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.

 

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

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 
awake_and_aware,

Sience hasn't answered the basic question yet. What is life, How ddi it come about. They can't create it, they've been trying for years, no success. They are baffled. They refuse to look in the right place. They have not the wisdom they think they have.

Truthiron.




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by peacevic
 


I do agree that Taoism is rather timid in comparison to mono-theistic doctrine, but i'm not so sure it's a "religion" as such, more a philosophy, a way of life.

Religion by definition is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency"

So long as Taoism doesn't make any unreasonable claims as to the existence of a creator and his/her/it's desires it should be considered a Philosophy or a Culture rather than a religion, if by definition, religion is restricted to the belief in God, would you not agree?

I'm interested other people's opinion as well as yours, is Toaism a religion or a philosophy?

Or another question:

Is the label of religion restricted to the belief in God? I can't find any definitive definitions



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by truthiron
 


I agree.

Oh but by the way; we HAVE created life in a lab.

Scientists artificially create life in laboratory.

edit on 18/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I believe there may be a creator. Exactly who or what he/she/it is still remains to be defined, yet I can conclude the following based upon my observations and the knowledge that has been discovered by people who weren't content to just accept things as they are/were, who quested for knowelege. If IT does exist - it operates by the laws of nature and of physics. If it exists, it operates on an atomic/molecular scale only. Time is not of the essence to this hypothetical creator.

I think that religion to some people is more of a tradition than a personal belief. If you ask, many people will say that they have absolute faith in god. A closer look will tell a different story.
If a person believes with all their heart, mind & soul that god is protecting them, why would they do any of the following:

* Wear a seat belt
* Buy fire insurance
* Lock their doors
* Eat healthy
* Look both ways before crossing the street
* Go to the doctor/dentist
* Put their money in a bank

The list goes on....that's enough to make a point. I've heard it said that faith transcends reason. I say that it transcends reason the same way a carjacker transcends the law. Faith will do nothing but take you around in circles, and WE atheists know this and we watch them do it. They use the same old arguments that they've used for decades to try to get us to the point to say we don't know and then A-HA! they shout....they've found a gap to stick god in.
I heard a christian the other day make a remark that "Life is short - live it to the fullest"....wtf???
Life is short? I thought you guys were planning on living forever? Did something change? Why do they cry so much at funerals if they believe that it will only be a short while before they are untied again? Don't they believe what they say they do? Why do they consider their dead loved ones gone? Why would they bother even going to the doctor to have operations or get medicine for their illnesses if dying would take them into eternal bliss and freedom from all pain and worry? Why do they try to hold on to this life that they say is so sinful, and wicked, and full of pain, worry and misery? Furthermore, if their god is that great and good to them, why are they sick in the first place? Original sin? Well take note - Adam and Eve weren't created perfect. If they were perfect, they would not have been tempted and eaten. The snake didn't lie to them either. If I acted as god is said to behave, I would beat my youngest son when the oldest one brought home bad grades.

There is one thing that would make me change my mind about god. I would even be re-baptized. I would preach the word (no matter how absurd I found it) far and wide. All it would take for me to renounce my atheism, would be for an amputee to regrow his/her missing limb. Not a prosthetic, or surgery, but a bona-fide true miracle. It wouldn't even have to happen instantly - it could take a year or two - maybe more. I find it hard to believe that in all the world there aren't enough christians with enough faith to pray and make this happen. Jesus did say that if you asked ANYTHING in his name, he would do it right? And also, that his followers would do works even greater than he, right? That's the proof that I would need.
Terribly sorry that I can't confide in a 2000 year old book full of genocidal, incestuous, contradictory, egotistical, murderous, abusive fairy tales supposedly about love and mercy.
Sorry that I can't see intelligent design in unintelligent designs, also that thing about the fossil record AND all living things sharing DNA doesn't do much to dispel that everything doesn't share roots.
I can't find enough to believe in anywhere in the hundred thousand or so known religions who's clergy are among the vilest pedophiles, thieves, adulterers, wife-beaters, and hypocrites on earth.
It's a crying shame than anyone else CAN.

I saw a sign on a church the other day that said "The pastor told me to change the sign so I did"



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

All it would take for me to renounce my atheism, would be for an amputee to regrow his/her missing limb.


While i appreciate your words and many of your thoughts and ideas ring true to me, i disagree with the above statement.

Many animals have been known to regrow limbs. For example, Sun flower sea star regenerates its arms.

Could you not consider this a biological anomoly rather than a "miracle" that proves that an intelligent designer is at work?

