It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Science Ever Advance Enough to Disprove Religion?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli


Yea but who decided to recreate Israel? A group of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. I think it's far more likely it was a self full filling prophecy. If they had taken a dart board and randomly selected were they would relocate the Jews. Then it would be by chance.


When the people who decided where They would put the Jews are all people who want to see the biblical prophecy fulfilled. It's not nearly as random.


That would me predicting that family guy season 1 episode 2 will air on July 14 2035. Then I end up running a television station and decide to air that episode on that day. Is that a divine phrophecy then? Or was it a self fulfilling one?

And again.... That's ignoring all the things that science and history have proven to be false. Either the biblical texts are man made accounts that have been edited and miss remembered ( in which case all of it would be called into question) or it's divinely inspired and infallible ( not even on the table really).


If we agree it's been edited and something's are analogies. How could we know the concept of god isn't one of the analogies? How could we ever know what's just the " moral to the story" and what's truth.


On a consiracy site. I can't believe more people can't tell it's really just antiquities version of big brother.

Don't do what we tell you not too cause our guys always watching!

Proof? You don't need proof you need faith and anything that makes you question my story is evil and must be destroyed!

Anything that doesn't make sense is just him working in mysterious ways...


Delusional rant . . .

Your 2035 example is absurd, the time difference would have to be at least over a thousand years. Are you saying that the Holocaust was just an excuse to self fulfill a prophecy or something like that? That the troubles in the region today are really just propaganda and that all governments are secretly engaged in a Christian/Jewish/Islamic conspiracy to materialize the prophecies of the Bible, Koran, Torah?

I actually like to operate by the scientific method where by one makes observations and records data.

If your answer is good enough for you, wonderful, but for me personally it sounds like a poorly thought out dismissal.

-FBB




posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Because it's science's job to find the truth of the natural world. If it was created by a god then that would be part of that truth. Plus laws and decisions are made only over biblical teachings. So if it's all fake then obviously we didn't make the best, most informed of the possible decisions.


Religious believers have been trying to find some proof of religion for thousands of years. While science has been trying to disprove it for the last 100 years.



Except that religion deals with things that are NOT part of the "natural" or temporal world.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Well for using the scientific method you seem to be ignoring the vast majority of the scientific community. 85% of all Nobel winners in the field of science are atheist.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit



Things that there's no proof exist at all.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli


And no there was no conspiracy. You had a group of people who got "elected" for saying they were the most godly of the candidates being given the oppertunity to put the Jews where ever you want.


Fine I change my analogy to where it is a thousand years. But one of my followers owns the tv station.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
"Only think that would disprove religion is time and aspiration to explore the cosmos."

-umm Me.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtemisE

Religion began with revelation from God. This revelation - given to such people as Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Abraham... - still resides in religion but religion has corrupted it. New revelations will come and religious distortions will be seen for what they are. It is not a scientific question, it is a question that each individual will answer themselves.

This civilisation will die and another will take its place. Within this new world there will be revelations appropriate to that culture. The questions about religion today will become meaningless.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: ArtemisE

Religion began with revelation from God. This revelation - given to such people as Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Abraham... - still resides in religion but religion has corrupted it. New revelations will come and religious distortions will be seen for what they are. It is not a scientific question, it is a question that each individual will answer themselves.

This civilisation will die and another will take its place. Within this new world there will be revelations appropriate to that culture. The questions about religion today will become meaningless.


Any evidence about so called 'revelation'?

How do you explain polytheism witch preceded monotheism? How do you explain that we are today able to follow evolution of different stories in current religions through ages and find many unscientific facts (God created 2 great lights, Sun and Moon for example or mentioning of Camels witch we don't have any evidence as being around the time as mentioned in Bible...)

Question is already meaningless for many of us.

Science does not need to disprove religion, religion did that unintentionally.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE

Don't really need a long OP here to set the premiss.


Will science ever reach the point where they can flat out disprove religion?


IMHO they already have. Not really the concept of god, but the anchient texts. But will they ever advance to the point we know enough to know there's no place for him in the standard model?


Logical fallacy, you can't disprove a negative.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think as science progresses maybe we can one day disprove a negative.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
" Not really the concept of god, but the ancient texts. But will they ever advance to the point we know enough to know there's no place for him in the standard model? "

Ah, but you think you know THE 'concept of God' because you mindlessly default to it in your very next sentence.

There is no THE concept of God. What if God Transcends all concepts? What if the plethora of God concepts are just masks? How could science wrap itself around something that can be experienced but can't be talked about except through metaphor?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
How do you explain polytheism witch preceded monotheism? How do you explain that we are today able to follow evolution of different stories in current religions through ages and find many unscientific facts (God created 2 great lights, Sun and Moon for example or mentioning of Camels witch we don't have any evidence as being around the time as mentioned in Bible...)


As I said, religion is a distortion of revelation. It is pointless trying to answer the question of God's reality by hair splitting about religious doctrines.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think as science progresses maybe we can one day disprove a negative.



But how? The best thing we can come up with, logically is that we never find any evidence of a god. What would constitute proof that there was none?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think as science progresses maybe we can one day disprove a negative.



But how? The best thing we can come up with, logically is that we never find any evidence of a god. What would constitute proof that there was none?


What about sources of his existence?

Wouldn't disproving those actually disprove existence of God as well?

Isn't this what actually happened with science and religion?



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

. . . The best thing we can come up with, logically is that we never find any evidence of a god. . . .


I *ASSUME*

that you dismiss derisively the Todd Burpo family's

HEAVEN IS FOR REAL???

If so . . . it seems to me you'd be hard pressed to explain how the 4 year old came up with a good deal of the information he had NO POSSIBLE WAY TO KNOW

unless

what he described REALLY HAPPENED

just as he described it.

edit on 2/5/2014 by BO XIAN because: TAG FIX



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ArtemisE

Scientism is a religion too you know...





new topics




 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join