Does the scientific inaccuracies in the bible quran torah etc prove religion/god is fake?

Posted by: dietorangesoda

Just wondering i believe it does

Vote
23 Total Votes
1

No

14 votes
4 comments
2

Yes

8 votes
1 comment
3

Maybe

1 vote
0 comments
4

Other

0 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2015-09-12T13:27:48.3850134Z
Inb4 flame war
dietorangesoda says2015-09-12T13:37:48.1335887Z
What flame war? Everyone knows its true
TBR says2015-09-12T16:27:06.1936562Z
The inaccuracies and problems with the religious texts do nothing to disprove a god, only the issues with the basis of the religions.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-12T17:16:01.3524712Z
But if the texts are wrong it's pretty safe to assume it's all wrong
TBR says2015-09-12T17:27:54.8542449Z
@dietorangesoda - You are jumping over a big part. Saying any or all religions are "wrong" using this logic is reasonable. You have answer the first question. The second, is there a god, is not as easy. If correct in the first question, you have eliminated all religions as wrong, not answered the second.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-12T17:39:49.3988991Z
But religion is the very thing that created this God person so therefore he couldn't exist because clearly these religions are flawed
dietorangesoda says2015-09-12T17:44:03.9506259Z
@utherpenguin are u kidding me? The bible is littered in scientific inaccuracies starting from the very beginning in genesis it states god created 2 lights on earth the moon and sun however if you know about science then you know the moon is not a light at all but rather it is the sun reflecting on the moon from behind so there's only 1 light and that is the sun boom right there the bible is wrong and the quran is no different the quran states that sperm is in the backbone and ribs rather then the testicles ummm wrong quran also states that the sun sets in a murky or muddly pool of water ummm wrong it also claims that humans were created from a clot of blood well that's just ummmm wrong so yeah tons of them there buddy
TBR says2015-09-12T17:44:28.8332639Z
Just playing a little devils advocate here. Let's say you are right, and you convince every religious person in the world that all religious texts are fundamentally flawed. They agree to toss them all out. Now, the same group says, "but there IS a God". How do you prove them wrong?
dietorangesoda says2015-09-12T17:51:21.6244626Z
By stating that god was simply a creation of these religions prophets and such created these religions by stating the existence of a god and then creating rules around them so therefore argument is invalid for god since your literally taking a piece of religion that you agree is flawed and only believing in the one little piece
TBR says2015-09-12T18:01:58.2097703Z
You are, unfortunately, still stuck around the religion. Toss it out first, and ask the question again. They have agreed with you. The statements of the holy books are gone. They now say, "there is a god" with no books to reference, no old dogma. Just the new and un-disprovable assertion "yes, but there is a god". How do you disprove that.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-12T18:05:26.2294767Z
I'm stuck on the religion because literally the only thing that hints at god is religion no other book or texts talk about god you can't have god without religion plain and simple so to deny your fallible holy books is to deny god the fact of the matter is religion is a black and white issue if one thing is wrong everything is wrong and the bible is clearly man made quran is too despite what muslims think and god is only a product of religion
TBR says2015-09-12T18:07:46.8475095Z
Look, these people are not unicorns. There are plenty of people that reject all the books, all the religions by name, and still believe in a god or God. Go to a Unitarian church some time. They are a fun group of people... Really. Just a bundle of fun, because not ONE of them agree on what god is. Each and every one of them will give you a completely different answers, including a good chunk of them saying "there is no god". Where you will find consensus is that they will mostly agree that each of these books are the flawed writings of man. They are not perfectly, accurate, the way you should live. They are just books.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-12T18:11:58.1507890Z
And yet they are deriving their beliefs on these so called flawed books in their opinions by still believing in a god if you were raised ignorant of all religions do you think you'd believe in god? Or would you most likely be an athiest? I'm guessing the latter because nobody chooses god on their own it is indoctrinated in them by their religions babies and young toddlers profess no such beliefs it's their parents that turn them into christians jews muslim etc so once again proving my point without religion there'd be no god
TBR says2015-09-12T18:18:18.3205007Z
