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

[Enterprise-D]

So what would be concrete evidence for an afterlife, soul, God, prayer, etc...what type of experiment could be conducted.....what type of real evidence could be gathered?

Whatever experiments are conducted, the results should be along the lines of: a video recording, DNA samples are good, a video conference even? A sustained satellite telescope sighting? How about just a visit, a little "Hey dude, I'm JC, got anything in the fridge?" (of course such a claim has to be backed up).

How about Pat Robertson being barbequed by a 1-inch thick perfectly cylindrical column of 25 kilo-amp lightning electricity? That event might be just enough evidence.

 

[SkinWalker]

Lie Detectors as Evidence
"Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. "

Hypnosis as Evidence
"While in trance concentration, memory recall under interrogation should not only be subject to all the usual investigative safeguards with checks and balances, but even more so because the leverage effect of hypnotically enhanced memory is achieved at the risk of contamination by external and/or internal cues."

Anecdotes as Evidence
"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence."

 

[Fire]

So if no evidence can be gathered then atheists can never again say they don't believe because there is no evidence.

That doesn't make sense?

But you just said that no evidence can be gathered...who can come forth with anything besides personal testimony, lie detector tests, etc....

Exactly. It's like trying to find evidence of the invisible pink unicorn. Although I suspect if billions believed in that particular god, that there would a few hoaxes that would no doubt con a few gullible people who shared the same delusion.

You're only verifying what I just said about atheists how they've already made up their mind to disbelieve...making them non-different from theists who have made up their mind to believe...

What is wrong with having a strong disbelief in superstition? I have made up my mind that all superstition is nonsense. It is not respectable, it is not knowledge. Therefor, any evidence that suddenly vindicates popular superstition would need to be VERY strong indeed and irrefutably NOT a hoax.

 

[swivel]

If you pick through the thousands of things said in any two religions, you can compile a list of seemingly-exact copies. The problem is, by the same method, one could compile a list of contradictions with another hunt through the texts. Internally, this is how religions have been able to cope with the changing times, scientifically and socially. All you have to do is make another reading, and pick out the things that conform to the standards of society.

You don't see most people reading the Bible literally in order to glean from it their moral standards. Instead, they look in the Bible for anything which backs up the moral standards of their times, which are constantly changing. This is why it is absurd to say that religion has any bearing on morality. People no longer think it is okay to stone children to death for misbehaving, or for killing new brides that are not virgins, or having slaves. So we pretend that these laws are the ones that god changed his mind about, but he is still quite serious about these other ones, like being homosexual, or using birth control.

In the same vein, theists are quick to dismiss the old testament where it hurts them, and embrace it likewise where it aids them. The 10 commandments are still central, somehow, when the rest of the OT is moral hogwash by most theological thinkers.

Obviously what is happening is that our moral center is changing over time, becoming more relaxed and liberal as superstition abates. Moral standards seem to work as a ratchet, moving easily in one direction (liberalism) and encountering resistance in the other. However, religion seems to work by an opposite ratcheting principle. It moves freely towards conservatism, and resists liberalization. If you look at history, you will see that religion is the weaker of the two forces, and undergoes violent shifts to more closely align itself with societal norms. The ratchet "breaks", if you will. Temporarily.

Another reason the original poster can find and compile his list of quotes is due to the universal nature of morality. Most major religions have at their heart the Golden Rule, which is the basis for objective moral reality. We want other people to refrain from stealing and killing because it might be our stuff or life that they take. It is a mutually beneficial contract entered into. It is required when tribes get larger than immediate families. There should be no surprise in finding these rules universally, nor should we be shocked to see multiple flood stories, or accounts of creation.

The shocking thing about religions is that they NEVER have exposed knowledge that was beyond the means of the local society. No god ever told anyone about the nature of pi or rho to an unmathematical society. God never taught algebra, or showed anyone the mixture required to create gunpowder. God never told anyone that the Earth went around the Sun, or about planets that were beyond the reach of current tech. God never told planters to leave their fields fallow, or to rotate crops, simple teachings that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

How amazing is this coincidence? That every religion only says and does the things that ordinary humans could arrive at themselves? If the gods are so desperate to NOT be believed in, I think we do them a great injustice and much harm to have FAITH in them. How rude of us. They obviously, by the dearth of evidence presented, want us to think nothing of them, but to unravel the scientific principles that they put in place by which the universe operates.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Pretty good post swivel. Yet another plausible explanation for seemingly independant sources appearing similar

 

[nova900]

In the same vein, theists are quick to dismiss the old testament where it hurts them, and embrace it likewise where it aids them. The 10 commandments are still central, somehow, when the rest of the OT is moral hogwash by most theological thinkers.

