What has to Happen to end Religion?

[Sarkus]

you are missing the point.
the point is that the very first thing that is requested of a theist is proof.
they stumble and hum haul around but in the end they are hard pressed to come up with any.
i am merely pointing out that science is in the same boat when it comes to the origins of life on this planet.

The fundamental difference, that YOU are missing, is that SCIENCE makes NO CLAIMS about the veracity of anything concerning the origin of life. All claims science makes about the origins of life are mere hypothesis - subject to scrutiny, testing and evidence - the same as anything else within science.

RELIGION has no evidence and the subject of GOD is NOT open to scrutiny or testing - and yet each religion CLAIMS that their religion, and the tenets thereof, are the UNDENIABLE TRUTH.

That is the difference.

Religion makes absolute claims without evidence.
Science, on the matter of the origins of life, recognises there is no evidence and makes hypotheses.

I hope that you can see the difference?



Science is also not afraid to say "I don't know" - and in fact welcomes it as a response as it shows gaps.
Religion already thinks it has an answer to everything - but an answer that just doesn't progress our understanding. "God did it!"

 

[Lawdog]

Lawdog,

How would you demonstrate that religions are anything OTHER than a social tool developed by man?

Since you cannot show that gods have, could or might exist, you have no basis for your claim, do you?

Why do you always require proof from that which by nature and definition admits no claim of proof. Faith is certainty in that which is unproven.
This power can only be given by God. If you were to see God with your own eyes it would destroy you.

God himself walked among men.
He performed miracles that only the divine creator could do.
He also arose from the dead.
This is the closest to "proof" that you will ever be offered. God has made his statement to Man, he has come in the flesh and given his entire self on Man's behalf.

God does not need to repeat himself. Man must listen.

 

[Lawdog]

Those who believe shall be saved.

 

[Adstar]

Exactly! Why should you fear non-existence?

Yep. I am glad you agree with my "logic" We theists have absolutely nothing to fear from non-existence.. So when atheists say that we are full of the fear that God does not exists are they not talking rubbish?

It's only the religious that harbour the optimistic view that when they die God will welcome them into heaven for all eternity! Wishful thinking to the extreme!

And what a wonderful hope to live with. vs the athiest view... nothing.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[perplexity]

Those who believe shall be saved.

Is that a tautology, true by definition, or is there another test of belief?

I have a big problem with this, knowing what has to happen to begin religion, to know for sure if I really believe something or am I just kidding myself or fond of an idea.

I have the same problem with trust for instance. I think I trust somebody to do their best for me and then they do something unexpectedly unpleasant so instead of maintaining the trust I abandon the trust in order to maintain my own idea of what they should have done for me.

"My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"..... etc.

--- Ron.

 

[Lawdog]

To know for sure, Ron?

This is a difficulty for some. To know anything for a certainty is impossible.
Descartes the philosopher could not even trust his own senses.
Certain knowledge is avaliable, in mathematics and logic.
But Knowledge of God reaches into every level of human experience and emotion.
it involves intimacy with the Creator.
One might as well ask "Can I know for sure that I love my wife?"
It is, at bottom, an absurd question.
Descartes was not even sure, according to his philosophy, that his wife existed.
if such a philosopher had a wife, all his philosophy would be unable to aid
him in discerning whether his experience of intimacy with his wife was real.
He would have to believe on faith that it was real.

Christ trusted his Apostles. They abandoned him. Peter denied Christ three times on the eve of his trial. Nevertheless Christ still took them back afterwards. You know that to love involves risk.

In return, to let him make up for what he had done, Jesus appeared to Peter after his resurrection and asked him three times: Peter, do you love me? Yes Lord you know that I do. Peter, do you love me? yes Lord, you know I do. Peter do you love me, ....Yes Lord, I do love you.

...then Feed my sheep.

Ron: you also are called to be another Peter, even another Christ.

 

[c7ityi_]

"My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

I heard that this should actually be: "My God, my God, how thou dost glorify me!""

 

[Lawdog]

no, i believe that would be Satan's line.

 

[oxypunk101]

Just wondering, in general are more womenor guys theist. I was talking with some friends, and 3 out of 4 guys were athiest and 4/4 women thiest. Is the trend that more woemn than guys are thiest to be expected, and if so by about how much so do you think?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Hypocrite. Most of your anti-Christian posts are filled with references to Christians being delusional. You have just judged yourself to be cheap.

Calling a person who believes in God delusional at least has some value even though it may be cheap. Calling a person who doesn't believe in God delusional is worthless. Besides, us arguing about who is delusional is like a world with more than one religion.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Why do you always require proof from that which by nature and definition admits no claim of proof.

It is from you that I request proof. If you wish your fantastic and incredulous claims to be believed then you must offer something that will make them believable. As it stands there is no reason to believe anything you say.

Faith is certainty in that which is unproven.

No. Faith is the irrational mistaken belief that a fantasy is true.

This power can only be given by God.

A convenient escape argument for someone who knows they have no rational meaningful answers.

If you were to see God with your own eyes it would destroy you.

And this fantasy is relevant to this discussion because……?

God himself walked among men.

I believe similar claims were made for most of the Greek and Roman gods. Why is your fantasy claim any different?

He performed miracles that only the divine creator could do.

