First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Proving/Disproving Religion
Irrius 
14199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/10/14 , edited 8/10/14
it cannot be proven or disproven.
Posted 8/10/14 , edited 8/17/14

JollyClaret wrote:

Would you like five of the reverse?
Gazza = religiously motivated
Iraq = religiously motivated
Syria = religiously motivated
Arab Springs = an event completely religiously motivated (not a war an event of revolution that caused some violent backlash)
Cambodian Geneocide = partially motivated by religion in the Khmer Rouge's attempt to stamp out religion.
Irish Civil War and The Troubles = 100% religiously motivated.
Yugoslav Wars = religiously motivated

I could literally go on and on just for modern times. You'd have a list longer than you could read if you went for every single religious based war that had ever occured.

ISIS
Taliban
Boko Haram
Suqour al-Ezz
Naqshbandi Army
IRA
UDA
UDF
KKK
Concerned Christians
Army of God
Vanguards of Conquest
Muslim Brotherhood
Most if not all White supremacist groups
The Saved Sect
Tevhid-Selam

I really really want to go on but those are just some of the militant religious groups out there. If religion didn't exist there'd be no atheism because that inturn wouldn't exist either.

Life wouldn't be perfect but it would be a lot better since there'd be one less thing to fight about :)


Religion has been a factor in many wars, I will not deny. But I will contend that it is often not the main underlying cause for war. What I mean is that these wars would still happen even if religion were a non-factor because the aggressor states would have other objectives, specifically territorial expansion and acquisition of wealth, as higher priorities. Whereas if territory and wealth were discounted, there would be very little incentive to initiate most of the wars throughout history. (Source: http://www.psmag.com/culture/myth-of-the-modern-religious-war-34617/ )

I will also not deny the existence of religious extremists. However, it is important to note that these groups are representative of a few hundred thousand people out of several billion, and should not be thought of as the norm.
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 8/10/14 , edited 8/17/14
Since religion is mainly based off faith, you can't really prove or disprove any religion.
1840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Bebop
Offline
Posted 8/11/14
Religion is like a ghost.There isn't firm evidence to prove it exist,but there isn't enough evidence to fully disprove it.
14233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/11/14 , edited 8/11/14
There are three churches down my street. Religion exists. However, the beliefs behind them are what should be up for debate. I think this thread is labeled incorrectly. It should be Proving/Disproving God(s) or something along the line of Proving/Disproving Religious Beliefs.

I'm sure a mod can change the thread title if you'd like.
13652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 8/12/14
Not entirely sure what is meant by "proving" or "disproving" "religion."

Religion is a thing, yes. Has been for millenia. The veracity of the various claims made by the various religions of the world is another matter entirely. Which ones are we expected to prove, or disprove? What does that even mean in the context of "proving" a religion?

But enough griping about the vagueness of the OP. I'm pretty sure we all know what question he intended to ask even if he went about it the wrong way, and that is, "Does the God of the Bible (or optionally any other god) exist?"

No. Particularly in the case of the Abrahamic god who is a bundle of contradiction, but also in general, due to the lack of evidence the probability of a god existing is vanishingly small.

3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 8/13/14

CoffeeGodEddy wrote:

There are three churches down my street. Religion exists. However, the beliefs behind them are what should be up for debate. I think this thread is labeled incorrectly.
It should be Proving/Disproving God(s) or something along the line of Proving/Disproving Religious Beliefs.

I'm sure a mod can change the thread title if you'd like.


Are you serious?
I have aspergers and even I'm not that picky. Surely you understood what the person who made the thread meant?
17306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/13/14
The burden of proof is on the people making claims.
No scientist would think to make a claim without a pile of data.

If I say there is a tribe of little tiny versions of Kanye West that live under my bed, you are going to ask me to prove it.
If I can't you are going to think I'm a nut job.

Religion asking others to prove it wrong has it backwards.
Religion needs to provide some proof.

So, in alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll these years, why no proof?

Jesus did not help you win that football game son, I'm sorry.
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 8/13/14
Google how to disprove x religion. Watch a youtube video on how to disprove x religion. Learn from the Youtube video on how to disprove x religion. Post how to disprove x relgion. You have successfully disproved x religion.
14233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/14/14 , edited 8/17/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Are you serious?
I have aspergers and even I'm not that picky. Surely you understood what the person who made the thread meant?


Lol. Would you rather be labeled as black, white, asian, spanish, or a human being? I'd rather be labeled as a human being. So yes, I'm picky. And besides, misleading/incorrect thread titles frustrate me a lot. Why? I don't know, pet peeve.
Posted 8/16/14
I believe that religion is separate from God, so disproving any religion does not disprove the existence of God in any way.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/16/14

SeraphSephirot wrote:

I believe that religion is separate from God, so disproving any religion does not disprove the existence of God in any way.


Makes sense. That crosses out a particular understanding of the divine, but not necessarily all of them.
Posted 8/16/14 , edited 8/17/14

BlueOni wrote:

Makes sense. That crosses out a particular understanding of the divine, but not necessarily all of them.


What I find amusing about Atheist is that they are always trying to disprove God's omnipotent/unlimited existence with their finite and limited minds.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/17/14 , edited 8/17/14

SeraphSephirot wrote:

What I find amusing about Atheist is that they are always trying to disprove God's omnipotent/unlimited existence with their finite and limited minds. They act like ingrates.


In order to understand Atheism you must be familiar with the term "null hypothesis". The concept that positive claims (such as the statement "God exists") must be substantiated with sound evidence, and that if they cannot be substantiated the default action is to accept the null hypothesis (in this case, the statement "God does not exist") informs Atheist thought. Given this starting point, the assumption that God doesn't exist until such time as it is shown with sound evidence that God does exist, an Atheist's statements that a Theist's presented evidence isn't sound is not an effort at disproving God. It is exactly as I said: they haven't accepted the evidence presented as sound enough to substantiate the claim that God exists.

That's not because of closed-mindedness, either. There is presently absolutely no scientifically sound evidence that God exists. None at all. No experiment has ever been run which successfully and soundly demonstrates that God exists, no artifacts remain which substantiate any of God's alleged appearances, and every effect which has previously been attributed to God's activities has ultimately been shown to be the result of an alternative actor (such as the force of gravity, or plate tectonics, or electromagnetism). Even the altered states of consciousness experienced by staunch believers have been shown to be the result of documented psychological effects, to include people speaking in tongues or experiencing religiously-driven ecstasy.

Given that everything which has previously been attributed to God has either been shown to be bunk or has an alternative, empirically demonstrable explanation, I can't particularly blame Atheists for sticking with the null hypothesis and arguing that either God just plain doesn't exist (Gnostic Atheism) or at least that if God exists there's no reason to believe that to be the case at present (Agnostic Atheism).
48494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 8/17/14 , edited 8/17/14
Null Hypothesis FTW!

In addition to this aspect there is something else which I think is the reasoning behind theists calling us ingrates. Many of us have reason to feel sorry for theists because of mob mentality: "I want to be accepted and fit in and those around me will only accept me if I subscribe to popular opinion." It is popular because people genuinely fear death and they want reassurance that they'll be able to remain with their loved ones after they die.

Religion feeds off of this fear and has set up an exclusive in-group that persists in being privileged to know the true way of the world. However it is false, the world, the universe exists as it is and too many people paint their view of the world how they want to see it and live their whole lives with false rose-colored glasses not even realizing they're wearing them. This is the sort of pity I have for some, but sometimes that pity is not even worth the effort, meaning those people are not even worth the effort to pity. So why do I bother?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.