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

[VitalOne]

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.

I'm not discrediting science, science has its purpose and is very useful. I'm just saying that we do not all there is to know, how can someone make bold assumptions. Atheists do not even speculate, science is completely correct about everything there is.

This just confirms what I previously stated about atheists, if they had lived in another time period, like say the 1600s they would believe what science at that time had come to without questioning anything.

 

[spidergoat]

I think science starts out as guessing; questioning is the essence of science. Then our guess is confirmed or rejected based on careful experiment, thought experiment, or observations. It is possible to make bold assumptions based on what we know, as long as we realize it's provisional nature. We can also make assumptions based on the relative probability of them being true.

 

[(Q)]

Right again...you know it all...you know everything...modern science is 100% true to the highest degree....therefore you are able to make this assumption

Perhaps your comprehension skills require tweaking, I never said anything about science being 100% true, please stop with that nonsense. I was 100% correct in that it is up to theists to provide evidence to their claims and not for science to disprove those claims - the onus is on thiests.

Theists say there's a soul because that was passed down to them.
Atheists say there is no soul because they insist science is 100% true to the highest degree, it will never change, there is no possibility, even though there are many missing pieces in explaining consciousness. THey know it all already.

Theists say a lot of things, not many of them have any basis in reality. Why would place your faith in what someone else says about souls when they can't back up what they say?

There's lots of evidence, lots...

No, there isn't, stop lying.

 

[VitalOne]

Perhaps your comprehension skills require tweaking, I never said anything about science being 100% true, please stop with that nonsense. I was 100% correct in that it is up to theists to provide evidence to their claims and not for science to disprove those claims - the onus is on thiests.

If you do not believe that science is 100% true, then where do you get the notions that there is no afterlife, no soul, no God, etc....?

You do not even admit there being a remote possiblity of these things being true. Therefore, you, the atheists, indeed must have much faith in modern science, similarly to how theists have faith in their scripture.

Theists say a lot of things, not many of them have any basis in reality. Why would place your faith in what someone else says about souls when they can't back up what they say?

Again, you must have knowledge of all to know that it has no basis in reality. You must also think science is 100% true to the highest to the degree.

No, there isn't, stop lying.

Yeah there's lots of evidence. For instance there was a man who went under hypnosis and stated things about this past life. Later on, after searching relentlessly for the painter he said he was in the hypnosis tape, he found a journal of the painter he supposedly was in his past life. The journal had confirmed everything he stated about this life under hypnosis, such as his wife, his conditions, the types of paintings he made, etc...to be true. He then went through a lie-detector test to test if he had any knowledge of the painter before the hypnosis, any motive, etc...and passed, confirming that he wasn't lieing.

 

[(Q)]

If you do not believe that science is 100% true, then where do you get the notions that there is no afterlife, no soul, no God, etc....?

Simple, no one has ever produced a shred of evidence for those claims. Where do you get the notion there is no Flying Spagetti Monster?

You do not even admit there being a remote possiblity of these things being true. Therefore, you, the atheists, indeed must have much faith in modern science, similarly to how theists have faith in their scripture.

Would you admit to there being a remote possibility for the existence of a Flying Spagetti Monster, or an invisible pink dragon living in my attic?

I don't have faith in modern science, I have assurance of results. Science has produced results. What results has religion produced?

Again, you must have knowledge of all to know that it has no basis in reality. You must also think science is 100% true to the highest to the degree.

Here is the problem, you continually place words in other peoples mouths as the basis of your argument, which is no argument at all, but in fact a complete lack of argument. There is no point in having a discussion with you if you are unable to read and comprehend what I write.

Yeah there's lots of evidence. For instance there was a man who went under hypnosis and stated things about this past life. Later on, after searching relentlessly for the painter he said he was in the hypnosis tape, he found a journal of the painter he supposedly was in his past life. The journal had confirmed everything he stated about this life under hypnosis, such as his wife, his conditions, the types of paintings he made, etc...to be true. He then went through a lie-detector test to test if he had any knowledge of the painter before the hypnosis, any motive, etc...and passed, confirming that he wasn't lieing.

And you believed this nonsense? He couldn't possibly have read the journal before, thus creating the story to get attention? No, that's not possible at all, is it?

 

[VitalOne]

Simple, no one has ever produced a shred of evidence for those claims. Where do you get the notion there is no Flying Spagetti Monster?



Would you admit to there being a remote possibility for the existence of a Flying Spagetti Monster, or an invisible pink dragon living in my attic?

I don't have faith in modern science, I have assurance of results. Science has produced results. What results has religion produced?

You see here in lies the problem. We know that the Fly Spagetti monster and invisible pink dragon is an idea dreamt up by someone. Also, you're right, who knows if there could be an alien creature ressembling a flying spagetti monster, or flying pink dragon, I certainly do not.

Also, there's another problem. The idea of a soul and afterlife is not at all illogical. It does not really contradict science as neurology is in its infancy, and we still do not what consciousness is.

And you believed this nonsense? He couldn't possibly have read the journal before, thus creating the story to get attention? No, that's not possible at all, is it?

