If all religion is false then why is....

[Crunchy Cat]

Supportive evidence does not equal truth.

Supportive evidence can literally be a proof (i.e. the truth) and it can be merely suggestive. It all depends on the quantity and quality of the evidence.

According to you, a thousand years ago because there was no shred of evidence to support a blackhole existing, it never existed. So if someone a thousand years ago said blackholes existed, they must be wrong, because at the time there was no supportive evidence. This is EXACTLY what you're saying.

Thats an interpretation of what I am saying and it's not the message I am trying to communicate. I'll try to phrase it a different way. If a person makes a claim that is not evidence based then it is not falsifiable nor is it coherent. You would probably have better odds at winning the lottery than being correct with such a claim.

The funny thing about claims like this that persist for thousands of years is that knowledge (resulting from the scientific process) starts finding evidence that directly contradicts the claim. Take the Xian 'God' for example. The process of evolution directly contradicts Genesis; indirectly invalidating their 'God'.

Thats not entirely true, take the big bang for instance, because other models fit in its accepted. The super-string theory is also gaining acceptance in the same way.

I don't agree. Big bang and super-string theory are a bit dated. What has happened is new empirical cosmological evidence has arrived, new empirical physics discoveries have been made, and the top theories that been derived as a result are Inflationary theory and M-Theory.

If I provide strong concrete evidence for something that isn't widely accepted it will most likely be ruled out as a cause of something else, ignored, ridiculed. This is what happens to many scientists...

Peer reviews aren't always perfect. What's being described is a human issue and IMO has improved drastically over the past few decades.

Science is a process, an ever-changing process.

Hypothesize, Test, Create/Modify Thoery, Repeat

The process doesn't seem to be ever-changing. Theories on the other hand do. Did you perhaps mean that scientific theories are ever-changing?

Yes, and these spiritual beings have said that reality as we know it has no independant existence of its own, etc...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well those things really aren't testable, except for the soul one, but neurology is still in its infancy. They still haven't figured out exactly how this illusion of consciousness is created from matter and chemical reactions alone.

They're not testable because they don't exist . I'll specualte that as neurology and computer science become more mature and interlinked, humans will be able to artifically create consciousness. That will invalidate the claims of virtually every religion on earth.

 

[spidergoat]

Enlightenment and spiritual revelation are subjective observations. Religion is the theory that attempts to explain them. There might be better theories.

 

[glaucon]

I disagree. Enlightenment is one phenomenon, even if it's only the sudden absense of delusional thinking. This spiritual phenomenon is not limited to Buddhism or the East. It might not be a supernatural thing at all. Brain scans show unusual things happening to a meditator's brain activity.

I wouldn't dismiss things like telepathy either, perhaps they are real. I would be very interested in any evidence of such. The pursuit of science requires an open mind.

Despite your disagreement, you're simply wrong.
Notice how you use the words "delusional", "supernatural" and "unusual". All very vague terms that indicate an inability to accurately describe something. That's because you're trying to describe things that are either insufficiently understood as of yet, or simply do not exist. In particular, you use the word enlightenment as if it's understood what exactly this term means while assuming that this qualifies as a bona fide religious and/or spiritual phenomenon. What's worse, you assume it to be a phenomenon at all. With the exception of its use to describe a supposed experience of another the term has no meaning. At best therefore, it's just as valid an example of a religious/spiritual phenomenon as "love" is.

 

[spidergoat]

You are correct, but I'm not wrong.
Words only work when your internal dictionary matches mine. Since the experience of enlightenment is shared by few, the term is mostly meaningless to the layman. Anything completely new is subject to this same limitation. I would have as much chance of communicating to you the taste of a spice you have never before encountered. I consider enlightenment to be a real phenomenon because I experienced it, and because I could then relate to others who spoke about it. In the years and seconds before I experienced this, all their descriptions seemed like nonsense.

I don't deny that the experience that others call a revelation of God is similar. The difference is in how they chose to interpret it, as God, rather than, (as I do) something indescribable that perhaps the brain itself does, or a change it undergoes perhaps in conjunction with other body processes. In another sense, it is no change at all, but an awareness of a type we don't usually engage in, the ego or self left unchanged in the backround. I think it's still a mystery, Religious people like to put it in a context of some mythology.

 

[sderenzi]

Science is god, religion is satan, nuff said.