Similarly, i'm willing to grant Christians the story of immaculate conception. But a "virgin-birth" doesn't prove the metaphysical claims of the holy doctrines or of the metaphysical existence of a deity; It doesn't prove that Jesus was the son of "God". Again, this miracle COULD be no more than a biological anomoly, a mutation that has caused asexual reproduction.

My question is: Is that all it takes to renounce your Atheism?
edit on 18/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 





So long as Taoism doesn't make any unreasonable claims as to the existence of a creator and his/her/it's desires it should be considered a Philosophy or a Culture rather than a religion, if by definition, religion is restricted to the belief in God, would you not agree?

I'm interested other people's opinion as well as yours, is Toaism a religion or a philosophy?

Or another question:

Is the label of religion restricted to the belief in God? I can't find any definitive definitions



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by peacevic
 


I see; while there seems to be no "definitive" definition of a religion, I would be willing to change the title to "Organized" religion if you feel it would be more appropriately so?

Like i said, i have no qualms with Toaism if it does not deal in revealed wisdom as to the creation or source of existence, or the abstract concepts like the meaning of life. Providing that, i have no issue with these "religions" if you can define it as that.

Peace
edit on 18/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


The regenerated limb in a human would be a great instrument in "getting the ball rolling" so to speak.
My main point was mainly missed due to my inclination to assume that the point has been made before I switch subjects. To me, a regenerated limb in a person would be indication that something beyond our understanding was at work. There are several rationalizations that go along with this precept, that I didn't even mention at all. Now, having said that, I realize that there are many lower forms of life that regenerate lost limbs, tails...etc...
Prayer has NEVER caused a limb to regenerate. Not a single documented case ever.
I think it would be impossible to be an atheist if one were watching amputees hobble into a church, and within a few minutes come bounding out - completely healed. I couldn't help BUT believe if cancer could be cured instantly (or even later that day) by simply praying. If I were in a firey bus crash, and as they were sorting through the smoldering remains and charred skeletons of others and they found ME, pinned but otherwise unscathed....I mean...what would you think? If I saw a child with Downs syndrome be HEALED from it, via prayer ONLY - I might begin to believe there is something to it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of these things might ever come to pass, since NOTHING has ever come from prayer that had ANY chance of coming from anywhere else....and yet in the rare chances it does come - GOD gets the credit for it as if he played an active part in it.
I remember in my churchgoing days, the pentecostal one this time, a high-school teacher of mine brought in her eldest son who had been born deaf. This was "revival" time, so everyone had high expectations for a "miracle".
Of course, he was led up for prayer...and the preacher said the most interesting thing before he began. He said something along the lines of "Now I believe that god answers prayer instantly, and I also believe that he answers prayer through the power of doctors, surgeries, and medications, and I believe that this prayer WILL be answered tonight - even if the answer we receive is "NO"
Of course, that fateful night - it was gods will to let the young man remain deaf rather than to absolutely blow the minds of ~150 people present.
What good is it then to pray if the answer is always no? How can anyone even be sure they are IN divine favor - with the answer to most prayers being NO...unless the prayer is asking god to remain hidden, or asking that your hair doesn't turn into snakes, or asking that you don't wake up in the morning and find you've changed races.
Most people these days are about as religious as it is convenient for them to be. They're not seeing or believing that their beliefs are sucking out of them the very thing it claims to be the only source of. The god of the bible isn't anything to be cherished or adored, much less worshiped. Anyone in our (mind you, supposedly imperfect) society who behaved with the same manners as he would have been put to death, or locked away for life....living in a mental institution babbing to his three selves about psychedelic phenomena and only shushed by the "burnt offering" cocktail of thorazine and phenobarbitol.
People who claim to be religious worry me. Depending on the level of their belief, I know that they are a few steps away from murdering me & my family if a voice from heaven told them to do it. Think that's outrageous? Read the news.

I'm not saying there is no creator. There may very well be, but as I said before he is indifferent and uses the laws of the universe to operate.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I probably can't define it as such. It's just an opinion - Taoism seems to me to be more guidance as to how to conduct your life, but since there isn't a "leader" (e.g. the Pope), but I think there are various implementations of it, many of which probably do delve into the meaning of life, the supernatural, etc., etc.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by peacevic
 


Seems like my type of religion! Contradictory as that may sound. Well, like you said, it's more of a philosophy, way of life. Which i have no problem with.

I can relate to it though, especially from playing Legend of Mir a few years ago (MMoRPG)
edit on 18/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 
awake_and_aware,

"Oh but by the way; we HAVE created life in a lab."

The link didn't work, but not yet, there would be a great flurry on the news big time if they ever did. First they must use their own made up sources and not use anything of the Creators. All they can do is play with what is already life. They had to rob something to even come up to one cell life.