You fool, he passed a lie detector test confirming he had no personal motives, no knowledge of the painter or the journal. What do you say now? Maybe the lie detector he took several times was flawed?

 

[(Q)]

You see here in lies the problem. We know that the Fly Spagetti monster and invisible pink dragon is an idea dreamt up by someone.

Then, why is so hard to think that all the stories of gods are not also dreamt up by people?

Also, you're right, who knows if there could be an alien creature ressembling a flying spagetti monster, or flying pink dragon, I certainly do not.

Well, there isn't any evidence to suggest they exist. The only thing we can conclude is that they are made up from ones imagination.

Also, there's another problem. The idea of a soul and afterlife is not at all illogical. It does not really contradict science as neurology is in its infancy, and we still do not what consciousness is.

Yes, they do contradict science, where do you get the notion they don't?

You fool, he passed a lie detector test confirming he had no personal motives, no knowledge of the painter or the journal. What do you say now? Maybe the lie detector he took several times was flawed?

Yes, lie detector tests are flawed. You didn't know that?

 

[VitalOne]

Yes, lie detector tests are flawed. You didn't know that?

The tests were conducted by independant scientist who had no connection to him. This confirms what I said, even if evidence is presented, it is ignored.

You have nothing left to say about it. Thereby confirming what I previously stated, you, an atheist, are simply defending your faith. Otherwise you would have an open mind about it, but you do not, you know that religion is 100% false, and that science is 100% true, the highest degree.

 

[baumgarten]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[(Q)]

The tests were conducted by independant scientist who had no connection to him. This confirms what I said, even if evidence is presented, it is ignored.

Horsepucky! That is a lie, scientists never use polygraphs as evidence as there is no scientific rigor involved.

You have nothing left to say about it. Thereby confirming what I previously stated, you, an atheist, are simply defending your faith. Otherwise you would have an open mind about it, but you do not, you know that religion is 100% false, and that science is 100% true, the highest degree.

The only reason why I have nothing left to say is the clapped hands you have over your ears.

You've confirmed nothing other than your inability to discuss.

 

[VitalOne]

Horsepucky! That is a lie, scientists never use polygraphs as evidence as there is no scientific rigor involved.



The only reason why I have nothing left to say is the clapped hands you have over your ears.

You've confirmed nothing other than your inability to discuss.

See, this confirms what I've said, when presented with evidence "its all lies", and you're right it wasn't scientists who did the polygraph.

When presented with evidence of an afterlife, soul, etc...you have nothing to say, lets just disregard it to keep our faith of atheism.

 

[(Q)]

See, this confirms what I've said, when presented with evidence "its all lies", and you're right it wasn't scientists who did the polygraph.

Polygraphs are not used as evidence. Scientists don't use polygraphs as evidence. Polygraphs are flawed.

All you confirmed is your own ignorance to the use of polygraphs.

When presented with evidence of an afterlife, soul, etc...you have nothing to say, lets just disregard it to keep our faith of atheism.

There is no evidence of an afterlife or a soul, none whatsoever. You've presented nothing other than your own personal belief in the afterlife and souls based entirely on your ignorance of science.

 

[audible]

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

you said "Also you're still at a dilemma, evidence does not equal truth." and I replied "ah but it does, we use rational enquiry, logic and evidence to get at the truth’ this is the power of science." why would I suddenly accept as a fact, that which quite clearly is irrational, illogical, and baseless.

evidence shows us that something is true. Without it, we are merely guessing

(with thanks to Fire)
open your eyes VitalOne, take the blinkers of, it obvious to everybody else.

 

[VitalOne]

you said "Also you're still at a dilemma, evidence does not equal truth." and I replied "ah but it does, we use rational enquiry, logic and evidence to get at the truth’ this is the power of science." why would I suddenly accept as a fact, that which quite clearly is irrational, illogical, and baseless.(with thanks to Fire)

You're still at a dilemma, if science is not at a stage where evidence cannot be gathered, like say the evidence for an electron 1,000 years ago, no evidence can be gathered, but it does not equal false. If someone said electrons existed before there was any evidence it would true with or without evidence.

Evidence = Proof NOT truth

I'm not saying to believe something to be true without evidence, I'm just pointing the obvious fact that science will change dramatically so how can you be so certain of something?

By saying this you're also again confirming what I said about atheists living in the 1600s, they would believe the Sun revolved around the Earth, etc...because thats what scientists of that era thought.

And when evidence is presented its all disregarded.

open your eyes VitalOne, take the blinkers of, it obvious to everybody else.

Open YOUR eyes. Something is true with or WITHOUT evidence. If someone 5,000 years ago states something that is true, its true whether there's evidence or not.

Through your logic, in our current time, the findings we discover in the next 1,000 years are all false, in our current time, but in 1,000 years they all become true.

Evidence does not cause something to become true. Its true regardless.

 

[VitalOne]

Polygraphs are not used as evidence. Scientists don't use polygraphs as evidence. Polygraphs are flawed.

All you confirmed is your own ignorance to the use of polygraphs.