 

[VitalOne]

Science is god, religion is satan, nuff said.

I agree, the truth, the way, it is God, ignorance, the unreal, it is Satan.

 

[Hapsburg]

If all religion is false why are there striking parallels in the teachings and words of spiritual figures...surely they are trying to reveal the same truth...

Because just like in the concept "great minds think alike", there is an equal and opposite negative concept called "stupid minds think alike".
Thus, the vague similarities in some religions.

Really, though, nearly every religion differs heavily in details. When it comes to vague and general concepts, there are bound to be similarities. You only find near-identicalness when they are developed within very close proximity to each other, like with Germanic and Norse paganism, Greco-Roman polytheism, and the Aztec and Mayan mythologies.

 

[lightgigantic]

Because just like in the concept "great minds think alike", there is an equal and opposite negative concept called "stupid minds think alike".
Thus, the vague similarities in some religions.

Really, though, nearly every religion differs heavily in details. When it comes to vague and general concepts, there are bound to be similarities. You only find near-identicalness when they are developed within very close proximity to each other, like with Germanic and Norse paganism, Greco-Roman polytheism, and the Aztec and Mayan mythologies.

There's also a variety of medical paradigms available - chemotherapy, surgery, massage, oral medication, accupunture (and they all claim that they "work" too)- for one who is bereft of the knowledge how to determine their success (ie the health of the patient) it is understandable why an outsider would see disparity and thus launch off in to a series of speculations ("Hey this guy is using tablets, this guy is going to place you on a table and stab you with a scalpel and this guy is going to rub your back, and this guy is going to expose you to radiation - and they all claim they are going to make you healthy .... I'm out of here!!!")

In other words your vision is narrow

 

[Enterprise-D]

True but if it was a result of culture and tradition it would still all be completely different.

Popularity isn't proof of truth. However, all these people claimed to have ways to end suffering, salvation, eternal bliss, etc...why do they speak similarly? Why do they explain reality in the same way?

Marketing...creators of religion view what exists and create their own with a similar message. Why do you think Coke and Pepsi look the same? Why do you think various brand name sneakers are similar in appearance?

Hark back to my comparison where the Vatican has issued a statement whereby purgatory no longer exists since it may dissuade potential converts - a reason of marketability. This specific withdrawal itself is not connected to your initial statement, it just alludes to the fact that one of the religions you are using has a tremendous marketing engine, and it is not unreasonable to assume that this engine can be focussed to other aspects of the monolithic organisation.

No I'm not, I'm questioning things on both sides. Atheists however do not question things, they already KNOW that religion is false. There is no need to speculate, because they have complete, full knowledge of all there is to know. Yet they claim they require no faith, how ironic.

Athiests do not ever claim to have absolute knowledge. Athiests simply do not rush to a belief because someone else says so. And as a side note, you are showing your own disdain by confusing the lack of belief in a god with the total absolutist belief of knowing everything.

If popularity is not proof then you also claim that because millions of scientists reach the same conclusion that doesn't mean something is true. Therefore you, yourself have again ended up proving my point instead of yours.

Absolute rubbish. Millions of scientists have the same conclusion because of a wealth of evidence and repeatable experimentation processes. Everything the Science "claims" to be true can be verified by anyone.

The mentality to which you refer, I think, is more accurately described as the assumption that one is 100% correct simply because that is what one believes. Popularity needn't come into it; at best it's a weak attempt at justification, not a real reason.

I somewhat concede to this correction Baum...though I'm using the word 'popularity' since Vital insists that religion must be correct because more than one person came to a similar conclusion.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Because just like in the concept "great minds think alike", there is an equal and opposite negative concept called "stupid minds think alike".
...

Hapsburg, I actually disagree with this. The powers that be of religion are shrewd, and the creators of religions are geniuses. To win the minds of that many masses is a great feat. Especially to win frightening numbers as Christianity - 2.1 billion, Islam - 1.3 billion, Hinduism - 0.9 billion etc etc.

Conversely athiesm/agnosticism/otherwise non-religious has a current maximum demographic estimation of about 0.95 billion, however the lowest figure I've come across is 0.3 billion (estimated of course because theist power is frightful, in a few countries atheism is punishable by death).

