First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Are Christianity and Islam False?
14721 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

jeffcoatstephen wrote:

Anything religion is false. It was made up to stop people from fearing the unknown. Fear is the #1 weakness of all humans. But creating a religion was the biggest mistake ever. It's all made up crap that modern science has proven wrong. I support science not some stupid imaginary friend called God or whatever the hell people call it.


I'm listening, prove it.

Also I would like to hear your conclusion... start on any scientific theory or law that you like and ask "why" and lead yourself to another... a proof... Hey, I will even let you substitute some less accepted theories and hypothesis into areas where you don't have an answer. You might even come up with something else to test and discover, who knows?

What we have is a system of laws both those that we know of and those that we are unaware of or don't understand. Scientifically have we ruled out the Simulation Hypothesis? We don't even know how to begin to test that... so because we can't currently test it does that mean it absolutely isn't possible? A god is often defined as a creator of the universe... would the creator of such a simulation then be in the definition of this universe a god?

A scientist who doesn't consider these things (regardless of his/her individual beliefs) isn't worth their salt. Science does not progress by denying things. We test what we can and discover what we can and we separate but not discard the rest. There have been times throughout history where breakthroughs happen and suddenly something new becomes testable.

As for faith, hell, we run on the faith that there is an orderly system to discover in the first place!

For a scientist there is no perfect, only possibility.
9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
Oh look a DesuMaiden topic. And what surprise! he's trolling again. I am just so shocked!
/sarcasm

I posted elsewhere about Christian Existentialism yesterday.. You can have the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism

Basically, he's the father of existentialism, and as such, everyone has a personal relationship to god, and the religious experience is unique to each and every individual. The bible, and new testament in particular teaches via open ended questions which the reader and the individual has to find the answer to.

meh.. what the hell. Here's another link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PdldFAtss
27912 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Kaguya's Panties
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
Haha, this thread and OP is a joke.
28920 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
The fact there is more than one type of religion and multiple types of a single religion. Christian - Catholic. Islamic. Buddism.

If there was such thing as a God or whatever the hell you psychos would call it then why do you need more than one religion to say it?

Prove how God was created. Prove how the universe started. Prove how humans came to be. Prove how the bible is right? You can't well that's because your religious bullshit is a joke.

God is a mythological being created for fearful humans who can't understand how anything works. Science has proven how the universe started... the big bang. What came before the big bang? Energy. If you want to label something as God then Energy is where you look. How did humans come to be? Evolution, everything started out as a single celled organism that evolved into multiple species. Why is everything the bible says happening? The bible is the first manmade history book warning us from the future what not to do. Rape, murder, judge people for who they are, how they look, their sexual preference, etc.
14721 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

jeffcoatstephen wrote:
If you want to label something as God then Energy is where you look.


Then that right there is your religion, congratulations, you found it. This prevailing theory is the one you support and believe in. It has evidence and has yet to be disproved as we have insufficient data to do so. This will not stop true scientists from actively trying to disprove it and just like some theories past these efforts may further validate it, turn it on it's proverbial head, or destroy it.

Ah, what's this the Simulation Hypothesis still has a solid base? It's almost as if in science there can be more than one possibility until one is proven... and after some thought BOTH of those could be correct given the unique nature of the hypothesis I mentioned. At the same time it is still within possibility that neither are correct.

[redacted that last statement that was in this spot as to not fan the flames]
10 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
you're really ignorant,you simply has no argument in here just yelling around with this bullshit,sorry but your opinion is irrelevant
28920 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
I prefer Irreligion thank you very much
20695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
Really, this guy is essentially making the same thread over and over. And writing a freakin' novella every time. Every post here feeds the troll. Ironically, including this one. Make it stop.
7511 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / In a world that d...
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15
Another atheist religion bashing party thread, figures.

Certainly, you should have something better to do with your time than constantly rail against organized religion? I swear, atheists like you seem like they gather in a collective with similarly held beliefs to celebrate said beliefs while making attempts to forcibly push them upon others that do not share them. It's...wait...what I said sounds really familiar, doesn't it?


jeffcoatstephen wrote:

Prove how God was created. Prove how the universe started. Prove how humans came to be. Prove how the bible is right? You can't well that's because your religious bullshit is a joke.