Truthiron.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by truthiron
 


To create life from scatch as you state- we cannot do (yet), This would involve reverse-engineering the big bang (or the source of creation) and start a new existence such as our universe, and let it manifest itself like it does in our own.

Again, i'll agree we are very very young in terms of scientific discovery but we are getting there, slowly but surely. Science has done more for the benefit of society than religion has done in the past 2000 years.

The very fact im connecting with you on the internet shows what a great tool science is, and that we should spend more time learning, less time praying for things to manifest.
edit on 18/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by truthiron
 





Sience hasn't answered the basic question yet. What is life, How ddi it come about. They can't create it, they've been trying for years, no success. They are baffled. They refuse to look in the right place. They have not the wisdom they think they have.


Science doesn't claim to have answered the basic question yet. Not sure why the inability to create life at this point proves there is a separate supernatural creator being.

People have long thought the gods many things that we can do today - for example, people have long thought gods controlled the weather. now we can seed clouds and make it rain.

So perhaps the fact that we can't create life just means we weren't far enough along yet. It's certainly not proof that a supernatural being exists, any more than rain was proof of gods existence in times past.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Hey, long-time lurker here. I just wanted to clear up a few misconceptions. Please note that I’m a Christian, so that’s where I’m coming from.


I noticed that nobody has challenged the notion that faith ignores evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Faith thrives upon evidence. First, keep in mind that there are many kinds of evidences. There are subjective evidences (such as personal experiences, intuitions, etc.) which are unscientific, but nevertheless useful in a pragmatic sense. Other evidences come in the form of testimonies, in the same way you would consider an eyewitness testimony in a court case. Scriptures also count as evidence. Then there are “natural” evidences, such as the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the arguments from morality and aesthetics, etc. These are all evidences – atheists and agnostics simply choose to reject them, arguing that they are not convincing in some way.

Also, the OP asked where theists get their knowledge. The answer is simple: nature and revelation. Theists see the hand of an intelligent, compassionate hand in the beauty and order of the world. This is an example of a “natural” knowledge of God. Obviously, we can’t infer much about God from this approach. That’s where revelation comes in for us Christians – we believe (because of the testimony of witnesses) that God revealed Himself for our benefit, and most of our knowledge of God stems from this self-revelation. Are these sources of knowledge trustworthy or respectable? That’s your decision - I personally find them convincing.

Peace.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
i think your too rapped up in your own fools reality to see the big picture. i have come up with a simple theory that basically unites all religions and sciences. i dont want to talk about it here i want to make it its own thread. First time poster! but all i can say is all sides are correct, and all sides are wrong, there are far less differences than you would imagine. all worldly differences can be overcome by seeing the big picture, how everything works on the simplest level. we are all climbing the same mountain. we all just have different perspectives of the mountain and different paths, with many seemingly immovable roadblocks along the way for each path up to the top.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Firebreather
 


Firstly, If you read my original post, you may understand i have defeated many of your arguments already. It'll save you from re-postulating already dead straw man. Still i will respond politely.


I noticed that nobody has challenged the notion that faith ignores evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Faith thrives upon evidence. First, keep in mind that there are many kinds of evidences.


Faith in a deity is a lot different from "faith" in my own mother for example. Her track record of realiability and loyalty to me give me the grounds to that faith. I have a reason, a logic to have faith in my mother.

Where's your logic in regards to belief in a super omnipotent being with desires? Where's your evidence?

Christianity the same as any other Theocratic preachment, it suggests that they have discovered the "TRUE" word of God, the desires of the source of existence. This was said to be discovered before they even knew that they existed in a solar system, let alone how the existence itself came to be. Christians, AND all other Theists cannot claim these preachings as truth, there is no evidence. Only holy doctrine written by an early, an ignorant man.


Also, the OP asked where theists get their knowledge. The answer is simple: nature and revelation. Theists see the hand of an intelligent, compassionate hand in the beauty and order of the world.


Us Atheists and scientists alike can see the beauty in nature without invoking God. There is no reason to suggest this reality is "intelligently" designed or that it has desires or pious demands.

Besides you say you believe in Christianity, you abide by its absolute moral code if you are a firm believer. Where did man derive the morals from? Can he honestly claim to understand the morals of the creator of the universe, or that a creator is even required for our existence?

And by the way, i am glad we have secular society; if we still had theocracy or religion encroaching on state affairs, our freedoms would be much less, they'd advocate libel laws, punish and condemn homosexuals and in many cases advocate genocide. Just look at theocratic nonsense in the middle east.

And don't give me the BS that Christianity is somehow different than other religions. They're all the same, unfasifiable unintelligble nonsense, here's why.

If you really truely believed that an ancient book was evidence of your God's intentions and desires you wouldn't have a problem with racism, genocide and the scapegoating of one's own moral responsibility - the essence of your Vicarious Redemption theory.

