It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by peacevic

I am 100 percent agreed with you,that was the point i was trying to make,but since english is not my native language and i haven't been to college,i obviously can't explain my thoughts without proper language knowledge,and i guess ganja had her role...xD
But the conclusion is that we are all pretty much on the same wave lenght on this topic if you understand what i mean.
And considering the changes on that moths population i guess we can call that evolution

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

You're first fallacy is thinking that Theists' beliefs can only be rooted in faith. That it's impossible for anyone to have sufficient evidence to justify their belief in a God. Do you know "every" Theist personally and why they believe? I'm guessing not. So you make a claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up, but you blindly believe it? Doesn't that sound familiar?

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by 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?

What year/date/hour was religion created, and by whom specifically? Any names, and how would you know this? What language did they speak? Also, how do you know that the people who created religion weren't aware of the things you mentioned? Time traveler? How can you make such claims of "truth"?

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

I think it should be challenged. It should be challenged and debated with the two thousand years worth of accumulated evidence against it. There have been other forms of treatment for the good of people & society that have been scrutinized and found to not only be false - but otherwise harmful. Take bloodletting for example - the belief that "bad blood" caused illness & that the only way to get better was to get the bad blood out of your body. How many lives did that claim before it was finally brought to an end?
The crux of the matter is that people as a whole think that they HAVE to believe in a god or else civilization will fall apart. They fail to see that their god has not contributed a single bit to the discoveries of medicine, electricity, physics, and any of the other sciences that make our way of life possible. They THINK that it's this belief in god that is holding humanity together, yet it's this very belief they cling to that is in fact one of the most destructive forces in ANY society - regardless of the I said before, religion is poison.
The clergy have the most amazing jobs. They soothe the people with candy words, keep just enough fear in them to keep them loyal, and make them think they are part of something much larger.
I don't know about where you are, but here the churches are pretty strictly divided by race, also denomination.
I've been to mixed denomination churches before, and the funny thing about it there was that the congregation SEGREGATED itself! Blacks here, whites over here, Hispanics in the back. In all the great tele-evangelists that have ever been, many have been exposed as adulterers, thieves and the like. What benefit is there for a believer? What benefit is there for praying over a dying loved one, and they die anyway. Praying for divine protection and you lose everything in a home fire. Where is this god? Are you sure he's listening? For people of faith, this creates a mentality that borderlines despair. To be happy in a religion there comes a point to where you absolutely HAVE to stop questioning things. You have to stop learning anything new. You have to let the circular reasoning take it's course and just be FINE with that, you just have to PUT IT IN GODS HANDS...which is just another way of saying you need to forget about it.
I learned the trick of catching circular reasoning when I thought that becoming a Jehovah's witness was a good idea, back in 93/94. I watched even the amateur witnesses tie the most experienced christians up in knots with scripture and they eventually 90% of the time would get to the point where they said "You just have to have faith, and I know what I believe is true" even though they couldn't give you any reason at all for their belief other than that's what they'd been told. Later, as I continued asking questions, I found out that the JW's were guilty of the same thing.

In response to your reference to arrogance, and citing evidence - free speech is the best thing I have. Anything else I could muster would rate way behind what the god of the internet, Google, could provide to those who actually were searching for the truth. I wouldn't shed nary a tear if I were declared to be arrogant - I have a feeling most atheists would agree with me on the points I've made. As far as evidence, there are mountains of evidence supporting a god-free cosmos. You're asking me to show you a tree when we're standing in the middle of a forest, a grain of sand and we're in the Sahara.
Most of the references I have are based upon personal experiences and observations, which carries no weight, and requires nothing further.
I have expanded my views with such books as "The Blind Watchmaker", "The Grand Design", "The Theory of Everything", "Your Inner Fish", and a few episodes of Dr. Who.

I've got another question. At what point in history has ANY religion done anything that has bettered humanity?
I was thinking something along the lines of an act being equivalent to the discovery of penicillin by science. Regardless of what anyone says, religion has done nothing but maintain status-quo - or oppress.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by cLOUDDEAD

How do you know the Romans even existed? How do you know this as truth?