"if you were raised ignorant of all religions do you think you'd believe in god?" - Generally I don't think so. However, without the books - the religions - many people would still raise children thinking about a god. There is no doubt in my that the religions and books are... Flawed works. However, when anyone asks me to prove there is no god, I wouldn't be as arrogant as to say I could. Not because I think there just may be a god who will be pissed at me, but because it is an impossible task. Disprove the unprovable. There is no logical way to design the proof of non-existence that addresses the super-natural. Just that it is "more likely".
dietorangesoda says2015-09-12T18:26:55.9521441Z
Well exactly you can't prove god because you can't prove something that there's no evidence for for instance i can't prove santa doesn't exist because there's no evidence that he does science can only prove the observable and god isn't so it makes no logical sense that people are basing their entire lives on a creator that there's literally no evidence for
TBR says2015-09-12T18:31:24.7522651Z
Welcome to the concept of agnosticism.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-12T18:37:33.6237231Z
Agnosticism is wrong on so many levels sorry but to "think" there may be a god simply because there no physical proof is well stupid most people would logically conclude due to lack of evidence that there isn't one can i say that there "might" be a Santa Claus because there's no evidence he doesn't exist or if i get accused of a crime and there no physical evidence that i did it can we conclude that i might have done it and lock me up anyways just in case of course not
58539672 says2015-09-12T20:59:56.9385962Z
@dietorangesoda So you are saying that because their is now evidence, then it does not exist? That in of itself is make a decision without any available evidence, which is against the scientific method. If no evidence (data) is available, then no conclusion can be made. That is how science works.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-13T02:20:01.3290991Z
I don't believe in things without proof
58539672 says2015-09-13T02:32:36.8513573Z
@dietorangesoda That is fine. Believe whatever you want. But do not say that your choice is backed by science. Your unshakable faith in the lack of a God is the same as a religious mans unshakable faith in His existence. Both don't have a scrape of evidence to support their hypothesis.
TBR says2015-09-13T02:44:42.9770891Z
@dietorangesoda - That is a complete mistake. Being agnostic does not mean you think there may be a god. I don't usually call myself agnostic anything. I am simply an atheists. But, if you look at what agnostic atheists is, it is not some soft position.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-13T06:34:45.0848311Z
Really science doesn't have a scrape of evidence in it's favor oh let's see evolution the big bang planets germs microbes antibiotics and sooo many other things proven by science i could probably make a 20 page list if i had the time of all things science with evidence has proven what the hell has religion proven? Certainly not god not germs not evolution not medicine not any progress whatsoever yes i do have a faith in science because science is the only thing that has ever given me proof of the answers to my questions almost everything religion explains about has been dis proven by science starting with how the earth was formed and how humans came to be so yeah science all the way
58539672 says2015-09-13T15:14:38.4517024Z
@dietorangesoda Not a single thing you just listed disproved the existence of God. Even the Big Bang theory only states how the galaxy was formed (from singularity), not who or what created it. They even state that in the original theory that they don't know how singularity formed or what came before it. All your "evidence" can easily be used to disprove a religion, but it is scientifically impossible to disprove God.
TBR says2015-09-13T15:35:04.8067636Z
@dietorangesoda - It is a very simple concept. Try this. Design an experiment to super-natural. Do you see the inherent flaw? Simply put, science simply can not test anything that is beyond the laws of nature. You and I may agree that there simply IS nothing past the natural. Problem is, we can't prove that, and believers insist it is true. We have reached an impasse. When 58539672 says ~"science has nothing to disprove a god" he is absolutely right. Science can only deal with the natural. His claim, as specious as I feel it is, has equal grounds with mine. We are both lacking the "data" to use science for the question one-way or the other.
Vox_Veritas says2015-09-13T19:38:37.7465724Z
Loaded question.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-15T03:29:27.8013754Z
I get what your saying however we all agree that these book are flawed you know the books that claim there is a god have been proven to be scientifically incorrect so when saying i don't believe in religion i believe in god you are essentially saying i believe the books are flawed except for one little piece the piece about god's existence but surely a book about god would be all knowing and all telling and it obviously isn't like i said religion is all or nothing you either believe in the whole book or you believe none of it and since this book is flawed i would say the latter is the only logical thing to do
