It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Is it possible for religion to merely be a moral philosophy and not interact directly with science? As an example, if one tries to live life by the example of Jesus (or Buddha or Mohammed), does this still qualify as religion or merely philosophy? Does it become something else when you deify the person you wish to emulate?
BTW, I watched Dawkins' documentary and found him to be extremely arrogant and condescending. In just one example, the idea that Atheists == "Free Thinkers" and Religious!="Free Thinkers" is ludicrous. Just because someone came to the conclusion that religion was the correct way to live his/her life makes them a non-free thinker? Having religion does not make one less of a person or an intellectual. Blindly following any belief (including atheism, global warming, conservatism or any others) is foolish.
If we took a human family and put them in the jungle having no exposure to the outside world, would they be theists?
The authors' versions of the scriptures were genuine and correct, because this article was given to over 200 of the top universities in the world. Not one mathematician could prove it wrong.
I do not believe the author should cite sources, because all he used was the bible and his brain.
The books in the Apocrypha should be rejected because that is not the bible. The bible has 66 books. It may have had books taken out of it, but because those books were purely written by humans and incorrect.
I only brought this up because I thought you guys would want "mathematical" evidence. May it be evidence or not, this is the closest thing I have. Similar studies have been done, and no other "religious" book can nearly compare results.
I do not understand how this only provides extraordinary claims. The math is there, and correct.
I do not need scientific evidence to prove my god.
I just thought that's what you guys want me to try and find. "Extraordinary prove, for extraordinary claims". Claim or not, I am just trying to give what you guys are asking for. I am not a snot christian who thinks that "ooh atheist" he must be a real bad person. You are all great people, I am just trying to explain my points.
This is like a court room. Anything I say can and will be used against me. What the fuck am I supposed to do?
If he were real wouldThishave been made?
The only other thing I can say is that science is not avoiding faith. Science is following the evidence which has steered us in a direction far away from anything magical or supernatural. It really all comes down to evidence.
Yeah, my parents believe that evolution can work with religion. They believe in the big bang and evolution, but they believe God caused it. Instead of being ignorant to science, they embrace it as being more "evidence" towards God. And that's a hell of a lot better than being a creationist.
[T]he original question is flawed in my opinion. Belief of God relies on Faith, proving God doesn't exist relies on Science. The two are mutually exclusive. The burden of proof can not rest on either side, for there is no way to prove it either way that the other side will accept.
Religion is based on faith. If there was no faith, then there would be no religion. There would also be allot less science. Allot of science is accepted as truth, even though there is no hard evidence of things (one example that comes to mind is the whole Big Bang Theory, as scientist have no idea where that came from except to guess a previous universe which goes in a forever ending loop until you just have to have faith that this was the way it always was). Many theories are still theories because rational thought can only bring it so far
I do not believe that someone who is religious can prove to someone who is not religious since that proof would require proof of something unprovable.
By the same token, someone who is not religious could not prove to me that God does not exists. Given your example of Pikachu, I could go into your garage and see there is no Pikachu. Now if you stated he existed in a way I couldn't see or react with, then I could not disprove this to you. If you beleive this to be true, then there is no way I could prove Pikachu, or even a Pichu does not exists as this state. No test i could do could ever not prove its existence.
Or another way to say it is both sides bare the burden of proof since both side have an equal footing in both the thought behind their reasons. But neither has a hope to change the minds on the subject. Can one expect one side or another to bare a burden of a task that cannot be accomplished?
Wrong, the sides are not on equal footing. I demand empirical proof of your god. Give it to me, and I will change my mind.
If god is not provable, then why believe he exists? If he in any way affects your life, that should be an observable event. If prayer really worked, we should be able to study it and quantify it. If something in the universe was only explainable through, to what would seem to us now, a "supernatural" event or "influence", then there might be reason to believe he might exist. But no such observation has been made.
"Evidence" of influence exists all around. The problem is thus: Those that believe in a higher power see it as influence. Those that do not see it as coincident, accident, or just a statistical anomaly.
Truth in the Bible... Time for a a test. Well a test of things that can be tested at least. The Flood. The Bible tells of a great flood that covers the earth. Truth. Scientist have indeed covered the earth. In fact sea shells have been found on-top of mountain ranges. Babel. The Bible states at one point all people were together, and all the land was connected.
I do not accept either of these as answers. The reason is that the burden of proof must be prove in the other persons arena of thought. This is not possible! Scientist argue science, theologians argue faith. These are mutually exclusive. one deals with the tangible, the other deals with the intangibles. The same arguments could be applied to burden of proof that the soul exists, or reincarnation is true. Not of those will be able to be answered due to the fact that science cannot prove nor disprove them, so there can't be an answer, therefore no burden except that which people place upon themselves. This is my argument.
That every time someone presented evidence that was shown to be illogical they stormed off and said enough with this. We shouldn't get offended by people challenging our dearly held beliefs.
To that end I'll stop here. To me discussions are only usefully or entertaining if they continue a moving a thread of thought. We have only been arguing in circles for the last day or two with no clear distinctions on either side of are argument to each other.
Truth in the Bible... Time for a a test. Well a test of things that can be tested at least. The Flood. The Bible tells of a great flood that covers the earth. Truth. Scientist have indeed covered the earth. In fact sea shells have been found on-top of mountain ranges. Babel. The Bible states at one point all people were together, and all the land was connected. Scientist have proposed Pangea. A land mass that over time has slit apart to what we now know to be the continents. God Exists. The Bible states that he exists. Unprovable. There is no way I am able to prove that he exists, except through my own faith that he exists. If there was a way to impart faith in something, the world would be a very different place. Therefore I demand proof that he does not exists. You are also unable to prove that he does not exists. The two sides therefore cannot prove to each other anything.
I do not argue that there is a God.
More to the point, Tasel has provided nothing but poorly written, facile arguments lacking both substance and clarity. They are intellectually void, and frankly not worth the time of rational people. In the marketplace of ideas, Tasel is selling wooden nickels.