How true that is.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that from a fundamentalist.
"We live in the age of grace so the OT does not apply" then when it suits them" but Jesus said to observe the old law" (OT)"

 

[VitalOne]

That doesn't make sense?

Yes, it doesn't make any sense. You atheists request evidence yet you say gathering evidence is impossible, so what evidence can be gathered? Why even say there's no evidence if you say gathering evidence is impossible?

I'm pretty sure in ancient times it was "impossible" to gather evidence for the existence of quarks, blackholes, etc....

Exactly. It's like trying to find evidence of the invisible pink unicorn. Although I suspect if billions believed in that particular god, that there would a few hoaxes that would no doubt con a few gullible people who shared the same delusion.

Well that invisible pink unicorn thing only applies to finding evidence for God. For finding evidence of a soul, afterlife, etc...it doesn't apply.

What is wrong with having a strong disbelief in superstition? I have made up my mind that all superstition is nonsense. It is not respectable, it is not knowledge. Therefor, any evidence that suddenly vindicates popular superstition would need to be VERY strong indeed and irrefutably NOT a hoax.

There's nothing wrong with it, except the mentality is identical to theists who have a strong belief in religion. What irony.

 

[spidergoat]

So what would be concrete evidence for an afterlife, soul, God, prayer, etc...what type of experiment could be conducted.....what type of real evidence could be gathered?

An experiment to test prayer has already been conducted. When the patients in a hospital knew they were being prayer for, they recovered more slowly. If they didn't know, there was no change.

The other concepts you mention are defined by theists in such a way so as to avoid the possibility of any evidence being collected. They say it's "outside this reality", "above the realms of science", "on another plane of existence", ect.

 

[VitalOne]

If you pick through the thousands of things said in any two religions, you can compile a list of seemingly-exact copies. The problem is, by the same method, one could compile a list of contradictions with another hunt through the texts. Internally, this is how religions have been able to cope with the changing times, scientifically and socially. All you have to do is make another reading, and pick out the things that conform to the standards of society.

You must be sub-intellect in your thinking, I'm not talking about vague morals, I'm talking about the way the nature of reality is explained. What you're saying is if one astronomer in one culture has identical calculations to another astronomer in another culture, they're talking about to totally different things that only appear to have similarities, when in reality they have no relation to each other.

You don't see most people reading the Bible literally in order to glean from it their moral standards. Instead, they look in the Bible for anything which backs up the moral standards of their times, which are constantly changing. This is why it is absurd to say that religion has any bearing on morality. People no longer think it is okay to stone children to death for misbehaving, or for killing new brides that are not virgins, or having slaves. So we pretend that these laws are the ones that god changed his mind about, but he is still quite serious about these other ones, like being homosexual, or using birth control.

Who would use the Old Testament for moral standards? The vengeful God of is prevalent in the Old Testament...

In the same vein, theists are quick to dismiss the old testament where it hurts them, and embrace it likewise where it aids them. The 10 commandments are still central, somehow, when the rest of the OT is moral hogwash by most theological thinkers.

The Old Testament has many flaws in it, I don't accept it. In fact nothing I pointed out comes from the Old Testament. I'm not even talking about the Old Testament, I don't even know why you brought it up. I'm talking about truths spiritual teachers revealed.

Obviously what is happening is that our moral center is changing over time, becoming more relaxed and liberal as superstition abates. Moral standards seem to work as a ratchet, moving easily in one direction (liberalism) and encountering resistance in the other. However, religion seems to work by an opposite ratcheting principle. It moves freely towards conservatism, and resists liberalization. If you look at history, you will see that religion is the weaker of the two forces, and undergoes violent shifts to more closely align itself with societal norms. The ratchet "breaks", if you will. Temporarily.

I don't really think our moral center is changing over time. If you look back in ancient times you can find the same moral standards. For instance, gays weren't prosecuted in Ancient Greece. In The Buddha's time the moral standards were maybe even higher than our current standards.

Another reason the original poster can find and compile his list of quotes is due to the universal nature of morality. Most major religions have at their heart the Golden Rule, which is the basis for objective moral reality. We want other people to refrain from stealing and killing because it might be our stuff or life that they take. It is a mutually beneficial contract entered into. It is required when tribes get larger than immediate families. There should be no surprise in finding these rules universally, nor should we be shocked to see multiple flood stories, or accounts of creation.

What you say isn't completely true. Cultures do not share the same moral standards. For instance in some cultures human sacrifice is a good thing, in others being gay isn't bad at all, etc....However, the spiritual teachers from different cultures seem to reveal the same essential truth...