chandlerrouse says2015-09-15T03:57:11.3492391Z
Gott ist tot
BaxterDebate says2015-09-18T10:25:29.0463716Z
At one point, science said the earth was flat and a waterfall signified the edge of the world. Electricity was sorcery, radiation, the colour spectrum, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles... Science is only as authoritative as those who interpret it. The big Bang theory is flawed and inconclusive (it can not be proven) ; it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does a creation theory. All scientific texts contain errors therefore there is no science? Yes not all religious texts are accurate. Since there is only one God, it is inevitable that the majority of texts that state, this god over that god, will be wrong. Much the same way a number of scientist theorize that this is how or that is how, and later another one comes along and says it is this way because "I wrote a paper about it". Dietorangesoda, you seem to be fighting really hard to stand on an absolute that has no foundation. A true believer in the scientific process should be open to accepting that there is no absolutes, and when the techniques become available, what is super-natural has an explanation. Even if that explanation is; God created things in such a was as to have his very existence proven through the exploration and understanding of his creations (Light, Time, Gravity, Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, etc.) Aside: your light argument is uneducated, Genesis 1:16 "God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night." He made the Sun and the Moon, When you look up at the sky do you see two great lights? So far its accurate. The Sun is the greater, it provides the brightest light and a source of light, True. The moon is the lesser, lesser because it is not a source but a reflection yet the same light is cast on the earth, but in a diminished capacity, Bible is looking accurate still. These books are written for the general populous of 2000 years ago, not scientist. Don't expect God to conform to your limited understanding of science, let alone write you the scientists Bible. "But if the texts are wrong it's pretty safe to assume it's all wrong," "But religion is the very thing that created this God person so therefore he couldn't exist because clearly these religions are flawed" You might want to address your assumptions as they are fundamentally wrong. God created man, man created religion... If man creates flawed books to support their religion, it has nothing to do with God.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-18T12:11:06.2314382Z
Ok 1st of all how do u know there is only 1 god? Hindu's for example worship many as did the Greeks Romans Persians Assyrians and Babylonians this is clear you only believe that because it is written in a holy text that you believe is correct but belief does not equal knowledge or evidence and as far as the big bang theory goes yes it's true that we can't prove but you also gravity is also a theory as well but would you not say that it is true? And as far as the genesis verse goes once again your interpreting it using a modern knowledge of science but instead we should interpret it how 4 century nomadic tribes did since they are the ones writing the books of course in those days they saw the moon as being a light people has no idea where the sun went at night the qu'ran claims that the sun sets in a murky pool of water for example chances are the men saw the moon shining at night and believed it was a source of light its obvious to me this is what that verse is entailing and actually i agree on your last point that man created religion yes he sure did and in regards to the bible qu'ran Torah and a few others man in his most primitive and scientifically ignorant state created these religions which people in the 21st century with at least a basic knowledge of science are still following which boggles my mind you just don't seem to get as many do not religion is an all or nothing issue Muslims seem to get that they say that if science proves the qu'ran wrong they'll throw it out and by wrong i don't mean the wrong that science has already proven it because Muslims just twist their verses to suit the science but conclusively wrong to which there could be no twisting only other religions fail to see religions as that possibly due to reformations in them that Islam has not had but regardless my argument still stands
BaxterDebate says2015-09-21T10:45:42.5989719Z