There's also a variety of medical paradigms available - chemotherapy, surgery, massage, oral medication, accupunture (and they all claim that they "work" too)- for one who is bereft of the knowledge how to determine their success (ie the health of the patient) it is understandable why an outsider would see disparity and thus launch off in to a series of speculations ("Hey this guy is using tablets, this guy is going to place you on a table and stab you with a scalpel and this guy is going to rub your back, and this guy is going to expose you to radiation - and they all claim they are going to make you healthy .... I'm out of here!!!")

In other words your vision is narrow

Lightee!! (#1 )

Of course there are varying medicinal processes. They have all been PROVEN to work. They however are used at varying stages of ill health or FOR varying afflictions or diseases. No one ever claimed that chemotherapy will eradicate malaria (although radiation might actually do it), or an antibiotic will fix your broken bones after an accident.

Conversely, I (as a thinking individual) am very skeptical of acupuncture and do not buy its merits wholesale. Just the same way as I am skeptical about religion.

A doctor will not prescribe ALL of these for one affliction. You might, but that's why you're not a medical doctor. I'd be frightened if you are!

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise D

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
There's also a variety of medical paradigms available - chemotherapy, surgery, massage, oral medication, accupunture (and they all claim that they "work" too)- for one who is bereft of the knowledge how to determine their success (ie the health of the patient) it is understandable why an outsider would see disparity and thus launch off in to a series of speculations ("Hey this guy is using tablets, this guy is going to place you on a table and stab you with a scalpel and this guy is going to rub your back, and this guy is going to expose you to radiation - and they all claim they are going to make you healthy .... I'm out of here!!!")

In other words your vision is narrow
”

Lightee!! (#1 )

Of course there are varying medicinal processes. They have all been PROVEN to work.

agreed.
thats why I posted
for one who is bereft of the knowledge how to determine their success (ie the health of the patient) it is understandable why an outsider would see disparity and thus launch off in to a series of speculations

They however are used at varying stages of ill health or FOR varying afflictions or diseases. No one ever claimed that chemotherapy will eradicate malaria (although radiation might actually do it), or an antibiotic will fix your broken bones after an accident.

I don't think anyone claimed that you have follow ALL religions either - the point was that according to conditions there are a variety of applications aimed at achieving the same goal (regardless whether you are talking about religion or medicine)

Conversely, I (as a thinking individual) am very skeptical of acupuncture and do not buy its merits wholesale. Just the same way as I am skeptical about religion.

Then it seems that you are not qualified to determine medical processes and the benefits they confer .... as for religion ......

A doctor will not prescribe ALL of these for one affliction. You might, but that's why you're not a medical doctor. I'd be frightened if you are!

therefore you find there are a variety of religions, and even within religions there are a variety of teachings, hence the doctor and the pharmacist's role in medicine is the same role that a priest/brahmana/etc serves in religion (you wouldn't go to a masseur for a session of chemotheraphy and you wouldn't go to a rabbi to receive the gayatri mantra)

 

[VitalOne]

Marketing...creators of religion view what exists and create their own with a similar message. Why do you think Coke and Pepsi look the same? Why do you think various brand name sneakers are similar in appearance?

This comparison is irrevelant and makes no sense as Coke came first and Pepsi knew of Coke's existence and Coke was the standard, so ofcourse others copied after Coke. Where as these spiritual teachers existing in different times all revealed the same truths.

Hark back to my comparison where the Vatican has issued a statement whereby purgatory no longer exists since it may dissuade potential converts - a reason of marketability. This specific withdrawal itself is not connected to your initial statement, it just alludes to the fact that one of the religions you are using has a tremendous marketing engine, and it is not unreasonable to assume that this engine can be focussed to other aspects of the monolithic organisation.

This is also irrevelant, as I specificially stated the words of Jesus Christ himself and the Catholic Church are two completely different things. I also stated that I'm not talking about religion...

Athiests do not ever claim to have absolute knowledge. Athiests simply do not rush to a belief because someone else says so. And as a side note, you are showing your own disdain by confusing the lack of belief in a god with the total absolutist belief of knowing everything.

Generally, atheists have no beliefs in the supernatural at all. Atheists do not formally claim to have absolute knowledge, however they claim to know that there is no afterlife, no soul, no God, etc...how can you know these things without having absolute knowledge?

Absolute rubbish. Millions of scientists have the same conclusion because of a wealth of evidence and repeatable experimentation processes. Everything the Science "claims" to be true can be verified by anyone.