If you're going to play that game with me you are welcome.

Have you ever researched the origins of the bible? It certainly wasn't originally written in english.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by sykickvision

Encore brother, you're words certainly ring true to me.

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

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by cLOUDDEAD

If any Theist has empirical evidence as to the existence of God, let alone the existence of his specific God of his religion, i'd be happy to renounce my Atheism.

You make a positive assertion as to the origins of the universe and it's "desires" or "rules" then expect the burden of proof to be on you. Not the person with the lack of belief.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

Those with higher intellgence, can understand, to place your trust in religion, is to misplace it.

Many human beings, do not like being wrong, or realizing how small and puny they (and thier planet) is.
So are you really suprised, some people will close thier eyes and pretend its all a bad dream?

Personally i think its good for someone to have thier own spiritual side, but that holds no place in reality.
But many people in my town, claim science is the "devils" work. Which confuses me, how can someone throw away logic, for magical fairytales?

It could be in DNA, that those who do not accept science as true. Well perhaps mentally they cannot comprehend such understandings, meaning they would be gentically inferiour. However those who do not hold to religion, are very knowledgeable in science math and physics.

So it goes to say, that they have a better understanding of reality, it is one step closer to evolution taking its course.

Simply back in ancient times, if you heard voices. That meant God was talking to you. Today we call this schizophrenia.

EDIT: carl sagan says it best.

edit on 19-12-2010 by Anthony1138 because: adding carl sagan's logic to the forum.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by Anthony1138

Again, it's a joy to have another user to humbly speak words of truth that i can relate to. I think it''s evident that there is a clear separation of mindset, i believe (and tell me if i am wrong) you are among us who willing to put truth before faith?

Great to have you contributing. Thanks.

P.S I love Carl Sagan, what a mind!

"A Pale Blue Dot" - Carl Sagan is one of my favourites too

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

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

I always put truth, before faith. Faith is more of "hope" then anything else, it holds no realism, the one truth is science because science never lies. So many religious zealots, that is a hard concept to put thier mind around, so thus anything that challenges thier belifes, they see as wicked and evil. (which is how they act when out of control)

However i do believe the universe has a creator, but that does not mean the creator is a "god"

Think of it like this, imagen someone made a video game with AI so advanced, that they are able to understand the world around them, but would they see thier creator as a simple creator or as a god?

I believe we are in a simlar situation, execpt the "creator" probally doesnt know we even exist. Like a sciencist making a mini universe in a lab, simply a product of study. So to praise and worship this creator, that doesnt even know you exist, is pointless isnt it?

The only "god" i reconize is the physical laws of the universe, to many this is an emotionally unsatisfying answer, but it is pointless to worship gravity.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:39 PM
reply to post by Anthony1138

Ah, sounds like the clockmaker theory. They believe in a creator of the universe, but don't see him as active in what he created. Though most who have subscribed to this still recognize the creator as a god. To not is an interesting perspective. May I ask you a few questions?

Do you see this creator as a separate being from the universe that he created?
Where does he reside if he is separate?
What led you to decide there was a creator at all?

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by Anthony1138

The only "god" i reconize is the physical laws of the universe, to many this is an emotionally unsatisfying answer, but it is pointless to worship gravity.

I can relate to that. Theists, Pantheists personify the universe, automatically assuming it has been intelligentlycreated by a deity(that needs praising)

I don't believe "GOD" is necessary for the universe to function, until proved otherwise this will have to remain a belief i admit, Theists already claim to have evidence which i find remarkble...remarkably idiotic and unscientific.

I'd sooner call what your talking about "The Force" or "The Energy", something vague and general, as we don't have a specific idea of the origins of the universe.
edit on 19/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:43 AM
YOU ARE ALL SO WRONG.Please reconsider your words carefully.You are talking about religion as if it is something that God created...People often misuse the words of Bible and these supposedly holy books,you cant find anything in Bible that will lead the humanity to wrong way.Everyone of you,talk about the religion that vatican and other such institutions have obtruded amongst our people!Bible is the greatest book of all times because it teaches us how to care for each other,love,forgiveness,kindness and all the best virtues that we can develop through our life and use them to live a more satisfying life on this hellhole of a planet.

