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.

 

What defines proof for you and how do you apply it to your religion?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Over the years here on ATS I've never wrapped my head around one key point when discussing religion or science with a person who is religious, and that is their concept of what dictates 'proof'

There are many members here whom seem to accept various fields of science as factual whilst maintaining their religious beliefs.

There are many members here whom seem to reject virtually all science, yet readily use technology, modern medicine, eat modern-grown foods (almost all stemmed from modern agriculture which has a rich history of biological engineering and artificial selection), among other things.

There are many members here whom demand proof and evidence, but seem to shy away from providing the same quality of evidence they demand when applied to their own religious views.

I'm hoping to learn what makes you believe in what you believe in (even if it's purely through faith), yet what prevents you from accepting other things that we have plenty of evidence and proof for.




posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I think it is why it is called "faith" not 'fact". I am not real religious but I do believe in point in the bible Jesus walks on water, He has peter get out of the boat and he also walks on water for a split second. He sinks into the water and Jesus says to him something along the lines of " my son, why do you doubt"...

So Peter witnessed first hand Jesus walking on water, did so himself and yet he had doubts.

There are no facts in religion...



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
You are missing the difference between something that absolutely can be proven or disproven and matters of faith which only require belief.

The universe itself is so vast that there is no way that we will ever unravel or know everything there is to know about it in our lifetimes.

To me, that says that you can no more definitively say there is no God than I can say there is one. This means the issue falls back to one of faith for both of us. Do you believe? Some don't and won't or they put their faith in what we do know choosing to believe that since we have so far not to their satisfaction uncovered anything that proves God to them, that we will continue to see a universe absent of evidence.

I prefer to believe. I have my own reasons for this based on several things including personal experience that I won't go into. Since my best reason to believe *is* in the realm of personal experience, it is useless to someone who wants quantifiable, tangible proof. Testimony is generally going to be met with skepticism by such folks. But you should likewise know that people who have personal reasons to believe are also going to be some of the stronger believers.

And honestly, I don't think you are ever going to find God inside the confines of this universe. He created it. He isn't bound by it.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Over the years here on ATS I've never wrapped my head around one key point when discussing religion or science with a person who is religious, and that is their concept of what dictates 'proof'

There are many members here whom seem to accept various fields of science as factual whilst maintaining their religious beliefs.

There are many members here whom seem to reject virtually all science, yet readily use technology, modern medicine, eat modern-grown foods (almost all stemmed from modern agriculture which has a rich history of biological engineering and artificial selection), among other things.

There are many members here whom demand proof and evidence, but seem to shy away from providing the same quality of evidence they demand when applied to their own religious views.

I'm hoping to learn what makes you believe in what you believe in (even if it's purely through faith), yet what prevents you from accepting other things that we have plenty of evidence and proof for.
It basically boils down to weather or not testimonials are "proof".

One definition of science is you "try to find away to make sure you are not fooling yourself".

So science doesn't count testimonials at all.. if you cannot create a repeatable peer reviewed experiment, then you don't have proof of anything..

Which makes perfect sense because humans are horrible witnesses even when telling the truth and lie quite often.

With religion feelings and testimonials are considered proof, hell the Bible is just one big testimonial....

So one sides threshold for evidence is just OMG lower than the other.

One goes out of its way to make sure your not fooling yourself, the other encourages you too.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Hi there. Good to see you are still around. Hope you and your people all keeping ok.

I am a full on scientific evolutionist, but I believe still in Jesus. It is beyond religion really. I do lots of experimenting. I like the Tarot and that is just part of earthly life. I guess I am a Christian scientist. May be I should look them boys up, lol?

We are free to do as we please with belief and spirituality. Many people these days mix and match. I like to keep an open mind.

I think Jesus is very capable of standing His ground in our age. I have often thought about Him as kind of a Quantum Christ.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

That's precisely why I don't understand how a person can apply faith to one thing and in some cases an astronomical amount of evidence for another. and even after that evidence is presented, still not accept it



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Proof is something that is easily observable and verifiable. Holy books do not, in my opinion, constitute "proof" because what is contained in them is not observable or verifiable with anything short of time travel. Holy books can be road maps but never the destination if that makes sense, so I wouldn't say they are completely useless.