Burden of proof is on you if you make such a statement. If the fundamental laws of current science and physics state that all states of matter and energy must always be equal, ergo matter cannot be created or destroyed, then how did the universe get all that energy and matter to begin with? It's already been mentioned that the Simulation Hypothesis is still out in the open (which, by the way, has origins of debates of actual reality that have been pondered since Ancient Greece) which has immense implications, should it be proved or disproved. After all, Stephen Hawking himself said all matter in the universe "simply came into being," which I doubt many are buying without critical analysis. Though, that also comes into contact with the Simulation Hypothesis - ergo, scientists are attempting to discover the origins of even the Big Bang, none of which can be proven immediately with our current understanding.

Besides, doesn't it interest you from a social science standpoint on how many different geographically separated cultures got similar notions of God, Heaven, and Hell, even before evangelical missions? Hell is thought to be in the underworld under the ground in a multitude of religions, including Ancient Greece, Christianity, and others. The meaning of 地獄 (jigoku/"hell") from a symbolic standpoint is "earth prison." It is a fairly interesting topic.

Edit: Grammar errors
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

GreatLordBalzak wrote:


jeffcoatstephen wrote:

Anything religion is false. It was made up to stop people from fearing the unknown. Fear is the #1 weakness of all humans. But creating a religion was the biggest mistake ever. It's all made up crap that modern science has proven wrong. I support science not some stupid imaginary friend called God or whatever the hell people call it.


I'm listening, prove it.

A god is often defined as a creator of the universe... would the creator of such a simulation then be in the definition of this universe a god?

A scientist who doesn't consider these things (regardless of his/her individual beliefs) isn't worth their salt. Science does not progress by denying things. We test what we can and discover what we can and we separate but not discard the rest. There have been times throughout history where breakthroughs happen and suddenly something new becomes testable.

As for faith, hell, we run on the faith that there is an orderly system to discover in the first place!

For a scientist there is no perfect, only possibility.


I'm confused, why would a scientist need to consider if there's a creator of the universe before they address the question of 'is the universe a simulation'? In many religions, 'god' is 'the creator of the universe' but 'the universe is not a simmulation'. Before a scientist can even begin to look into the possibility 'was the universe created' they need to *define what those terms mean*. Only after you have strict definitions can you really begin any reliable line of scientific inquiry, a 'creator of a simmulation' and a 'creator as defined by Ken Ham' are quite different in nature and evidence for one wouldn't be evidence for the other.

Religious individuals typically offer vague definitions for what their god is, so for a methodology that requires clear lines of evidence, god and science are fairly incompatible, I'd go so far as to say the 'supernatural' and science are incompatible.

I'm not really sure what religious epistimology really adds to philosophy, since empericism works quite well for pragmatic every day life.
2110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
Bro I see that you don't like religion, and I don't personally believe in it, but others can believe what they want.
Posted 2/4/15

jeffcoatstephen wrote:

The fact there is more than one type of religion and multiple types of a single religion. Christian - Catholic. Islamic. Buddism.

If there was such thing as a God or whatever the hell you psychos would call it then why do you need more than one religion to say it?

Prove how God was created. Prove how the universe started. Prove how humans came to be. Prove how the bible is right? You can't well that's because your religious bullshit is a joke.

God is a mythological being created for fearful humans who can't understand how anything works. Science has proven how the universe started... the big bang. What came before the big bang? Energy. If you want to label something as God then Energy is where you look. How did humans come to be? Evolution, everything started out as a single celled organism that evolved into multiple species. Why is everything the bible says happening? The bible is the first manmade history book warning us from the future what not to do. Rape, murder, judge people for who they are, how they look, their sexual preference, etc.


Your opinions are still just your opinions until you provide solid sources and proof of such claims. You keep demanding such things to prove the existence of a god and yet you keep failing to provide the same to prove your point. Just in case you are not aware of it, you sound no different from a raging Christian who's trying to force people to believe in God just because that's what they believe in.

