"God" Does Not Care! Why Religion is False and Unscientific

"God" Does Not Care! Why Religion is False and Unscientific

"Faith" is completely unscientific. Faith is the most overated human virtue - Having proof without evidence. Having answers before answering questions.

Because religion is absolutist and definitive there is no changes when evidence arrives. This is a serious issue when evidence and science is being over-ruled by "faith" by piety.

Many "Evangelical" Christians still "believe" the Earth is only 6,000 years despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Order Amongst the Chaos...

A striking example of a galaxy collision in NGC 6745

The universe is chaotic, and i'm not denying it's order (and beauty) I'm not saying the universe is completely "random". There are laws and orders that are set in motion.

I just want to say that the opposite of random isn't "intelligently" designed. "Order" does not inherently mean intelligently invoked, controlled by a "God". Evolution is perfect example of this. Evolution has no forsight, it's not intelligent design.

see: "The Blind Watchmaker" for more information.

Your "God" Doesn't Care!...

I am even willing to grant the Theist the idea that an intelligent designer created the universe.

What seems evident, though, is that the designer does not "care" The designer certainly watches his design with indifference, without are as the chaos ensues; Planets destroyed and created, gallaxys colliding, life being destroyed.

Theists Praise Their Lord of Apocolypse, Why?

The above being said, i ask why do Theists praise this hypothetical "Lord of Apocolypse"? Do they seek to appease this God, for fear of "him"?

The theist is happy to praise this bringer of pain. This "master", this "dictator" who creates planets where in places it is too hot or cold for life to form, Creates Earth, where 99.9% of the species will become extinct. This is not a caring, intelligent being. This "being" is completely indifferent. Careless.

And thus i cast my doubts on creation having an intelligent designer. I think it is false and presumptious to assume a supernatural "being"

Theocratic Presumptions.

Theists claim to KNOW the invisible creator of existence has desires? How? What's your evidence? Why should your belief be trusted or respected?

Beauty of the Universe and Idiocy of "God"

I'm not negating the beauty of nature and reality. I just don't need to praise it, i have doubts that nature is or was created by a "being" and if it became truth that it was, i still would not praise this "God", nor should this "God" expect me to.

The universe and nature can be admired without the need to infer "God".

The universe does not require personification and there is no evidence that the universe is or was created by a being that has desires. No human can claim to know this.

The metaphysical claims of Theism are untrue.

Thanks for reading.

Awake and Aware.

reply to post by DontProbeMeBro

Added: An Ignorance and Logical Flaw

I also wanted to add that when religion was created man barely knew he lived on a "round" planet, never mind knowing that the planet existed in a solar system, and a "gallaxy".

If they were ignorant of this, surely they must be also ignorant to the source of the universe?

How can Theists make such claims to "truth"? how can they reveal such wisdom? Isn't this a logical flaw?

reply to post by awake_and_aware

How can they Theists make such claims?...Isn't this a logical flaw?

Assuming theists care about logic was your first mistake.

The world isn't entirely scientific and logical and NEVER will be. You can tell that by your entire thread. The first thing you said was "faith is unscientific". So, is everything supposed to be scientific? Are you putting your FAITH in everything scientific?

Faith is illogical and irrational but sometimes it is the only thing you have left and it is not just applicable in religion but in other aspects of life too. We put our faith in our kids that they won't do drugs or join a gang. We put our faith in our government that it won't screw us - OF COURSE, that's a different kind of faith but you know what I mean. We put faith in SCIENCE in that it will not be corrupt by corporate interest and politics YET it is in a lot of ways corrupt. If you look at the history of Monsanto, they have paid off scientists and universities to support them.

"Many "Evangelical" Christians still "believe" the Earth is only 6,000 years despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. "

What about the religious people who DO believe that the earth is millions of years old? THEY contradict your comment. Because one believes in God, does that mean they do not adhere to ANY scientific data? Not all "evangelical" Christians believe the earth is "six thousand years old." Just because something is a fact doesn't mean everyone is going to accept it.

Lord of the Apocalypse


Again, I don;'t know where you are getting your information from but there are only a small, scary minority of Christians that are anxious for the world to end. These are NOT Christians. They are going on the assumption that their god will send them to heaven because THEY themselves are thinking for god. The real believers are not worried about the end-times. Real believers have faith, worry about themselves, live their lives, then die.


The rest of your thread isn't worth commenting on because you first say faith is "unscientific" despite the fact your entire thread is unscientific. There is not enough evidence to dispute the Bible nor is there ANY evidence that could completely make religious texts pointless.


Let people believe what they WANT to believe. If it is wrong, then that's their problem.

P.S. I am an atheist, but I also think people should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want - right or wrong.

reply to post by Whyhi




I look forward to them answering that logical flaw. It never ceases to amaze me; the lack of common sense.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

And thus i cast my doubts on creation having an intelligent designer. I think it is false and presumptious to assume a supernatural "being"

And with science and their THEORIES that they pass as fact, continually being proven wrong on a daily bases,


I think its presumptuous to assume that "science" has all the answers........

reply to post by DevilJin

Faith is illogical and irrational but sometimes it is the only thing you have left and it is not just applicable in religion but in other aspects of life too

I'd sooner choose Agnosticism over faith.

In regards to a moral guide we have the compassion and intelligence that we all innately feel and have as human beings, as homo-sapiens, the characteristics that have helped us for all these years, we have shown to be solidary creatures, we get together, form groups, help each other. These characterists have no-doubt been advantageous to our evolution over time.