As for how I apply it to my "religion" (beliefs) I use what I can observe right now (light) as a way to interpret what is contained in books. What I observe right now (the universe and light) is the foundation for all myths and religions, they all share a common thread between each other and that is life itself, what we all experience from moment to moment. If an interpretation doesn't line up with what I can observe right now I throw it away and start from scratch.

Internalizing religious narratives as expressions of your own (internal) qualities as a living being is the way to go in my opinion. I apply what I see and experience right now to my interpretation of religions and myths in order to draw their true meaning (spirituality) out which lies just under the surface of the literal interpretation (religion).
edit on 4/19/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

If questions are left unanswered to the connections of spirituality to begin with, the only proof that surfaces is the concepts that religion should be provided less influence, or at least fall secondary to overall spirituality within each owns self being. To channel deeper into spirituality and religion is essentially building a structure with no concentration on the foundation's strength... to grow a plant instead of building a strong soil base and let the foundations that mother mature provides prevail.

I am aware that I do not fit the protocol of what is viewed as religious, and instead kind of view the word 'religion' as a synonym to 'divide'. I think even the word entering the equation holds different realities and possibilities for each and every person... thus creating divide before the multitude of characters and concepts are even thought of.

If religions are one's cup of tea, then that said religion is 100% real and true if that individual wishes for it to be so. Proof is not required due to the 99.99% probability that reality is different for each and every person alive. I reserve 100% fact based information for mathematics... never to a verbal or visual structure.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Faith doesn't need Proof
The well-known, self-caused mind trick of cogitative dissidence is the scientific explanation.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
I think it is why it is called "faith" not 'fact". I am not real religious but I do believe in point in the bible Jesus walks on water, He has peter get out of the boat and he also walks on water for a split second. He sinks into the water and Jesus says to him something along the lines of " my son, why do you doubt"...

So Peter witnessed first hand Jesus walking on water, did so himself and yet he had doubts.

There are no facts in religion...


There is this great theory where the thing that made jesus unique in anchient times and modern times is totally different.

Modern people hear the jesus story where a guy ran around preforming miracles for free and assume (since we know miracles don't exist) that it is the miracles that made him unique..when actually it was the fact that he did it for free..

There was no video tapes or tape recorders in the first century and people would have constantly heard stories or resurrection and such from 2 towns over.

Also faith healers were a dime a dozen constantly traveling from town to town..

What made jesus different was the fact he was the only guy giving it away for free!! The faith healers of the day, didn't go ply their skill with the poor and destitute.. they went to the merchant class and nobility. The people who would feed them and put them up for awhile..

Well here is jesus giving it away for free, pooping all over their little buisness model.

That's why the church turned on him and why he was considered unique in his own time..

Assuming he actually existed and wasn't a king author type compilation.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
The universe itself is so vast that there is no way that we will ever unravel or know everything there is to know about it in our lifetimes.

To me, that says that you can no more definitively say there is no God than I can say there is one. This means the issue falls back to one of faith for both of us.


I understand what you're saying, but I personally don't claim that there is 'absolutely no god', I simply lack a belief in one because there is no evidence for one, thus no sense to mold my life around the possible existence of one due to an unfalsifiability.


originally posted by: ketsuko
Do you believe? Some don't and won't or they put their faith in what we do know choosing to believe that since we have so far not to their satisfaction uncovered anything that proves God to them, that we will continue to see a universe absent of evidence.


The two "faith's" you used here are not interchangeable, though. I have faith that when I jump, i'll come back down, but it's not a religious faith.



originally posted by: ketsuko
I prefer to believe. I have my own reasons for this based on several things including personal experience that I won't go into. Since my best reason to believe *is* in the realm of personal experience, it is useless to someone who wants quantifiable, tangible proof. Testimony is generally going to be met with skepticism by such folks. But you should likewise know that people who have personal reasons to believe are also going to be some of the stronger believers.