14721 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 2/4/15 , edited 2/4/15

SilvaZoldyck wrote:


GreatLordBalzak wrote:


jeffcoatstephen wrote:

Anything religion is false. It was made up to stop people from fearing the unknown. Fear is the #1 weakness of all humans. But creating a religion was the biggest mistake ever. It's all made up crap that modern science has proven wrong. I support science not some stupid imaginary friend called God or whatever the hell people call it.


I'm listening, prove it.

A god is often defined as a creator of the universe... would the creator of such a simulation then be in the definition of this universe a god?

A scientist who doesn't consider these things (regardless of his/her individual beliefs) isn't worth their salt. Science does not progress by denying things. We test what we can and discover what we can and we separate but not discard the rest. There have been times throughout history where breakthroughs happen and suddenly something new becomes testable.

As for faith, hell, we run on the faith that there is an orderly system to discover in the first place!

For a scientist there is no perfect, only possibility.


I'm confused, why would a scientist need to consider if there's a creator of the universe before they address the question of 'is the universe a simulation'? In many religions, 'god' is 'the creator of the universe' but 'the universe is not a simmulation'. Before a scientist can even begin to look into the possibility 'was the universe created' they need to *define what those terms mean*. Only after you have strict definitions can you really begin any reliable line of scientific inquiry, a 'creator of a simmulation' and a 'creator as defined by Ken Ham' are quite different in nature and evidence for one wouldn't be evidence for the other.

Religious individuals typically offer vague definitions for what their god is, so for a methodology that requires clear lines of evidence, god and science are fairly incompatible, I'd go so far as to say the 'supernatural' and science are incompatible.

I'm not really sure what religious epistimology really adds to philosophy, since empericism works quite well for pragmatic every day life.


That's the thoughts I was trying to provoke. There is no universally accepted definition for those and everyone would be operating upon their own definition. My point was to demonstrate that their was no basis to conclude those religions as true or false. What is testable is what we focus on and everything else is pure speculation until some facet becomes testable.

The very nature of these questions as far as I can foresee is and always will be as you said incompatible. As far as what religion adds... that's probably another topic altogether but my opinion is that the relationship is inverse- differing philosophy adds substance to religion.

I encourage others to seek and find their own answers, their very own unique religious set, but I do not approve of people trying to use science with its incompatibility to belittle others for their beliefs. Making them rethink that's great... they should always be thinking... but it never should be an attack. Attacking accomplishes nothing.

Ah, I mustn't forget, thanks for contributing something meaningful.
8369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/4/15
How does one easily dismiss two thousand years of Christian tradition which such flippant reasoning, strawmen and mockery? Christians are used to this, they are the most persecuted religious group on earth at this moment in time, but at least put some effort into your criticism.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/4/15

GreatLordBalzak wrote:

That's the thoughts I was trying to provoke. There is no universally accepted definition for those and everyone would be operating upon their own definition. My point was to demonstrate that their was no basis to conclude those religions as true or false. What is testable is what we focus on and everything else is pure speculation until some facet becomes testable.

The very nature of these questions as far as I can foresee is and always will be as you said incompatible. As far as what religion adds... that's probably another topic altogether but my opinion is that the relationship is inverse- differing philosophy adds substance to religion.

I encourage others to seek and find their own answers, their very own unique religious set, but I do not approve of people trying to use science with its incompatibility to belittle others for their beliefs. Making them rethink that's great... they should always be thinking... but it never should be an attack. Attacking accomplishes nothing.

Ah, I mustn't forget, thanks for contributing something meaningful.


I quibble with the idea that 'there is no basis to conclude those religions as true or false'. There is *after* religious individuals or philosophers provide coherent definitions, there is no reason why this should be impossible. Just because the religious faith of many people is naive doesn't mean that tough epistimological questions don't apply.

"Science" is built from empericism in a sense, but the epistimology that allows us to put confidence in science tends to be the same epistimology we use to evaluate all beliefs. I agree 'attacking' belief doesn't do much, but I always feel questioning even deeply held assumptions holds value. How we come to arrive at what we believe is important for anyone to think about, religious or non-religious.

I myself struggle to figure out how others have found evidence which convinces them of religious belief 'reliable'.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.