First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Religion is Conjecture - The Ultimate Truth
Posted 5/14/12
People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!
Posted 5/14/12

Ahbnaux wrote:

People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!
Like I said, according to the rationale of creationism, God is the original monkey to the extreme.

Comparing to evolution, one is a joke and the other is a working theory. Guess which is which.
12377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/14/12 , edited 5/14/12
According to many religions, such divine beings are spiritual. Our senses can't possibly perceive them. That also means that one CAN'T be sure that no gods exist. Being so certain that something does not exist because you don't perceive it is a flawed way to think. That being said, since we can't see, hear, smell, feel, or taste spirits (not the beverage), we also do not have a valid reason to say that they exist for sure. That leaves us with one statement: We don't know.

Agnosticism ftw
Posted 5/15/12

DomFortress wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:

People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!
Like I said, according to the rationale of creationism, God is the original monkey to the extreme.

Comparing to evolution, one is a joke and the other is a working theory. Guess which is which.


Religion being the obvious joke. Evolution is the working theory which makes a great deal of sense compared to ghost worship.
23322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 5/15/12 , edited 5/15/12
Except that reality is not contingent upon the existence of empirical evidence one way or the other. Truth is truth whether you accept it or not. Religion is conjectural, but so is science, since it too must operate under a set of unprovable philosophical assumptions. I should also point out that in no way have I implied that science and religion are incompatible.
25054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 5/15/12

Ahbnaux wrote:

People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!


Dear Abhnaux

Your contention is that:

a) There is no proof for God.
b) That scriptural writings do not offer proof.
c) There are no sightings of the supernatural
d) Lack of proof means that Religion is conjecture

Does this clear up your points? Does this reflect what you are saying?

Are you seriously interested in this topic and do you mean to discuss it with a good will? I mean, are you trolling for emotional responses by using polemic language, or are you seriously starting a discussion with polemics for people to comment on?

Posted 5/15/12

Holofernes wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:

People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!


Dear Abhnaux

Your contention is that:

a) There is no proof for God.
b) That scriptural writings do not offer proof.
c) There are no sightings of the supernatural
d) Lack of proof means that Religion is conjecture

Does this clear up your points? Does this reflect what you are saying?

Are you seriously interested in this topic and do you mean to discuss it with a good will? I mean, are you trolling for emotional responses by using polemic language, or are you seriously starting a discussion with polemics for people to comment on?



Consider the topic to be what you like. Your God-given right to your opinion matters here.
12377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/15/12 , edited 5/15/12

Ahbnaux wrote:


Holofernes wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:

People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!


Dear Abhnaux

Your contention is that:

a) There is no proof for God.
b) That scriptural writings do not offer proof.
c) There are no sightings of the supernatural
d) Lack of proof means that Religion is conjecture

Does this clear up your points? Does this reflect what you are saying?

Are you seriously interested in this topic and do you mean to discuss it with a good will? I mean, are you trolling for emotional responses by using polemic language, or are you seriously starting a discussion with polemics for people to comment on?



Consider the topic to be what you like. Your God-given right to your opinion matters here.


I strongly recommend that you clarify what you mean. Discussions such as these need to have clear boundaries. Just because someone is pointing out potential flaws in an argument does not mean that person is on the side that you're against. If someone began a topic like this simply to flame people for being religious, for instance, that does not really contribute much to the knowledge pool. And it would make such a person, well....a pretentious douche.

That being said, I'd also like to say that it is extremely difficult to prove that something DOES NOT exist. The fact that nobody has seen or experienced something does not mean it surely does not exist.
Posted 5/15/12

Morbidhanson wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:


Holofernes wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:

People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!


Dear Abhnaux

Your contention is that:

a) There is no proof for God.
b) That scriptural writings do not offer proof.
c) There are no sightings of the supernatural
d) Lack of proof means that Religion is conjecture

Does this clear up your points? Does this reflect what you are saying?

Are you seriously interested in this topic and do you mean to discuss it with a good will? I mean, are you trolling for emotional responses by using polemic language, or are you seriously starting a discussion with polemics for people to comment on?



Consider the topic to be what you like. Your God-given right to your opinion matters here.


I strongly recommend that you clarify what you mean. Discussions such as these need to have clear boundaries. Just because someone is pointing out potential flaws in an argument does not mean that person is on the side that you're against. If someone began a topic like this simply to flame people for being religious, for instance, that does not really contribute much to the knowledge pool.

That being said, I'd also like to say that it is extremely difficult to prove that something DOES NOT exist. The fact that nobody has seen something does not mean it surely does not exist.


Concerning the existence of spirituality, we see it as ideas in book form. Outside of that, hallucinations can be difficult to tell apart from reality, due to how the brain utilizes stored information to create some kind of sensory experience. Psychosis, delirium, insanity. Cannot prove religion within thousands of years, then it will remain the same for thousands more.