So if you never read the Bible please do,because its all about love in that book.F*** the popes,f*** the vatican and all of them pedofile priests.You are all deluded by the mischief of HUMANS,God,if he really is out there has nothing with this.

Don't be ignorant and open your eyes!


posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:55 AM
As I arrive rather late on this thread, I'll do my best to present where I come from, simultaneously with my 'map of the territory'.

I do not really belong black or white to any of the 'camps' at the opposite ends of the debate, so I must emphasize, that by opposing one view, I do not necessarily support its antagonist.

I consider myself an (amateur)metaphysicist, defined as acknowledging both the 'invisible' part of what mankind consider existence and the general methodology used by science.

While the level of this thread is pleasantly advanced (and it's not my intention to redirect the present flow), I can recognize some of the basic omissions being repeated on thread after thread. Mainly that the opposing views not quite are talking about the same things and from the same (semantic) terms, and I believe that some common ground could solve some of the simpler communication problems.

From a severely limited perceptual perspective, mankind is correspondingly limited to a certain extent of conceptualizing, but nonetheless have we been able to formulate and test some abstractions, enhancing our ideas of what we call existence.

One part of existence, cosmos, is ordered structurally from a basic pattern of polarities. These polarities are slightly a-symmetrical and thus dynamic. For reasons outside this thread this dynamics manifests in growing complexities, in increasingly hierarchial systems (=evolution). Cosmos is somewhat visible for mankind.

The other part of existence is (from our perspective) non-ordered, chaos, and is still almost invisible for us.

In the visible part of cosmos, we can discern patterns, which form 'natural laws' and these patterns can be used as WELLFUNCTIONING maps for the cosmic territory defined by certain parameters. Ultimately causality, space/time, matter/energy, forces, whatever. In the invisible part of cosmos (one simple example for the human eye: Ultraviolet light) there's maybe a thousand times more information than we know of yet. Though this invisible part of cosmos is still structured and potentially measurable= 'Natural'.

Personally I'm convinced, that much of what mankind calls 'anomaleous' belongs to this part of existence, and it will eventually explain some of what's now considered 'para-normal' etc.

Knowledge-wise we're much worse off, when the transit-point between cosmos and chaos is approached.This is called event horizon in scientific lingo (no matter if it's considered as a Big Bang or zero-point physics), and beyond that mankind is unable to make more than a few guesses. Causality as we know it breaks down, and measurements are impossible.

Former science, 'scientism' either ignored this or defined it away. Options of disregard not possible for contemporary quantum-physics in conclusive theoretical forms. From time to time speculations turn up, but they are still speculations, though some of them do seem promising. E.g. the hypothesis of a 'holographic' universe, where 'awareness' per se is the 'basic material' of chaos.

At this speculative level theology, philosophy and 'awareness-methodology' take over. And finally getting somewhere, here's where the real questions can be asked. But to start asking, relevant semantics must be formed first (wisely enough asian semi-religions/philosophies just call the beyond-event-horizon for the 'nameless').

So such anthropomorphic expressions as 'intelligent design' simply have no meaning in chaos. There's nothing comparable to human concepts and basically such efforts are just pathetic, and highly incorrect, hijacking of science, trying to create pseudo-answers to the admitted knowledge-vacuum of science. No answers will ever be found that way. We may at best be able to talk about 'intent' concerning creation, without ascribing anything more to it.

Much rambling, and by no means compulsory to follow up. But it can eventually lead us to the meetingpoint of 'theology' and science, where things can become interesting.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:25 AM
reply to post by AlwaysStoned


Perhaps, but at least I admit the possibility rather than claim that I know what I (and you) cannot possibly know.

You are talking about religion as if it is something that God created.

No, I'm talking about religion as if it is something that man created.