Yes, I can understand this. It's the same instance of why I believe that Ghosts likely exist.

The issue I have with religious experiences is that they have a tendency to be of the religion the person experiencing it was subjected to at some point in their life.

It would be far more remarkable if the only religious experiences were the result of a single religion and occurring globally. What we do see is religious people having experiences from all sorts of religions, which seems to diminish it's credibility.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
So science doesn't count testimonials at all.. if you cannot create a repeatable peer reviewed experiment, then you don't have proof of anything..

Which makes perfect sense because humans are horrible witnesses even when telling the truth and lie quite often.

With religion feelings and testimonials are considered proof, hell the Bible is just one big testimonial....

So one sides threshold for evidence is just OMG lower than the other.


Sure, but that still leaves me wondering how actual evidence that can be repeated and tested also be blatantly denied no matter what despite being so tangible



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: Ghost147

Hi there. Good to see you are still around. Hope you and your people all keeping ok.

I am a full on scientific evolutionist, but I believe still in Jesus. It is beyond religion really. I do lots of experimenting. I like the Tarot and that is just part of earthly life. I guess I am a Christian scientist. May be I should look them boys up, lol?

We are free to do as we please with belief and spirituality. Many people these days mix and match. I like to keep an open mind.

I think Jesus is very capable of standing His ground in our age. I have often thought about Him as kind of a Quantum Christ.


I realize this is not really a good thing to do from a Christianity-perspective, but have you ever tried doing the same things that have lead you to believing Jesus exists to another deity (Zeus, Ra, Krishna)?

I'm actually curious, not making fun.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Ghost147

Faith doesn't need Proof
The well-known, self-caused mind trick of cogitative dissidence is the scientific explanation.


So why is faith not applied to all aspects of life, and only in this particular part?



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: ketsuko
The universe itself is so vast that there is no way that we will ever unravel or know everything there is to know about it in our lifetimes.

To me, that says that you can no more definitively say there is no God than I can say there is one. This means the issue falls back to one of faith for both of us.


I understand what you're saying, but I personally don't claim that there is 'absolutely no god', I simply lack a belief in one because there is no evidence for one, thus no sense to mold my life around the possible existence of one due to an unfalsifiability.


originally posted by: ketsuko
Do you believe? Some don't and won't or they put their faith in what we do know choosing to believe that since we have so far not to their satisfaction uncovered anything that proves God to them, that we will continue to see a universe absent of evidence.


The two "faith's" you used here are not interchangeable, though. I have faith that when I jump, i'll come back down, but it's not a religious faith.



originally posted by: ketsuko
I prefer to believe. I have my own reasons for this based on several things including personal experience that I won't go into. Since my best reason to believe *is* in the realm of personal experience, it is useless to someone who wants quantifiable, tangible proof. Testimony is generally going to be met with skepticism by such folks. But you should likewise know that people who have personal reasons to believe are also going to be some of the stronger believers.


Yes, I can understand this. It's the same instance of why I believe that Ghosts likely exist.

The issue I have with religious experiences is that they have a tendency to be of the religion the person experiencing it was subjected to at some point in their life.

It would be far more remarkable if the only religious experiences were the result of a single religion and occurring globally. What we do see is religious people having experiences from all sorts of religions, which seems to diminish it's credibility.



IMHO after 5000 years of literally every human in recorded history spending at least some portion of their life attempting to find proof of their religion, what have all those collective billions of people come up with???

Zilch flippin testimonials and zero proof of a specific religion having ANY effect on the physical world...

No religion's people get don't get cancer..

There is no experiment where prayer is one of the ingredients...

And every testable claim in any of the ancient texts has been debunked (creation stories, flood myths , sodom and gahmora, exc).

None of them got the actual creation story right, people pretend they did, but no one else ever thought it meant that until science actually figured it out..

Except for when counting religion as a social club who has done some decent charity work , religion is batting a big ole fat zero...



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




What we do see is religious people having experiences from all sorts of religions, which seems to diminish it's credibility.