Just read both old testament and new testment, they have immoral preachings in them. The moral preachings still do not explain the evil, immoral one's.

If God is absolute, his word cannot "change" subject to human contraversy, so i say, you must, if you believe, think Homosexuals are "sinners"?

The more and more i read the side from the "Christian" it seems that they have a lack of understand of what the true beliefs and commands are in the doctrine.

Yet us Atheists are the ignorant ones? How is this? We are humble enough to admit we don't yet know the origin of the universe, scientists admit this fact, yet Christians and other religions claim they know what did it, and what it's desires are.

We're all atheists brother, i just believe in one less God than you.

Peace

edit on 19/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
No philosopher, no theologian, no mathematician, no scientist has ever conclusively proved the existence of a higher power or deity (especially that intervenes in human affairs) with empirical evidence.

What's your point? Where's your theistic doctrines come from? I'll tell you: man.

Again, you choose Christianity over every other religion man has ever made, i say you are an Atheist, you just have one more God than me


Peace

Just to add: Offended? I don't care. Politics, medicine, sports, scientific theory - we all are allowed to challenge people's ideas in these arenas of debate, why not religion? What excludes this from critique?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
As we are all humans, and have rules, laws, regulation on EVERYTHING.
What would the outcome of a TRIAL in a court of LAW be..
Betwene:

1: Religion
2: Science



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey
 


3. Democracy

If it was still religion, theocracy, like it is in the middle east we would still have the moral, absolute laws of God, opression of homosexuals and women inflicted on us as a matter of state law.

That's partly why they formed the constitution, and is written in there- to separate church from state so that pious beliefs cannot encroach on free democratic society.

Thanks

A note to add and some food for thought - Sam Harris has debated and postulated that morality can be even managed scientifically.

LINK HERE
edit on 19/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Hey Awake_and_Aware,

I think you have misread my post. I’m saying that we theists have reasons for our beliefs. We have come to the conclusion that God exists because we have been presented with numerous logical proofs and eyewitness testimonies. Think of this as a courtroom, with God’s existence on trial. We view these proofs and testimonies as evidence of God’s existence. You can argue that these proofs and testimonies and personal experiences aren’t evidence, but they are. Likewise, the problem of pain, the personal experiences of atheists, and so forth, are evidence put forth against the existence of God. I have weighed the evidence of God’s existence as more favorable than the evidence of God’s nonexistence. It is your prerogative to disagree, but it is disingenuous to claim that theists have no evidence to support their claims.

Where did man derive the morals from? Can he honestly claim to understand the morals of the creator of the universe, or that a creator is even required for our existence?

Those are good questions. I would say that morality has several sources. In the case of primitive man, morality stemmed from personal strength. In modern democracies, morality is more of a social contract or consensus. However, these are simply artificial fabrications which arise from the clouded image of the divine inherent in each of us. In Christianity, true morality is revealed as God reveals Himself, because He is morality. Without this revelation, man couldn’t possibly understand the morals of God, which is probably why we have so many different moral systems.
As for the second half of that question: well, could you exist without a mother and a father? Could they have existed without a mother and father? How far back do we need to go before we come to the conclusion that it all had to start somewhere? Granted, this isn’t absolute proof of God’s existence, but it does lend credence to the revelation of God.

And by the way, i am glad we have secular society; if we still had theocracy or religion encroaching on state affairs, our freedoms would be much less, they'd advocate libel laws, punish and condemn homosexuals and in many cases advocate genocide.

I agree. Theocracies are bad news. The only way one would ever work is if God Himself was literally at the head of the government, personally overseeing everything.

If you really truely believed that an ancient book was evidence of your God's intentions and desires you wouldn't have a problem with racism, genocide and the scapegoating of one's own moral responsibility - the essence of your Vicarious Redemption theory.

As far as racism and genocide go – the New Testament clearly forbids any of that. As far as the notion of vicarious redemption – you have seriously misinterpreted that doctrine. The idea is that crime demands restitution, and the crimes of humankind were so great that only God could pay them off. It wasn’t scapegoating – it was self-sacrifice, generosity and mercy.

The more and more i read the side from the "Christian" it seems that they have a lack of understand of what the true beliefs and commands are in the doctrine.

Yet us Atheists are the ignorant ones? How is this? We are humble enough to admit we don't yet know the origin of the universe, scientists admit this fact, yet Christians and other religions claim they know what did it, and what it's desires are.

At no point did I refer to you as ignorant. I have acknowledged that you have reasons for believing what you believe. I am merely asking for the courtesy to acknowledge that we theists have reasons for believing what we believe.
Peace



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join