The shocking thing about religions is that they NEVER have exposed knowledge that was beyond the means of the local society. No god ever told anyone about the nature of pi or rho to an unmathematical society. God never taught algebra, or showed anyone the mixture required to create gunpowder. God never told anyone that the Earth went around the Sun, or about planets that were beyond the reach of current tech. God never told planters to leave their fields fallow, or to rotate crops, simple teachings that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

I would have to disagree here. According to some scriptures, by meditation on God one gains true knowledge. You seem to be stuck in your Judeo-Christian mind-set.

How amazing is this coincidence? That every religion only says and does the things that ordinary humans could arrive at themselves? If the gods are so desperate to NOT be believed in, I think we do them a great injustice and much harm to have FAITH in them. How rude of us. They obviously, by the dearth of evidence presented, want us to think nothing of them, but to unravel the scientific principles that they put in place by which the universe operates.

Its quite amazing actually.

 

[Fire]

Yes, it doesn't make any sense. You atheists request evidence yet you say gathering evidence is impossible, so what evidence can be gathered? Why even say there's no evidence if you say gathering evidence is impossible?

Because there is no observable phenomenon relating to an afterlife, therefor there exists no evidence. It is a made up concept that makes delusional people feel good - that is all there is evidence for. You can't gather evidence for something that effectively does not exist. You might as well ask me for evidence of the celestial teapot.

I'm pretty sure in ancient times it was "impossible" to gather evidence for the existence of quarks, blackholes, etc....

Of course it was, but knowledge simply doesn't work that way. You have to investigate, not guess. The practical impossability of an afterlife is what you theists would call a 'metaphysical' notion - ie. It can neither be proven or disproven, like our flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn.

Well that invisible pink unicorn thing only applies to finding evidence for God. For finding evidence of a soul, afterlife, etc...it doesn't apply.

Nothing applies to finding evidence for a soul, afterlife or god. They are manmade invented superstitions similar to Astrology. Clearly, you don't understand the odds involved in being correct when inventing something that there is no observable basis for. The chances of the ancients being correct in guessing the existence of a quark is impossible.

There's nothing wrong with it, except the mentality is identical to theists who have a strong belief in religion. What irony.

Bullshit. There is no equal comparison between theists who shamelessly invent notions to make them feel good and the atheist who rightfully reject it.

 

[Michael]

I'll point out some of the exact similarities:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." - Jesus (Revelation 22:13)

"I am also the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings." Krishna (BG 10.20)

"If you realize that all things change, there is nothing you will try to hold on to" - Lao Tzu

"Everything changes, nothing remains without change" - Buddha

“He who rules his spirit has won a greater victory than the taking of a city.” - Jesus

"It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell" - Buddha

And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death. " - Jesus (Gospel of Thomas, 1)

"I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal..." - Krishna (BG 13.13)

"Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you." - Jesus (Gospel of Thomas, 3)

"The Supreme Truth exists outside and inside of all living beings...." - Krishna (BG 13.16)

"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth" -Buddha

"For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed." - Jesus (Gospel of Thomas, 5)

"It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu

"It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous." - Krishna (BG 3.35)

"It is, Kassapa, as if a potter made different vessels out of the same clay. Some of these pots are to contain sugar, others rice, others curds and milk others still are vessels of impurity. There is no diversity in the clay used the diversity of the pots is only due to the moulding hands of the potter who shapes them for the various uses that circumstances may require." - The Buddha (Gospel of Buddha, 55.2)

"Gold alone is present before its manufacture into gold products, the gold alone remains after the products' destruction, and the gold alone is the essential reality while it is being utilized under various designations. Similarly, I alone exist before the creation of this universe, after its destruction and during its maintenance." Krishna (SB 11.28.19)

"Health is the greatest possession. Contentment is the greatest treasure. Confidence is the greatest friend. Non-being is the greatest joy." - Lao Tzu

"Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship." - The Buddha

I could continue describing other innumerable exact similarities. As you can see, some of these match word for word, almost as if they are indeed trying to explain the same essential truth to mankind.....isn't it also ironic that they all promise eternal bliss..freedom from all suffering...etc...just think about it

I find it odd you did not mention Islam/Judaism or Mohammed/Mosses?

 

[VitalOne]

I find it odd you did not mention Islam/Judaism or Mohammed/Mosses?

Its not odd, its just that Moses and Mohommad didn't have the signs of a fully perfected person like The Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Thoth, Hermes, etc...