No, its just a typo or mistake. The polygraphs were done by professionals in that field, confirming that he had no personal motive.

There is no evidence of an afterlife or a soul, none whatsoever. You've presented nothing other than your own personal belief in the afterlife and souls based entirely on your ignorance of science.

Again, you confirm what I stated, when evidence is presented, its all ignorant, foolish, etc...history repeats itself, this is exactly what skeptics in the past said about new ideas that ended up being true.

So continue to disregard any type of evidence, because you the atheists, have supreme knowledge of everything, thereby knowing what is true and what is false.

Again, you must have lots of faith because when some evidence is provided (as you requested) you ignorantly disregard it, filled with insecurities of your faith (atheism) being false, you must defend yourself.

 

[Fire]

So continue to disregard any type of evidence, because you the atheists, have supreme knowledge of everything, thereby knowing what is true and what is false.

Actually is it not the other way around? You perhaps rightly stated that things can be true even if we have no evidence for them. The Earth was round before we discovered evidence of it, for example. However, this does not give people a license to simply guess things and state them as true without such evidence.

Basically you're saying that god could exist and that evidence is not required to confirm the existence of something that is already true. Well... I don't like your odds. Simply guessing/inventing something and hoping it is true isn't something a human being will have a good success rate at.

 

[(Q)]

No, its just a typo or mistake. The polygraphs were done by professionals in that field, confirming that he had no personal motive.

How many times does it take to get you to comprehend something. Polygraphs are not used for science, regardless of who is operating it. Polygraphs are flawed. Capeesh?

Again, you confirm what I stated, when evidence is presented, its all ignorant, foolish, etc...history repeats itself, this is exactly what skeptics in the past said about new ideas that ended up being true.

You've presented no evidence other than an anecdote based on a polygraph. You really should learn the definition of evidence.

So continue to disregard any type of evidence, because you the atheists, have supreme knowledge of everything, thereby knowing what is true and what is false.

Polygraphs are not evidence. Take 63.

Again, you must have lots of faith because when some evidence is provided (as you requested) you ignorantly disregard it, filled with insecurities of your faith (atheism) being false, you must defend yourself.

You've provided NO evidence. Where is your evidence? Polygraphs are not evidence.

 

[VitalOne]

How many times does it take to get you to comprehend something. Polygraphs are not used for science, regardless of who is operating it. Polygraphs are flawed. Capeesh?



You've presented no evidence other than an anecdote based on a polygraph. You really should learn the definition of evidence.



Polygraphs are not evidence. Take 63.



You've provided NO evidence. Where is your evidence? Polygraphs are not evidence.

Ok, here's the evidence:
- The Journal
- The hypnosis tape
- Polygraph test

All the points revealed on the hypnosis tape matched the journal, thats the evidence. He actually underwent hypnosis because he lost a bet, he didn't believe in any of this stuff. Then in hypnosis he talked about his past life and in one past life he was a painter. He searched for 2 years to track down the painter and found the one and only copy of his journal (extremely unlikely he had any knowledge of the little known painter). Then the journal revealed that everything he said in the hypnosis tape was true. Then he took a polygraph to confirm that he had no knowledge of the painter or the journal or anything, etc...

Surely this consitutes as some type of evidence...if it doesn't then what does? What will constitute as evidence of the afterlife? Nothing for you atheists....

 

[Enterprise-D]

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.

Um...how do you KNOW this? The answer is you DON'T know. This is the only difference in the comparison - that PepsiCo and Coca Cola are general knowledge. It is entirely plausible on their many trips the inventors of religion came across philosophies that they liked and wished to copy. Matter of fact it is becoming MORE general knowledge that this is exactly what Christianity's inventors did, strip-mine pagan religions to form their own.

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...

Stating it, and stating a "difference" does not make the difference true.

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?

Hm...generalization. Falls down against statistics.

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.

Where do you read your science from? Truths are there to be found...and scientists explore the world from the perspective of their expertise. They then declare a discovery of a truth based on 'such and such' evidence.

And any scientific discovery can be verified.

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.

Quite correct, however my point is that YOU deign to assume a truth and ascribe it to other humans; all without evidence.

The logical position without evidence is a simple "I don't know". There is absolutely no shame in not knowing but seeking to learn.

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...

Yes I realise what your initial statement is. And I showed you a plausible marketing explanation as to why. This is called reasonable doubt.

 

[Sarkus]

Yeah there's lots of evidence. For instance there was a man who went under hypnosis and stated things about this past life. Later on, after searching relentlessly for the painter he said he was in the hypnosis tape, he found a journal of the painter he supposedly was in his past life. The journal had confirmed everything he stated about this life under hypnosis, such as his wife, his conditions, the types of paintings he made, etc...to be true. He then went through a lie-detector test to test if he had any knowledge of the painter before the hypnosis, any motive, etc...and passed, confirming that he wasn't lieing.

Just so we can read the detail for ourselves, please can you provide us with the guy's name, case details etc - even the painter's name? The country? The year? The investigators? The polygraph operators? Anything that would enable us to research this supposedly documented case?

Thanks.