Total Posts:131|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion is a joke

Invalid
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:08:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You would think that after all the discoveries humanity has made that contradict the original teachings of religion would make people realize that maybe following prehistoric beliefs isn't what we should be doing. But no, people still remain ignorant to what science is clearly telling us. I almost consider this an insult to humanity. Evidence is given putting the age of the Earth at 4.54 billion years old, and yet people wish to believe it is approximately 6,000 years old because some ancient book told them so. Religion in all forms was created to understand what was happening in the world around them. Being the curious beasts we are, through rational inquiry we eventually discovered, and continue to discover, what really causes these things. So why should religion have a place in this day and age?
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:09:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sometimes, religious people are so desperate to prove that their ideas coincide with science, that they talk about how one of God's "days" equals one hundred million human days or something like that. Lolz.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Invalid
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:11:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:09:55 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Sometimes, religious people are so desperate to prove that their ideas coincide with science, that they talk about how one of God's "days" equals one hundred million human days or something like that. Lolz.

That's actually pretty sad.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:19:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyone else think that if the Bible was approximating life began 18,300 years ago, we'd spontaneously remove all evidence of 6000 years ago, and decide the evidence points to then instead? Just get all the religious leaders to pull this massive scam again, make up some evidence in the Bible, say the world is 18k years old, and see the evidence flood in. Pun intended.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:27:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.

You don't need science for that...Logic suffices.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:27:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.

+1
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:39:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand why some people think science and religion are at odds. They're really not.

I can believe in science and believe in God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:41:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Life experience will tell you that nearly everyone you encounter is full of shyt, either because they like to brag, exaggerate, make up stories, or jump to conclusions without having sufficient evidence to have a reasonable degree of certainty.

Jesus laid his hands on people, healing them of their untreatable physical ailments, walked on water, turned water into wine, never sinned, is God in the flesh, and rose from the dead after being dead for 3 days... for YOUR sins.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:45:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:27:14 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.

You don't need science for that...Logic suffices.

Logic is only words amigo, not definitive proof. In mafia, we can put together a perfectly logical case for someone being scum, but most of the time we're wrong.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:46:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:39:18 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't understand why some people think science and religion are at odds. They're really not.

I can believe in science and believe in God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.

I tend to agree with you on this, but you're right, there are many on both sides who say the two can't co-exist.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:49:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:41:23 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Life experience will tell you that nearly everyone you encounter is full of shyt, either because they like to brag, exaggerate, make up stories, or jump to conclusions without having sufficient evidence to have a reasonable degree of certainty.

Jesus laid his hands on people, healing them of their untreatable physical ailments, walked on water, turned water into wine, never sinned, is God in the flesh, and rose from the dead after being dead for 3 days... for YOUR sins.

Yes...*waits for the rest of the story* :)
Invalid
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 11:28:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.

I hardly "look down my nose" at anyone. I respect that everyone s entitled to an opinion, but that does not mean I have to agree with them. What I don't understand is how people can dismiss evidence so readily. Science may not be able to explain everything just yet, but that doesn't automatically make god the answer.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 11:39:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 11:28:31 AM, Invalid wrote:
At 6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.

I hardly "look down my nose" at anyone.

Sure you do. It's obvious from your OP that you see believers as ignorant, as many non-believers do.

I respect that everyone s entitled to an opinion, but that does not mean I have to agree with them.

You're right, you don't have to agree with our opinion. All you have to do is live with the fact that other people believe differently than you.

What I don't understand is how people can dismiss evidence so readily. Science may not be able to explain everything just yet, but that doesn't automatically make god the answer.

What evidence am I dismissing?? Where is all this empirical evidence that shows that God doesn't exist?? You have faith in science, I have faith in God. Neither of us can prove our side empirically, so on what grounds do you call me ignorant??
Invalid
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 12:40:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 11:39:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/10/2012 11:28:31 AM, Invalid wrote:
At 6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.

I hardly "look down my nose" at anyone.

Sure you do. It's obvious from your OP that you see believers as ignorant, as many non-believers do.

I respect that everyone s entitled to an opinion, but that does not mean I have to agree with them.

You're right, you don't have to agree with our opinion. All you have to do is live with the fact that other people believe differently than you.

What I don't understand is how people can dismiss evidence so readily. Science may not be able to explain everything just yet, but that doesn't automatically make god the answer.

What evidence am I dismissing?? Where is all this empirical evidence that shows that God doesn't exist?? You have faith in science, I have faith in God. Neither of us can prove our side empirically, so on what grounds do you call me ignorant??

I didn't say there was evidence disproving god's existence, only the unlikeliness of it. When scientific evidence contradicts biblical claims, which do you side with?

"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
- Dalai Lama XIV

When the Catholic church is so stubborn as to dismiss any contradictory evidence, would you not consider that ignorance?

Opinions are not people, I can hate the opinion but not the person just as you can hate the sin but not the sinner.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 12:57:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.

This.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 12:58:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
>>"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
- Dalai Lama XIV"

He thinks these kind of statements supports Buddhism but it actually undermines it. If he thinks the scientific method is superior to Buddhism then there is no reason to stay a Buddhist because he accepts the superiority of another ideology over his own. The next is to necessarily abandon the inferior one namely, Buddhism. He is hurting his ownself.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:01:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 12:58:11 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
>>"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
- Dalai Lama XIV"

He thinks these kind of statements supports Buddhism but it actually undermines it. If he thinks the scientific method is superior to Buddhism then there is no reason to stay a Buddhist because he accepts the superiority of another ideology over his own. The next is to necessarily abandon the inferior one namely, Buddhism. He is hurting his ownself.