So now you're saying that popularity does = proof. Actually, whatever scientists agree to, thats assumed to be true. Many scientists disagree with each other on innumerable things, but the majority wins, regardless of a lack of evidence, etc.... Whether you like it or not, its the conclusion that they all come to that makes it appear true. Because scientists agreed to different things in the past, the truth appeared different. Its popularity, not proof. Also a lot of times experimentation is not used or impossible so calculations and models are used instead. These claims cannot be verified by just anyone.

In any case you are still pushing that evidence = truth. This is illogical as I previously explained. The truth is the truth with or without evidence.

The debate is not about evidence, the debate is about why did these different people describe reality in the same way, If one person says 1+1=2 and another says 1+1=2, surely they are talking about the samething...

 

[audible]

This comparison is irrevelant and makes no sense as Coke came first and Pepsi knew of Coke's existence and Coke was the standard, so ofcourse others copied after Coke. Where as these spiritual teachers existing in different times all revealed the same truths.

I refer you to some previous post like this one.

probably because, as one culture overrode another it adopted some, if not all of it's superstitions,(gigamesh=jesus, etc) before it moved on and was itself overridden.
hence why we have such a diversity of different religions/superstitions.

Generally, atheists have no beliefs in the supernatural at all. Atheists do not formally claim to have absolute knowledge, however they claim to know that there is no afterlife, no soul, no God, etc...how can you know these things without having absolute knowledge?

no they dont claim, it is just not reasonable to believe in those things, given the lack of evidence for them.
however if one crumb or one atom of proof would change all that.

So now you're saying that popularity does = proof. Actually, whatever scientists agree to, thats assumed to be true. Many scientists disagree with each other on innumerable things, but the majority wins, regardless of a lack of evidence, etc.... Whether you like it or not, its the conclusion that they all come to that makes it appear true. Because scientists agreed to different things in the past, the truth appeared different. Its popularity, not proof. Also a lot of times experimentation is not used or impossible so calculations and models are used instead. These claims cannot be verified by just anyone.

have you been learning at the lightgigantic school of illogic.
science tests and retests the evidence until the positive outweights the negative, then and only then is it accepted as correct, however if something comes along in the future, that contradicts that fact the whole process will begin again, test after test after test.

The debate is not about evidence, the debate is about why did these different people describe reality in the same way, If one person says 1+1=2 and another says 1+1=2, surely they are talking about the samething...

I refer you back to previous posts.like this from

Or the later ones have simply copied from previous wisdoms.

 

[Kron]

So now you're saying that popularity does = proof. Actually, whatever scientists agree to, thats assumed to be true. Many scientists disagree with each other on innumerable things, but the majority wins, regardless of a lack of evidence, etc.... Whether you like it or not, its the conclusion that they all come to that makes it appear true. Because scientists agreed to different things in the past, the truth appeared different. Its popularity, not proof. Also a lot of times experimentation is not used or impossible so calculations and models are used instead. These claims cannot be verified by just anyone.

Ask any one of those thousands of scientists and he will give you PROOF.

have you been learning at the lightgigantic school of illogic?

LOL

 

[baumgarten]

Ask any one of those thousands of scientists and he will give you PROOF.

No, he won't. We have been over this.

 

[VitalOne]

I refer you to some previous post like this one.no they dont claim, it is just not reasonable to believe in those things, given the lack of evidence for them.
however if one crumb or one atom of proof would change all that.have you been learning at the lightgigantic school of illogic.

This is untrue, because lots of people provide so-called "proof" and they are ignored, scientists find ways to try to debunk them.

Also you're still at a dilemma, evidence does not equal truth. Lack of evidence does not equal false.

science tests and retests the evidence until the positive outweights the negative, then and only then is it accepted as correct, however if something comes along in the future, that contradicts that fact the whole process will begin again, test after test after test.I refer you back to previous posts.like this from

This is also not true, sure they will provide evidence when asked, then when presented with contrary evidence, they will dismiss the pheonomenon as the result of something else in order to keep their beliefs. Only when there is too much evidence against their current beliefs do they open their mind to a new theory or possibility. This is what happened with QM, as there are still many scientists that do not like QM.

Through your logic, if no evidence currently exist, that must mean that the notion is false....

Ask any one of those thousands of scientists and he will give you PROOF.