First and foremost, I do not deny that other holy books have inaccuracies as far as science goes, however, according to your own rebuttal, “your interpreting it using a modern knowledge of science but instead we should interpret it how 4 century nomadic tribes did since they are the ones writing the books” You’ve just thrown out your entire argument. If I cannot refute using modern science, how is it that you can? As for the Qur’an, I cannot attest to anything in it, and tho the language is meant to be poetic, I feel there are a million contradictions and fallacies riddled throughout the text. However, the Bible and Torah (of which the Pentateuch consists of the first 5 books of the bible), was not written by 4th century nomads, and if you did your research you would find that it is chalked full of scientific principles that were beyond the knowledge of the time. Lev 17:11 “The life is in the Blood,” written 3,000 years ago, Science up until 120 years ago was still bloodletting, a practice that resulted in how many deaths? Ecc 1:5-7 “The sun rises and the sun sets and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.” Pretty accurate for 950ishBC Isa 40:22 "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" Look at that, a round earth… science discovered this when? Job 26:7 “…He suspends the earth over nothing,” written between 1440-950BC at that time the nomads thought that the earth was carried on the back of a large creature or was it Atlas… Heb 11:3 “By Faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Looks like the Bible knew about atoms before it was cool. Before you go ranting about the universe being created by God, remember that you said “…as far as the big bang theory goes yes it's true that we can't prove but you also gravity is also a theory as well but would you not say that it is true?” 66 books written by 40+ authors in 3 different languages and 3 different continents, over 1,600 years… yet it all weaves together seamlessly to paint the same picture and give the same truth. Computers and coders are still finding hidden messages in the older texts. Again I am not speaking on behave of the Muslims, or any other religion or holy book. When it comes to the Bible, I feel, if your science can not explain God (yet) you need to keep working on it until you catch up, like all of the other scientists of their times. Scientific inaccuracies in other hold books do stand to disprove the existence of those gods. However, do not toss out the existence of mine, just becasue, like gravity, I know he exists, you just haven't found a way to prove it. (or disprove for that matter)
dietorangesoda says2015-09-21T11:05:50.0014660Z
Actually i can refute these books using science because science gives proof these books do not so basically what your saying is the bible and torah are true but not the quran you know that's is the weirdest phenomenon i've seen in religious people where they can see the delusions of other religions but fail to see it in their own religious convictions blinding their logic obviously the men who wrote the bible were 4th century nomadic tribes we know this historically we also know at this time science was virtually nonexistent so these men would have been incredibly ignorant by todays standards the bible never states that the earth is round if anything it obviously believes the earth is like in these verses Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" Isaiah 45:18: “...Who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast that one verse you speak of talks about the earth being a circle but earth is not a circle it is a sphere so once again the bible is wrong in fact the first people to believe in earth being round would be the ancient greeks but many did not believe it which might explain why the men in the bible didn't take their theories very seriously the fact of the matter is the bible is false no getting around it
BaxterDebate says2015-09-21T12:39:16.4200044Z
Moses wrote the Pentateuch and he died in 1273BCE. King Solomon, who authored Ecclesiastics, The Song of Solomon (songs), and the majority of Proverbs, Lived in 950BCE. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all died before 70AD. Could you tell me when the 4th century nomads who wrote the Bible lived and why they are taking credit for other people’s work? The Bible was not written as a scientific text, although it contains some scientific principles, so your claim; “Actually i can refute these books using science because science gives proof these books do not,” is no more valid than saying that Science proves that cooking if fake because science gives proof that “Cooking with Martha Stewart,” fails to offer (and not because she is a 4th century nomad). Speaking of which, in claiming that 4th century nomads are “incredibly ignorant by today’s standards,” you only strengthen my case when the bible does speak about scientific principles (because a king from 950BC must have been really ignorant then huh?). Hey dietorangesoda if you were to hold a ball and shake it, would your hands not grasp on equal ends of the sphere? Could it not be said that you are holding the ends where the spheres curves meet given the polar opposite position of your mitts? Read the first half of that verse, as it explains that God was the one who created our atmosphere and set limits on where there would be ocean and land and kept the oceans from flowing off into space. Here’s a fun notion, maybe science