Conjecture. Overruled. Case dismissed.
12377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/15/12 , edited 5/15/12

Ahbnaux wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:


Holofernes wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:

People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!


Dear Abhnaux

Your contention is that:

a) There is no proof for God.
b) That scriptural writings do not offer proof.
c) There are no sightings of the supernatural
d) Lack of proof means that Religion is conjecture

Does this clear up your points? Does this reflect what you are saying?

Are you seriously interested in this topic and do you mean to discuss it with a good will? I mean, are you trolling for emotional responses by using polemic language, or are you seriously starting a discussion with polemics for people to comment on?



Consider the topic to be what you like. Your God-given right to your opinion matters here.


I strongly recommend that you clarify what you mean. Discussions such as these need to have clear boundaries. Just because someone is pointing out potential flaws in an argument does not mean that person is on the side that you're against. If someone began a topic like this simply to flame people for being religious, for instance, that does not really contribute much to the knowledge pool.

That being said, I'd also like to say that it is extremely difficult to prove that something DOES NOT exist. The fact that nobody has seen something does not mean it surely does not exist.


Concerning the existence of spirituality, we see it as ideas in book form. Outside of that, hallucinations can be difficult to tell apart from reality, due to how the brain utilizes stored information to create some kind of sensory experience. Psychosis, delirium, insanity. Cannot prove religion within thousands of years, then it will remain the same for thousands more.

Conjecture. Overruled. Case dismissed.

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven.

Can you prove that gods and spirits and such DO NOT exist? Being unable to prove something does not mean that the said 'something' can be necessarily be disproved. If something cannot be disproved, there are chances (albeit usually very small chances) that a conjecture might actually be true.

To be clear, I will say that I somewhat agree with you that religions are conjectures. But, after acknowledging that, it begs the question: So what? Religions are conjectures....okay, now what? The topic is dangling. It is like a sentence that has only been half-written. I am interested in your stance. You could elaborate?
Posted 5/15/12

Morbidhanson wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:


Holofernes wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:

People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!


Dear Abhnaux

Your contention is that:

a) There is no proof for God.
b) That scriptural writings do not offer proof.
c) There are no sightings of the supernatural
d) Lack of proof means that Religion is conjecture

Does this clear up your points? Does this reflect what you are saying?

Are you seriously interested in this topic and do you mean to discuss it with a good will? I mean, are you trolling for emotional responses by using polemic language, or are you seriously starting a discussion with polemics for people to comment on?



Consider the topic to be what you like. Your God-given right to your opinion matters here.


I strongly recommend that you clarify what you mean. Discussions such as these need to have clear boundaries. Just because someone is pointing out potential flaws in an argument does not mean that person is on the side that you're against. If someone began a topic like this simply to flame people for being religious, for instance, that does not really contribute much to the knowledge pool.

That being said, I'd also like to say that it is extremely difficult to prove that something DOES NOT exist. The fact that nobody has seen something does not mean it surely does not exist.


Concerning the existence of spirituality, we see it as ideas in book form. Outside of that, hallucinations can be difficult to tell apart from reality, due to how the brain utilizes stored information to create some kind of sensory experience. Psychosis, delirium, insanity. Cannot prove religion within thousands of years, then it will remain the same for thousands more.

Conjecture. Overruled. Case dismissed.

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven.

Can you prove that gods and spirits and such DO NOT exist? Being unable to prove something does not mean that the said 'something' can be necessarily be disproved. If something cannot be disproved, there are chances (albeit usually very small chances) that a conjecture might actually be true.

To be clear, I will say that I somewhat agree with you that religions are conjectures. But, after acknowledging that, it begs the question: So what? Religions are conjectures....okay, now what? The topic is dangling. It is like a sentence that has only been half-written. I am interested in your stance. You could elaborate?


It remains at a standstill. I will leave whosoever comes along to this thread to debate it as they see fit.

As for me, religion will remain as conjecture permanently, but I also lean slightly towards the slight possibility of people eventually giving up spirituality in favor of a "what you see it what you get" philosophy. I doubt, however, that we will be rid of people creating religions just to control others with a slave morality designed to stimulate their reward systems. "Opium of the masses" as Marx put it, if you will.
12377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/16/12

Ahbnaux wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:


Holofernes wrote:


Ahbnaux wrote:

People can think something is true all they like, yet without evidence, there is no truth. Disproving isn't necessary when there hasn't been a single sighting of any god in the flesh regardless of what some holy scripture says.

"But, it said such and such in this book."

Go dig me up some angel bones. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T!


Dear Abhnaux

Your contention is that:

a) There is no proof for God.
b) That scriptural writings do not offer proof.
c) There are no sightings of the supernatural
d) Lack of proof means that Religion is conjecture

Does this clear up your points? Does this reflect what you are saying?

Are you seriously interested in this topic and do you mean to discuss it with a good will? I mean, are you trolling for emotional responses by using polemic language, or are you seriously starting a discussion with polemics for people to comment on?