Right so if I said something that was true in QM, 100 years ago but there was no proof at the time it must have been 100% false. This is your flawed logic. See the above post...

 

[audible]

This is untrue, because lots of people provide so-called "proof" and they are ignored, scientists find ways to try to debunk them.

well I'm sorry vital you have definitely been to the lightgigantic school of illogic.
as you say, "so called proofs", which get tested, if the dont come up to scrutiny, then they will be debunked, they are not ignored just tested.

Also you're still at a dilemma, evidence does not equal truth.

ah but it does, we use rational enquiry, logic and evidence to get at the truth’ this is the power of science.

Lack of evidence does not equal false.

ah but this just means, it is unreasonable and irrational, to believe it to be truth, does it not.

This is also not true, sure they will provide evidence when asked, then when presented with contrary evidence, they will dismiss the pheonomenon as the result of something else in order to keep their beliefs. Only when there is too much evidence against their current beliefs do they open their mind to a new theory or possibility.

you do need to do some studying.

This is what happened with QM, as there are still many scientists that do not like QM.

but this is how it should be, it makes for more rational and logical enquiry, does it not.
until they find a common logical ground, or the reverse, at which time they will all either come together, or debunk it completely.

 

[Kron]

Right so if I said something that was true in QM, 100 years ago but there was no proof at the time it must have been 100% false.

That's right.

If someone thought up quantum mechanics a hundred years ago, his/her belief would be completely unjustified by experimental evidence; hence his/her logic was flawed. hence they are WRONG. This doesn't mean quantum mechanics is wrong; it only means that his/her model is wrong.

However, quantum mechanics nowadays is verified by experimental proof; hence the theory is correct.

Also, God cannot be compared to an as-yet-unproved-theory because not only is the logic built to derive it flawed, it GIVES NO PREDICTIONS. Hence it is completely unverifiable. Even the unjustified QM theory would probably give some predictions that would be unverifiable in those times.

 

[VitalOne]

well I'm sorry vital you have definitely been to the lightgigantic school of illogic.
as you say, "so called proofs", which get tested, if the dont come up to scrutiny, then they will be debunked, they are not ignored just tested.ah but it does, we use rational enquiry, logic and evidence to get at the truth’ this is the power of science.ah but this just means, it is unreasonable and irrational, to believe it to be truth, does it not. you do need to do some studying.
but this is how it should be, it makes for more rational and logical enquiry, does it not.
until they find a common logical ground, or the reverse, at which time they will all either come together, or debunk it completely.

You still haven't accepted the fact that evidence does not equal truth....

Its not irrational because science will no doubt change drastically in the future.

That's right.

If someone thought up quantum mechanics a hundred years ago, his/her belief would be completely unjustified by experimental evidence; hence his/her logic was flawed. hence they are WRONG. This doesn't mean quantum mechanics is wrong; it only means that his/her model is wrong.

However, quantum mechanics nowadays is verified by experimental proof; hence the theory is correct.

Also, God cannot be compared to an as-yet-unproved-theory because not only is the logic built to derive it flawed, it GIVES NO PREDICTIONS. Hence it is completely unverifiable. Even the unjustified QM theory would probably give some predictions that would be unverifiable in those times.

This makes no sense. The person who stated QM truths were right before there was any evidence. Evidence doesn't cause something to become true, its true before there's any evidence.

Your logic is still flawed, something is true EVEN if there is NO EVIDENCE. If someone had stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun before there was any sufficient evidence it would still be true. Proof simply verifies the truth, it does not make something true.

Knowing this to be true, this completely collapses everything atheists say about no evidence = false. Proof does not cause something to be true.

 

[Fire]

This makes no sense. The person who stated QM truths were right before there was any evidence. Evidence doesn't cause something to become true, its true before there's any evidence.

Your logic is still flawed, something is true EVEN if there is NO EVIDENCE. If someone had stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun before there was any sufficient evidence it would still be true. Proof simply verifies the truth, it does not make something true.

Knowing this to be true, this completely collapses everything atheists say about no evidence = false. Proof does not cause something to be true.

The important thing is that evidence shows us that something is true. Without it, we are merely guessing. A bit like religion does. Science certainly didn't get to where it is today by guessing, if it did, then it would not be knowledge.

Religious claims are just invented guesses which are so improbable we can discredit them entirely, pending evidence.