 

[swivel]

Some dude from Oregon State University actually wrote an entire book comparing Jesus' sayings to Siddharthur's. People have been playing this game on the Internet for years now. It is like the JFK/Lincoln game.

For all we know, the people that wrote the gospels (many years after Jesus' time), were all former Buddhists, and there is your neat answer. The Grecko-Roman moralists were very active in Jesus' time, and said the same things that Jesus did. (I'm especially thinking of Musonius Rufus and Seneca and the like). These were men that kept their hair long, wore sandals and white robes, took pride in their poverty, were pacifists, and preached the golden rule. Perhaps Jesus was educated by one of these men, who all echoed the same moral philosophy that Siddharthur espoused.

One gaping flaw in your argument is that the centrality of materialism in Siddharthur's philosophy is lacking in Jesus'. Kicking over the money-changers tables, and the bit about the camel passing through the eye of a needle are interesting, but not the central dogma that Siddharthur would have had them.


Also, when you say that I "must be thinking sub-intellect", what in the world does that mean?

 

[VitalOne]

Because there is no observable phenomenon relating to an afterlife, therefor there exists no evidence. It is a made up concept that makes delusional people feel good - that is all there is evidence for. You can't gather evidence for something that effectively does not exist. You might as well ask me for evidence of the celestial teapot.

Nah I don't think so. Eventually there will be some type of observable phenomenon if it is true, if it isn't true then there won't. Just like with quarks, and electrons, because they really do exist it was found in the future.

Of course it was, but knowledge simply doesn't work that way. You have to investigate, not guess. The practical impossability of an afterlife is what you theists would call a 'metaphysical' notion - ie. It can neither be proven or disproven, like our flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn.

But you refuse to investigate, instead you say its impossible to find evidence.

Nothing applies to finding evidence for a soul, afterlife or god. They are manmade invented superstitions similar to Astrology. Clearly, you don't understand the odds involved in being correct when inventing something that there is no observable basis for. The chances of the ancients being correct in guessing the existence of a quark is impossible.

Well in the future the soul may become fact not fiction. I mean neurologists still haven't figured out exactly how celebral processes cause consciousness, that would mean that matter = consciousness.

Bullshit. There is no equal comparison between theists who shamelessly invent notions to make them feel good and the atheist who rightfully reject it.

Its not bullshit, its the identical mentality. Keep refusing evidence, just as theists refuse evidence against God. No different in mentality at all.

 

[spidergoat]

There are no common themes between these quotes that supports the idea of a God. They are valuable sayings about life, but no more theological than sayings by Ben Franklin or Mark Twain.

 

[Fire]

Its not bullshit, its the identical mentality. Keep refusing evidence, just as theists refuse evidence against God. No different in mentality at all.

There is no evidence either way!

 

[lightgigantic]

There are no common themes between these quotes that supports the idea of a God. They are valuable sayings about life, but no more theological than sayings by Ben Franklin or Mark Twain.

On the contrary they are quotes from the absolute truth and quotes ffrom persons who have realized the absolue truth - of course you are free to reject such claims as stories, just as you are free to reject the claims of your mother that you have a father

 

[spidergoat]

It's not that I reject the quotes themselves, they are quite insightful, but I don't see how they support the existence of a sentient omnipotent being that created everything. There might be one, like Jesus', which personifies existence, but since that isn't a factor in all of them, or even most of them, I must conclude that it is a metaphor.

 

[Enterprise-D]

You must be sub-intellect in your thinking, I'm not talking about vague morals, I'm talking about the way the nature of reality is explained. What you're saying is if one astronomer in one culture has identical calculations to another astronomer in another culture, they're talking about to totally different things that only appear to have similarities, when in reality they have no relation to each other.

Calculations are finite definitions therefore cannot be compared to your initial point

I don't really think our moral center is changing over time. If you look back in ancient times you can find the same moral standards. For instance, gays weren't prosecuted in Ancient Greece (as now). In The Buddha's time the moral standards were maybe even higher than our current standards (another difference).

Therefore our (species') moral center changes.

Come to think of it...I shouldn't be so succinct. It is VERY obvious that our morals as a societal species change - and dramatically so - over time. Quoting two seemingly benign examples are merely the exception to the rule.

Back in the Greco-Roman days it was very common for gladiatoral sports to be deadly, whereas now it's a cushion on a stick game show. Back when the term Anno Domini was invented women's lives were currency rather than respected, now a woman can floor a man if he squeezes her butt cheeks. Indeed, many of the morals displayed in religious tomes or historical documents are abhorrent compared to today's. There are many many more examples of morals changing over time; please don't be coy VitalOne.