Consider the topic to be what you like. Your God-given right to your opinion matters here.


I strongly recommend that you clarify what you mean. Discussions such as these need to have clear boundaries. Just because someone is pointing out potential flaws in an argument does not mean that person is on the side that you're against. If someone began a topic like this simply to flame people for being religious, for instance, that does not really contribute much to the knowledge pool.

That being said, I'd also like to say that it is extremely difficult to prove that something DOES NOT exist. The fact that nobody has seen something does not mean it surely does not exist.


Concerning the existence of spirituality, we see it as ideas in book form. Outside of that, hallucinations can be difficult to tell apart from reality, due to how the brain utilizes stored information to create some kind of sensory experience. Psychosis, delirium, insanity. Cannot prove religion within thousands of years, then it will remain the same for thousands more.

Conjecture. Overruled. Case dismissed.

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven.

Can you prove that gods and spirits and such DO NOT exist? Being unable to prove something does not mean that the said 'something' can be necessarily be disproved. If something cannot be disproved, there are chances (albeit usually very small chances) that a conjecture might actually be true.

To be clear, I will say that I somewhat agree with you that religions are conjectures. But, after acknowledging that, it begs the question: So what? Religions are conjectures....okay, now what? The topic is dangling. It is like a sentence that has only been half-written. I am interested in your stance. You could elaborate?


It remains at a standstill. I will leave whosoever comes along to this thread to debate it as they see fit.

As for me, religion will remain as conjecture permanently, but I also lean slightly towards the slight possibility of people eventually giving up spirituality in favor of a "what you see it what you get" philosophy. I doubt, however, that we will be rid of people creating religions just to control others with a slave morality designed to stimulate their reward systems. "Opium of the masses" as Marx put it, if you will.


Ah, I see. I suppose this is why science is gaining favor over religion. But, at the same time, there is no way to quench people's thirst for knowledge by providing rock-solid proof. I believe religion is a way for people to explain the phenomena going on around them. And people hate coming to the conclusion that they don't know or that they cannot know. As living creatures, most also fear death. Religion also provides ways for people to accept death by creating the idea of an afterlife.
5349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 5/16/12
"Go dig up some angel bones"

That is such a stupid argument

First off I'm not a Christian, and I'm not really sure what I believe in. Also, I tend to lean toward the side that can actually back up their theories with evidence.

Your argument is without a doubt, the WORST I have ever seen when it comes to religious debate. So congrats for that.

First of all, why would you find angel bones anyway? Angels, if they exist, live in heaven, and are most likely immortal, since they are eternal servants of God. So why would you find fossilized corpses ON EARTH?

Secondly, you need to see something to believe in it?

I have spoken with people that BELIEVE they've seen Elvis...as in within a couple years. So by your logic, Elvis is clearly alive, because he has been sighted.
Posted 5/16/12

MarshallDTeach wrote:

"Go dig up some angel bones"

That is such a stupid argument

First off I'm not a Christian, and I'm not really sure what I believe in. Also, I tend to lean toward the side that can actually back up their theories with evidence.

Your argument is without a doubt, the WORST I have ever seen when it comes to religious debate. So congrats for that.

First of all, why would you find angel bones anyway? Angels, if they exist, live in heaven, and are most likely immortal, since they are eternal servants of God. So why would you find fossilized corpses ON EARTH?

Secondly, you need to see something to believe in it?

I have spoken with people that BELIEVE they've seen Elvis...as in within a couple years. So by your logic, Elvis is clearly alive, because he has been sighted.


Bu your logic, you have completely and utterly misinterpreted my post.

I won't call your special education teacher about it though.
5349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 5/17/12

Ahbnaux wrote:


MarshallDTeach wrote:

"Go dig up some angel bones"

That is such a stupid argument

First off I'm not a Christian, and I'm not really sure what I believe in. Also, I tend to lean toward the side that can actually back up their theories with evidence.

Your argument is without a doubt, the WORST I have ever seen when it comes to religious debate. So congrats for that.

First of all, why would you find angel bones anyway? Angels, if they exist, live in heaven, and are most likely immortal, since they are eternal servants of God. So why would you find fossilized corpses ON EARTH?

Secondly, you need to see something to believe in it?

I have spoken with people that BELIEVE they've seen Elvis...as in within a couple years. So by your logic, Elvis is clearly alive, because he has been sighted.


Bu your logic, you have completely and utterly misinterpreted my post.

I won't call your special education teacher about it though.


Oh really? Explain yourself then. EXPLAIN the misinterpretation where I COMPLETELY tore apart your flawed and terrible logic.

And while you are explaining, don't misquote me or twist my words to make it suit your explanation, either, or you're just going to make yourself look even more ridiculous (if that is even possible)

So, let's see if you're going to back this up, or if this was just a pathetic lashing out complete with grade-school level insults
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.