cannot prove gravity, because it is God who holds everything together and we're just a tribe of 21st century nomads. Your proof from Isaiah says he is the foundation that holds it together. The only difference between your faith in science and mine in God is that, I have the answers that your science has yet to offer: The creation of the universe, how we got the “laws of Nature” and why they all work in harmony, why the vast difference between the protons allows for solid mass, Energy, bio-mechanics, why the simple cell is irreducibly complex and could not have happened by chance. Just because you do not understand something only proves how little you actually know. Today’s science is incredible, and if you worked off the foundation that there was a creator, you would be so far ahead of the false conclusions you have been grasping at to try and buffalo your point. On a side note… English is a thing, please use punctuation when you speak it.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-25T14:38:18.6320760Z
If the bible is so great and true why does it state that homosexuality is an abomination and that they should be put to death newsflash being gay isn't a choice and is very common in nature wouldn't god know that? After all he created gay people so why would they be a sin? Also how do you explain adam and eve? When science clearly contradicts that whole story wouldn't god know all about evolution and the common ancestor or did he just happened to skip that part out? The bible is made up by a bunch of bronze age men to explain the then unexplainable but we have science now to do that
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-25T19:48:36.0103389Z
"newsflash being gay isn't a choice and is very common in nature wouldn't god know that? After all he created gay people so why would they be a sin?" Maybe you got your premise wrong? Maybe it is a choice as much as anything else is. Maybe everyone is attracted to all other things (Man, woman, and beast) to some extent. Maybe being gay isnt a line in the sand. The vast spectrum that LGBT has created to encompass all these different forms is proof of that. So if we are all one type of person ... And you decide that the pros outweigh the cons as far as engaging in homosexual activity ... That choice is what defines you. You probably shouldnt try to lean on your genetics to justify this ... Since people who want to be homosexual usually also dont want those genetics to be in question for being degenerate to the human race.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-25T19:51:01.7008050Z
"The bible is made up by a bunch of bronze age men to explain the then unexplainable but we have science now to do that" Do you ever wonder what might have led bronze age men to come to those conclusions? The human condition has not changed since then, you know. Philosophy is always relevant ... No matter the age.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-25T21:12:19.7274214Z
What led them to conclude it is they were ignorant and didn't know any better
BaxterDebate says2015-09-28T10:29:53.4296693Z
For someone who believes so strongly in science, Orange, you think very much like someone who is stuck in a box. All you have is the work of other people to justify your hatred of religion. Want to know a little secret about your science... Its all made up. Mankind has been crating this godless religion for a very long time, taking credit for the natural laws that God has put into play so that this ecosystem would survive. When they find something they like, they put it into a book, write papers about it and teach it in their schools until it becomes truth. When they find something that doesn't line up, they dismiss it as an anomaly or excuse it as an unknown until they can make something up to explain it or just bury it along with anyone who dares to teach it. Sure the math lines up but only because man made math, they set the laws to govern it, and they can change the laws to support their views. Sounds a lot like your argument against holy books. *NEWSFLASH* Homosexuality goes against your scientific principle of evolution and survival of the fittest. If left to their own devices, homosexuals would die out from disease, and inability to reproduce. If indeed there is a homosexual variant in the human gene pool, by natural selection we as a species should allow it to die out so that it does not threaten our future. The fact that we have embraced it and normalized it, goes against the science that is written in our text books, there by proving that science is a fake. (that is your argument for Religion and God is it not?)
dietorangesoda says2015-09-28T11:10:15.7506515Z