We don't need faith, religious dogma, or piety for this.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Great Post friend,

I am amazed how many people lack the insight to see religion for the farce it is.

I am ashamed to be anywhere near someone who hold faith above reason.

Faith is term used by the rulers to oppress the little people. A nice idea and a great plan but its still being
used as a tool to live your life by these days.

I am of the mind that Religion is Terrorism and vise versa.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


***Sigh***

The "You Can't Trust Science" argument.

Your argument has long since been defeated. If you are unwilling to watch the video i will happily destroy it here.

Don't base the simple belief in God/Goddess(es) and an afterlife on something that you took 100% literally from just one or 2 Holy Books that have been translated and re-translated dozens if not hundreds of times. Also, how does one define scientific? Are the quotes "Love thy neighbor" and "Let he who hath two coats, let him share with he who hath none" illogical? I don't think so, anyway.

reply to post by c0ldPhr34k


Thanks for the kind words brother; it's nice to have like-minded people contributing.

Peace

reply to post by BrandonTsia


No they are not illogical. Whilst i agree with some of the guides in doctrine that doesn't not mean the doctrine has a monopoly over them.

Are you to suggest that before these books were created, they did not understand the concept of "love thy neighbour"?

These are just moral or ethical ideas, these ideas don't require religion and they certainly don't stand in favour of the metaphysical claims of the books themselves.

reply to post by awake_and_aware



****sigh****
There is nothing defeated in any of that man.........to claim that science has ALL the answers is an ignorant statement in its self.

The old "science has all the answers" defense has been defeated repeatedly........and continues too every day , when something new comes out that science has passed off as fact for 20 years, turns out to be WRONG.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Scientists are humble enough to admit they are wrong when irrefutable evidence emerges contradicting their theory or maths. If they are unwilling to change their idea in light of irrefutable evidence then they are not great scientists and are actually halting science's progression by their arrogant denial and by their own pride.

Thanks.

reply to post by DevilJin


People should have the freedom to believe what they want as long as that right doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom. But when belief systems cause fanaticism that starts affecting us all by driving the believers to do things such not teach evolution to children in science class or blow up market places, they lose that right.
Theists have a tendency to want to impose their beliefs on others and take away the rights from the rest of us to believe/say what we want, despite the fact that they are supposed to be the forgiving ones. Here's a recent example of this - what in the world is wrong with saying what the original ads said, but there was such a protest, that now noone is allowed to have ads on buses that have anything to do with god, or lack of god. How silly.

Fort Worth Bus Ad Controversy

reply to post by DevilJin

The world isn't entirely scientific and logical and NEVER will be.

Scientific skepticism would like to have a word with how you came to that conclusion.

So, is everything supposed to be scientific?

I'd hope so.

Are you putting your FAITH in everything scientific?

You just put your faith in the idea that the universe isn't entirely scientific, which makes no sense in my opinion. If somethings happening, science will attempt to explain it with the evidence given and continue to study before and after a conclusion is reached.

Science itself doesn't require faith, skepticism also helps bolster this idea.

but sometimes it is the only thing you have left and it is not just applicable in religion but in other aspects of life too

The only thing "you should have left" is skepticism and critical thinking, not random leaps of faith.

We put faith in SCIENCE in that it will not be corrupt by corporate interest and politics YET it is in a lot of ways corrupt. If you look at the history of Monsanto, they have paid off scientists and universities to support them.

Those who understand the actual science do not require faith. Regardless, don't bring the pseudoscience arguments about the supposed "evils" of GM food, anyone who is educated in the relevant areas are not "paid off", they realize the potential of this technology, and not brainwashed by this pseudoscientific "organic" movement bunk.

Just because something is a fact doesn't mean everyone is going to accept it.

True, however, they should not expect that they are immune from scrutiny.

There is not enough evidence to dispute the Bible

Which part of it? This thread is about faith, which is disprovable, to a point.

nor is there ANY evidence that could completely make religious texts pointless.

Scientific skepticism makes the claims of almost all religious texts pointless by itself.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

And with science and their THEORIES that they pass as fact

I'm assuming you're insinuating that it's not concrete as it's "just a theory...". In that case, I'd like to introduce you to the definition of scientific theory:

Scientific theory

In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena

...continually being proven wrong on a daily bases

Name a few. If they are legitimately being proven wrong, any true skeptic will welcome the knowledge, if it holds up to scrutiny that is...

I think its presumptuous to assume that "science" has all the answers........

I'd like to point you towards my signature.

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

reply to post by peacevic


I oppose religion altogether because they can't help but spread it. Because they think they should be morally governed by a deity, by God, they feel the need, the duty even, to pass it on to their children.

I say this is wrong, i say it is indoctrination.

reply to post by Whyhi


Nice. I'm liking your logic. Nice to see like-minded people in here:-

I'll re-phrase what i said before:-

Scientists are humble enough, (or at least SHOULD be humble enough) to admit they are wrong when irrefutable evidence emerges contradicting their theory or maths. If they are unwilling to change their idea in light of irrefutable evidence then they actually halting science's progression by their arrogant denial and by their own pride thus defeating the objective of science.

I'm certainly liking the irony of ManBehindTheMask's avatar.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I agree with you except that I might replace "religion" with "organized religion". People who practice religion quietly and personally as opposed to in masses and following a leader have a tendency to be more accepting and less evangelical.

There are also some religions, typically the Eastern ones, which have more of a live and let live perspective, though some of those I'd probably qualify more as philosophies than religions (e.g. Taoism).