus is the Son of God" is thus unproven. Do you know how scientific critical thinking works?

Philosophy answers philosophical questions and science answers scientific answers. Different questions require different answers. Theology, unlike science requires philosophical answers. Things can be philosophically proven though, for example using philosophical reasoning we can deduct that a circular square is impossible.

A "circular square" is a pretty trivial oxymoron. Could you give me a better example of a "philosophical proof"?

It is impossible that an infinite amount of time existed before now because this moment never would have happened since you cannot descend an infinite amount of moments.

Possibly not... you might intuitively jump to the idea that time can keep ticking forever into the future, but there's nothing that distinguishes positive time from negative time in many formulas of physics. So starting from this instant, you could keep subtracting a second, and so on and so on, infinitely. My point being that that's not really a solid philosophical proof because mine isn't either.

---

But the whole point of this thread was that religious beliefs are just unproven beliefs. People need to hold beliefs that they don't scrutinize, and that field of thought is religion. When people need to be practical, or right, they go to science instead. It's just a dichotomy way of thinking about it. Nothing in religion is proved, and everyone just agrees that's the way it is.

Though I suppose the real reason for opening this thread, was that sometimes the areas "bleed" into one another. People treat religious belief as if it were scientific, and vice versa. You get creationists thinking schools need to "teach the controversy", and you get medieval beliefs like "a doctor's hand could never transmit disease". Creationists are treating their beliefs like science, and medieval doctors were treating their practice as if it were a religion by trying to justify the claim that they don't infect patients with pseudoscience.

So when the areas bleed into each other, that's where you get problems. The schools of thought can live on their own just fine though.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 10:42:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 4:12:55 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:53:12 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:33:12 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:26:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:30:50 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:04:15 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.

The difference between supporting and ideas and supporting reality is that reality is supported by physical evidence and ideas are supported by philosophical evidence.

The claim "Jesus is the Son of God" is a claim that cannot be given physical evidence, rather can only be supported philosophically.

It is impossible for a circular square to exist. This cannot be proven with physical evidence, rather with philosophical evidence. The same applies to theology.

So then you agree with me. Philosophy gives questions, and science gives answers. So if religion can only be supported philosophically, but not scientifically, then your example of "Jesus is the Son of God" is thus unproven. Do you know how scientific critical thinking works?

Philosophy answers philosophical questions and science answers scientific answers. Different questions require different answers. Theology, unlike science requires philosophical answers. Things can be philosophically proven though, for example using philosophical reasoning we can deduct that a circular square is impossible.

A "circular square" is a pretty trivial oxymoron. Could you give me a better example of a "philosophical proof"?

It is impossible that an infinite amount of time existed before now because this moment never would have happened since you cannot descend an infinite amount of moments.

Possibly not... you might intuitively jump to the idea that time can keep ticking forever into the future, but there's nothing that distinguishes positive time from negative time in many formulas of physics. So starting from this instant, you could keep subtracting a second, and so on and so on, infinitely. My point being that that's not really a solid philosophical proof because mine isn't either.

Eh, I was trying to think of something on the spot. I wasn't sure whether that would do it or not. However, I think my point of the circular square was sufficient.

---

But the whole point of this thread was that religious beliefs are just unproven beliefs.

Well here's the thing. Nothing can be proven. Not even science. We will not know what is proven until we know everything, and we won't know everything until we know we know everything which will be never. Fact is though, we can believe in things beyond doubt with evidence provided. The same can apply to religion. Using philosophy, we can reasonably know things or we can know some things beyond doubt.

Though I suppose the real reason for opening this thread, was that sometimes the areas "bleed" into one another. People treat religious belief as if it were scientific, and vice versa.

Well here's the thing. Religion must be backed by science, lest religion discredit itself. Religion relies on science to affirm certain things. When religion stops doing that people who think the world is flat, or that creationism is true exists.

So when the areas bleed into each other, that's where you get problems. The schools of thought can live on their own just fine though.

Religion without science is blind. No statement could be truer.
Nolite Timere
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 5:31:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.

Religion relies on philosophy.

You are having a philosophical discussion with crypto about whether of not philosophy can provethings as true. You are assuming it can and then arguing it can't. Your argument is self refuting. If philosophy can't prove things, then your arguments for that statement are unsound. And then you have not proven that philosophy can't prove anything.

Science rests upon logic, which is philosophy.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:05:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
This is not a serious post by far, but this is just what I was thinking about recently. There's the quote, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" which says a lot.

So the main reason I suggest that "religious" is a synonym for "unproven", is there are so many religious claims that lack evidence. Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not practical if there's no evidence for it. For example, living your life as if there were a god, and investing time worshipping god is a waste of time if there's no evidence. If there's no evidence for heaven or hell, then why even bother worrying about them or trying to avoid being sent to hell?

---

So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me.

Perhaps you don't know what a synonym is.

Synonym: a word that has the same meaning as another word in the same language.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:20:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:59:51 PM, E_Pluribus_Unum wrote:
At 6/22/2014 6:02:36 PM, BradK wrote:
Religions claim there's a god, afterlife, miracles, intervention from god, and none of this has any appreciable evidence.

Buddhism doesn't make any of these claims.

The Fool: there's Buddhism the philosophy and this Buddhism the religion. Buddhism the religion, Claims a reincarnation.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
RyuKen
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:59:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"So religion deals with things that are unproven, science deals with things that can be proven or disproved. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying/incorrect/fallacious. Disagree if you can, but I don't think you can find a reason to disagree with me."

Depends on your definition of religion. That said everything is relative.
I like to see myself as a truthseeker, one that learns and is open for every answer that is logical. Let's say the religion you talk about has the same meaning i think you gave it.

Short answer: Religion overules desperation, since it gives hope to the innocent/naive.
Also religion is a studie in the spiritual world where the heart/spirit and soul is. Which can be felt and not be seen unlike the material world. Religion is more a knowledge for the future unlike science which always diggs in the past. They opposites studies with the same goal, to find reason in the now. To find our/your purpose.

So unproven? Wrong it can be felt since it does give hope. It makes people feel safe and strong although by some individuals it is abused. But can you see it with your own eyes physical eyes? No you cannot. Unless you count your feelings as eyes within a world we actually cannot see.

My point of view:

Yes religion is the study within things we couldnt explain in the past to overcome illogical events within their comfort zone ( their world, in their age of awareness ) At first it was a positive thing, a tool that united us and made us feel safe in this world. It also gave us a personal sense of justification with every action we would made once aware of this existence. To me it is still one of the greatest revolution within mankind after the late glacial maximum. To feel safe in a rough reality on our little planet.

That said, the ones who abused this powerfull tool that easily manipulate people who are pure at heart ( naive ) made it into a chain that blocks our progress towards the beings we ment to be.

Nontheless religion does make sense, although it is a prototype for our believe system and should be tweaked, debugged and updated cause when times go by, so does experiences from our age. We are now and we have the right to overrule our ancestors mistakes and thus change is inevitable. To fulfill our racial purpose by nature.

ANyway peace, sorry for any horrible grammar errors. I wrote this all in a rush and as you already may noticed, it is not my native language. Ciao Ryu