Well said! The only aspect that diminishes credibility is the relation that other religions/thoughts of free will are not offered an equal possibility of existence. That's why I say religions are very much so true... but equally true for the next person.

Religious diety's, and even some of the greatest minds on Earth (e.g., Leonardo DaVinci) are viewed by me to have been enlightened/ascended masters of spirituality. The fact that they've walked physical existences while offering witness to such enlightenments creates 'God-like' realities. When the unknown and miracles surface from physical beings, their spirituality is so deep that the less enlightened will offer paths of truth towards the individual miracles witnessed or foreseen. That diety most likely never offers or have offered energy to the divides of religion. The unknowns are always seemingly strived for in an outward projection... the direction should be directed into the center of our own being instead... the center, of which divide is not possible.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
So science doesn't count testimonials at all.. if you cannot create a repeatable peer reviewed experiment, then you don't have proof of anything..

Which makes perfect sense because humans are horrible witnesses even when telling the truth and lie quite often.

With religion feelings and testimonials are considered proof, hell the Bible is just one big testimonial....

So one sides threshold for evidence is just OMG lower than the other.


Sure, but that still leaves me wondering how actual evidence that can be repeated and tested also be blatantly denied no matter what despite being so tangible


What physical evidence..

I love supernatural/conspiracy stuff and have never seen anything....every time I have looked up the mainstream opinion on an ooopart of whathave you, it makes way more sense than the supernatural take.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

No, you don't have faith you will. You know you will. We all know about gravity and how it works.

The poster above referenced Jesus walking on the water and telling Peter to come out to meet Him. Peter did for a few steps and then realized what it was he was doing and sank like a stone.

That's knowing v. faith. Peter knew that he would sink into the water. We all know that. Science pretty much makes that an observable and repeatable scientific fact. But Jesus walked on the water and called Peter to do it too. At that time, Peter could also walk on water if he faith in Jesus and what Jesus was telling him was greater than what he knew for fact. It was ... for only a few steps. Then he doubted and sank.

We are told that faith can overcome but only if our faith is strong enough and it pleases God. *shrug*

I certainly know that I've been through a life with a lot of chronic pain, and faith has been helpful to me. I know plenty of people would use it as an excuse to get angry at God for allowing it to happen, but I've looked at it as a test that must be overcome, and it helps me endure. But then, I've had my experiences that lead me to believe there is more and better to be had at the end of it all if I overcome and what I've felt, even if only for the briefest of moments, was powerful enough to be worth it.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I would ask the same question to you, sure I have in the past.
I am inclined to believe you reject the logic of science to maintain a faith

Then again I am not stupid enough to think you would reject all science


What justifies science to you, what evidence do you accept as scientific, theory?
Someone elses assumptions enough?

Can you not, dont have the capacity to draw a line between belief and science, can you not on a logical level.
I have never seen any scientific evidence of evolution, yet you preach it from your pulpit like a "creflo dollar"
Where is the repeatable observable testable data
Do you believe in aliens, UFOs, any crypto stuff etc? Or do you say anything that science cant explain is not real?

I dont really care what you think. I just think you believe is some seriously fairyttail stuff, I just think its funny that I see you as a very religious person and you dont see yourself that way at all. That you are as brainwashed as those you despise

So who rejects science here you have met, sure you are not playing at hyperbole here Ghost



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
So science doesn't count testimonials at all.. if you cannot create a repeatable peer reviewed experiment, then you don't have proof of anything..

Which makes perfect sense because humans are horrible witnesses even when telling the truth and lie quite often.

With religion feelings and testimonials are considered proof, hell the Bible is just one big testimonial....

So one sides threshold for evidence is just OMG lower than the other.


Sure, but that still leaves me wondering how actual evidence that can be repeated and tested also be blatantly denied no matter what despite being so tangible


What physical evidence..

I love supernatural/conspiracy stuff and have never seen anything....every time I have looked up the mainstream opinion on an ooopart of whathave you, it makes way more sense than the supernatural take.


I'm referring to scientific evidence in that response



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join