Science is fake? Are you retarded? Science is what explains our natural world it is what helps us discover and develop all the wonderful things that we enjoy today many of the things you use that device your writing on was created by science the car you drive to was created by science and another thing man doesn't simply make up science there's this thing called scientific process you might want to look it up scientists don't just pull things out of their butt in order for something to be proven as fact it has to be tested over and over again or there has to be surmountable evidence such as evolution homosexuality is found in many species including humans not everyone will have it so there will still be straight people reproducing many scientists believe that homosexuality is actually nature's population control so we don't overbreed ourselves it is a completely natural thing and should be normalized and yes your right science does change laws and things because science is an ever changing process something religion is incapable of and so remains stuck in time science is progress
BaxterDebate says2015-09-28T13:04:04.7291866Z
“Does the scientific inaccuracies in the bible quran torah etc prove religion/god is fake?” “Does the scientific inaccuracies in text books, journals, and papers prove science is fake?”
dietorangesoda says2015-09-28T13:20:32.3278566Z
Science isn't claiming to be infallible like religion is
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T13:54:54.6406265Z
I dont think religious people are claiming they are either. They do their best to follow. God's the only one they claim to be infallible. The expectation is that priests/popes/etc. Are following gods word a bit more closely than the rest of us. None of them though are claiming to be without sin, though. I think the only religion that claims someone to be above all sin (or at least what that religion equates to sin) is Buddhism. The only religion out there that makes claim that a human being of this earth can transcend the rest of us. Christianity recognizes the fact that every human is with sin and that never goes away all the way up till the day you die and are judged.
BaxterDebate says2015-09-28T14:39:22.0634033Z
If I understand you correctly, because we have a population surplus (globally) the human race has developed a homosexual gene that will cause members of the human race to abandon procreation but still continue the act of sexual contact. And this is surmountable evidence that proves evolution is correct? How is it those communities that are not locally suffering from a population surplus, are developing these genocidal variants? Am I to believe that evolution has some sort of global conscience that can alter DNA to create a population control fail safe? If this is so, what determined the number? When exactly did evolution decide that this was a good idea to have and start breeding it into humanity? Why is it found globally? Shouldn’t it be Isolated to those areas effected by overpopulation? If this is so, your evolutionary science is just as cruel as any god, sterilizing it’s populous and introducing devastating disease and plagues brought about by sexual habits that are part of natural selection. Funny how science has to be testable, provable, and repeatable except in the case where it cannot be, then it’s enough that people interpret facts that they determine are relevant and use that as “Evidence” that they are correct. You stated “ But if the texts are wrong it's pretty safe to assume it's all wrong,” Your Scientific text books are also wrong and contain bad science, if the same assumption cannot be applied to your own proof, than your hypnosis is wrong and you must reevaluate. According to your scientific process
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T15:03:01.6072205Z
"If this is so, what determined the number? When exactly did evolution decide that this was a good idea to have and start breeding it into humanity? Why is it found globally?" I cant attest to what number exactly ... But it is obvious there is a correlation between the extraneous elements of social living and the population count. With more workers and increased efficiency there is more time for others to explore fluff like this. It is why the rates of people who are homosexual and total population do not line up.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T15:03:23.6660447Z
"If this is so, what determined the number? When exactly did evolution decide that this was a good idea to have and start breeding it into humanity? Why is it found globally?" I cant attest to what number exactly ... But it is obvious there is a correlation between the extraneous elements of social living and the population count. With more workers and increased efficiency there is more time for others to explore fluff like this. It is why the rates of people who are homosexual and total population do not line up.
dietorangesoda says2015-09-30T10:30:01.8085351Z
This is simply one of the theories for homosexuality and no it wouldn't affect only china or india say because nature is not literally looking at overpopulated areas just the human species if you want to know more about homosexuality and biology i recommend this video by richard dawkins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQlw4PpDs4o hope that helps
Hyde1 says2016-05-25T17:14:45.2409978Z
Science and history contradict religion

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.