Bible is the greatest book of all times because it teaches us how to care for each other,love,forgiveness,kindness and all the best virtues that we can develop through our life and use them to live a more satisfying life on this hellhole of a planet.

Many books and teachings show us how to show these things. The Bible contains alot more than that, though - and it's not all nice and cheery! Also - I find the planet quite wonderful. It appears you did not, yet according to your beliefs your god took the time to make it for us, and was pleased with it. Seems a bit contradictory.

F*** the popes,f*** the vatican and all of them pedofile priests.You are all deluded by the mischief of HUMANS,

I think you are right. And remember - the Bible was written by humans...

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:30 AM
reply to post by peacevic

You are taking my words out of the context,our planet was wonderful(and still is in some way),but the people are destroying it and it is polluted with BAD people.

That was my point,peace my brother,David

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by AlwaysStoned

Didn't mean to take your words out of context.

If humans have polluted the planet (which is not a human creation), why do you put such faith in a book (the Bible) that humans have themselves created. Would that not be polluted also?

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:14 AM
Re AlwaysStoned

As I've lectured endlessly about in a post above, science/logic and faithbased 'religion' are like Mars and Venus. Practically no meetingpoints. And seemingly religionists want it to stay that way. If they dared enter a common communication process, they might have to 'open' their system of rigid, holy doctrines (as science does occasionally).

And woe, if unflexible doctrines were changed, then surely the world would collapse.

So my own main argument against extremist, doctrinal holiness isn't profiling 'logic' as an alternative.

It's rather the inter-religious competition between faith-based religion:

You have postulated this dogma of the bible being the greatest book telling us to love etc. And then your falange manifests this 'love' from YOUR book, interpretated YOUR way, in sharp and often violent competion with other books and other interpretations in exactly the same way as your competitors.

There's no 'LOVE' manifested in any of you, only verbal or physical fights between you and your competitors (when you're not busy with fighting infidels).

For us outside the holy bubbles, it just looks like a lot of hot air. There's no meat on the 'LOVE' bones, rather you're degrading 'love' to be a tactical and semantic means in your invasive attitude.

Show me the religion, sect or whatever who PRACTISES, what it uses for propaganda purposes, and it will have my respect.

Show me a set of doctrines as a basis for such a faith, where there are no loop-holes leading to 'love' is 'war' twistings, and it will have my respect.

Your rhetoric babblings about being so much better than catholics, muslims or others not joining your special holy club need demonstration, not just so many empty words.

So: This is NOT about logic. It's about why YOUR faith is 'true', compared to other faiths.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:28 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by lipstainedred

Firstly, Welcome to the debate; may i advise reading the original post and following responses.

My main belief in this thread is that you cannot assert a belief or a "theory" (specifically in God) without having critical evidence. This is in essense how science works.

I see the approach to" God" coming from several positions or stances:-

Theism - Claims to know the existence of the creator of the universe, and also claims that he/she/it has rules and desires of human life.

Deism - the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe

Pantheism - Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god

Atheism - Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. (That is supernatural, intervening wizards that the Theists talk about)

Atheism or the lack of belief of religion/Theism derrives from our own inherent Agnosticism of the creation of the universe. WE DON'T KNOW!!!!! This is a humble and honest stance i believe.

Christians, for example, created the Holy doctrine before they knew that they existed on a round planet and within a solar system, never mind how the existence of reality came to be. How can we trust them with their theories of God? Faith? Is this enough i ask?

My opinion on 2012 is the same as Religion. Provide ireffutable evidence to your theory and us "skeptics" will remove all doubt.

There's all sorts of doomday scenarios surrounding that year including Solar Flares, Pole Shift, Floods, The arrival of a planet in a solar system, some theories suggest Aliens are aboard.

It's a fact that there will be increased Solar Activity in that time, potentially causing damage to some technological infrastructure (electricity, satellite systems etc.) But nothing that would wipe out our speciies or destroy the earth.

There is much hearsay surrounding 21st December 2012 but non that has been conclusively confirmed by scientific study.
edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in