I assume his answer would be that one can accept both science and Buddhism as complementary to one another. One does not have to discard Buddhism to embrace science.

So if science were to conclusively demonstrate that the Qu'ran is a work of man you would continue to be a Muslim nonetheless?
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:03:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
>>"When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing."

To prove definitively that God doesn't exist, one has to become supernatural. One cannot show that the supernatural doesn't exist without himself becoming supernatural.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:05:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:08:11 AM, Invalid wrote:
You would think that after all the discoveries humanity has made that contradict the original teachings of religion would make people realize that maybe following prehistoric beliefs isn't what we should be doing. But no, people still remain ignorant to what science is clearly telling us. I almost consider this an insult to humanity. Evidence is given putting the age of the Earth at 4.54 billion years old, and yet people wish to believe it is approximately 6,000 years old because some ancient book told them so. Religion in all forms was created to understand what was happening in the world around them. Being the curious beasts we are, through rational inquiry we eventually discovered, and continue to discover, what really causes these things. So why should religion have a place in this day and age?

I'd like to know what stakes science has on the discovery of metaphysical truths.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:05:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love how atheists abandon logical arguments for "evidence". When what they mean by "evidence" is ONLY empirical evidence.

Tell me, what empirical evidence is there of abiogenesis? Has abiogenesis been observed? Have mechanisms even been demonstrated (not hypothesized, demonstrated) that prove abiogenesis is possible? Have scientists created life in the lab, using conditions similar to prebiotic ones?

There is no evidence. The evidence that does exist leads us to the conclusion that life can not arise spontaneously because the reactions necessary to create the building blocks for life react with each other. *inb4 someone says the Miller-Urey is evidence of abiogenesis*

I love how such ultimate faith is put in science, when science has proven little in regards to things relevant to religion, and merely offered evidence that can be interpreted however you like. For example, such emphasis is placed on evolution. My God, what if evolution were proven wrong? As a theist, I really don't care. I don't believe in evolution, but do I need evolution to be wrong? No. Do atheists need evolution to be right? Yes. I get to follow the evidence wherever it leads, whereas atheists MUST search for evidence that supports their worldview. *inb4 someone says atheism isn't a worldview*

Atheism must be dogmatic. I can not follow the evidence wherever it leads. It must find evidence that supports its position and reject or ignore evidence that contradicts it.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:07:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.

Modern science presupposes naturalism without argument or justification. So it's no wonder why it's coming up with naturalistic answers. If science had a stake in metaphysics, it would seem its presuppositions make it question begging.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:07:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 12:57:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
*yawn*

PCP's jimmies remain unrustled by this thread.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:09:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:27:14 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/10/2012 10:24:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When science is so powerful, and definitive, that it can prove that God doesn't exist then people will stop believing. Until then, you might as well just learn how to live with people who have a different outlook on things, instead of looking down your nose at believers when you, yourself, don't have all the answers either.

You don't need science for that...Logic suffices.

How do we know logic is reliable? Isn't it a concept, yet a necessary concept? Can a contingent mind(s) ground all necessary concepts? How about a necessary all knower?

Hmm... it would appear logic itself requires a transcendent all knowing metaphysically necessary being.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:10:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:39:18 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't understand why some people think science and religion are at odds. They're really not.

I can believe in science and believe in God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.

I'm a working scientist & student in history & philosophy of science... I'm also a Christian. There's many like me & they live quite consistently with what they affirm.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:10:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
>>"I assume his answer would be that one can accept both science and Buddhism as complementary to one another. One does not have to discard Buddhism to embrace science."

His statement affirmed the superiority of science over Buddhism. His statement wasn't that they are both complementary but that science is superior to his religion. Therefore, he should abandon Buddhism since he believes it is inferior.

>>"So if science were to conclusively demonstrate that the Qu'ran is a work of man you would continue to be a Muslim nonetheless?"

That is impossible. Up to date there is no plausible natural explanation for the origin of the Quran. People have tried for centuries to determine the origin of the Quran and where Muhammad (peace and blessings be :upon him) obtained the profound knowledge of the Quran but to no avail. No scholars with him, minimal contact with Jews, and no translation of any bible into arabic. The best and most simplest explanation has always been for 1400 years from Allah.

Nearly the entire life of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) has been recorded in the 10,000s of hadiths and the seerah that we Muslims have today. We even know how much gray hairs Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) had before he died. Surely, for the 23 years that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was receiving revelation of the Quran one of his enemies or his devoted companions would have seen him constantly spending time with a knowledgable person? If Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was copying and borrowing the ENTIRE 23 years it would follow that someone would have caught him at least ONE time, but no one ever has. Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was truly receiving revelation from the almighty.

--> 87 of the surahs of the Quran were revealed in Mecca, the Jewish tribes were in Medina and the Christians were around Yemen, there was absolutely no Jewish or Christian tribes in Mecca.

--> This immediately reduces and restricts any theories of copying to Medinah. Coupled with all the points in my previous post, this nearly eradicates any suspicions of borrowing completely

--> Is it really plausible to assume that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) had an entire and vast array of knowledge ranging from Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Zoroastrian, Greek etc etc??
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:13:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 1:07:32 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

A lot of modern scientists presuppose naturalism without argument or justification. So it's no wonder why it's coming up with naturalistic answers. If science had a stake in metaphysics, it would seem its presuppositions make it question begging.

Fixed.

Inb4 someone tries to make the "success of naturalistic answers argument".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 1:15:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Isn't it impossible to prove naturalism 100% unless one becomes supernatural and sees that their truly is nothing beyond the natural world? I think this is self defeating.