According to Q research the very early texts about Jesus didn’t have any miracle stories so they were deliberately invented and written into the mythology around 50CE as the concept of this hero being a god was being developed. In those ancient times the primary distinction between a mere man and a god was that one of them could perform miracles. This was clearly a need that that those mythmakers would understand.

He also arose from the dead.

So goes the myth, plagiarized from dozens of earlier myths.

This is the closest to "proof" that you will ever be offered.

A bunch of fantasy claims. Well what a surprise.

God has made his statement to Man, he has come in the flesh and given his entire self on Man's behalf.

And your assertion is believable because….?

God does not need to repeat himself. Man must listen.

Perhaps he should try speaking a little more clearly since at least 2/3rds of the world can’t hear him. If an omniscient god were to really exist then there could be no doubt of his existence if he so desired.

 

[Cris]

leopold,

and about your artificial intelligence, let's not forget it took inelligence to create and build it. it did not evolve from the elements nor is it alive.

Not quite. Computers and AI are evolving like everything else. Man and his intelligence are merely components within the evolutionary matrix that surrounds us.

What do you mean by being alive? The term is very ellusive if you give it some thought. If you merely limit yourself to biology then you will erroenously miss many alternative definitions. My constraint would be a self-aware sentient being. The construction material would be irrelevant.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Those who believe shall be saved.

Why would a perfect omniscient god create a scenario where his creations needed to be saved. Sounds like he made a mistake and hence he can't be perfect, and hence he can't exist, right?

 

[leopold]

leopold,

Not quite. Computers and AI are evolving like everything else. Man and his intelligence are merely components within the evolutionary matrix that surrounds us.

What do you mean by being alive? The term is very ellusive if you give it some thought. If you merely limit yourself to biology then you will erroenously miss many alternative definitions. My constraint would be a self-aware sentient being. The construction material would be irrelevant.

while i agree with computers are 'evolving' i disagree that it is by nature.
they are doing so at the hands of man, an intelligent creature.

as to the 'alive' bit
is that one reason science has been unable to create life? they are unable to define what life is?

 

[LiveInFaith]

So what will it take? What has to happen to rid the Earth of this nonsense?

It takes science become a "God".
Unveil every bit of universe until it is left nothing, TOTALLY, in mistery; meaning: science discovered any bits and pieces of the laws of universe, then any beliefs, hopes, and faiths in human, will be presented scientifically; and welldone!
no more spiritual nonsense, no more delusional morons, no more personal issues which could not be reproducible, no more nothing.

Those who believe in that prediction, may be requested to present a scientific evidence. Me, simply not believe, by faith.

 

[Provita]

Whatever happened to the times when Religion was a personal subject in which you didnt share with others. You allowed others to believe what they believed. You believed what you believed, and were accepted. I understand even making small groups of people to come together, and share their faith, a group of Christians doing good. a Group of Muslims praising Allah. But the moment these groups grow to enormous number, require initiations (sp?), call all other groups opposers, competition for recruits, or, God forbid, Enemies of God, and wage gang and cult wars against eachother, or even worse, when they appoint leaders, and lead millions of people, and atthe moments notice, command all fit followers to storm a city of some importance, maybe a "holy city" (which ironically has absolutely NO OIL ) and kill millions, hell, kill one person is enough, is the moment religion becomes BAD. The moment religion is used as a tool is BAD. The moment religion doesnt become personal but becomes public isnt bad... but isnt good.

Thats why I still like how Jews keep their religion personal. The only problem is, i feel sorry for the younglings of the Family who dont agree, and for the Father, who is heartbroken. But that isnt the point.

If you wanted to end religion, you couldnt use logic, you couldnt force. Many people are too ignorant and hard-headed. mass genocide and cover it up so the next generation doesnt know about it and research this thing called "religion"

Thats the only way I see you could do it...

 

[usp8riot]

To me, morals are the business end of religion. Whether we believe in anything unprovable or not can seem irrelevant. But as long as there is a will to know what is best for all and a strive to end immorality and the anguish that goes on from people doing bad things, there will be religion. There is no need to get rid of religion, only the evil that people do in fighting for it and inflicting hatred upon others. And it is then ignorant to assume morality and immorality will go away. As long as man has the freedom to make a right and wrong decision and another man is there to question if it is right and hurting one or the other, there will always be relgion birthed from morality. To me, any group that has a moral principle is a religion, even if it is to do away with religious people oppressing others. I don't feel it wrong to be against a moral order that promotes with immoral behaviour, just as long as it doesn't impose a supposed moral idea through immoral actions. I see good in groups looking to find peace, even the atheist groups but as long as it's executed in a peaceful manner.

 

[Cris]

leopold,

while i agree with computers are 'evolving' i disagree that it is by nature.
they are doing so at the hands of man, an intelligent creature.

So is man not part of nature then? And is man's intelligence unnatural then? You are making the mistake of thinking of man as being outside of evolution. Think of man as simply a catalyst within an evolutionary process.

 

[KennyJC]

I don't think religion can boast about morals. History and the present day show that religion does not make for a pleasant group of people. For example, the United States is a developed country with dense religious beliefs. I can sincerely state I do not share the morals of the Christian right or George Bush.

Secularism doesn't get enough credit for having good morals.

 

[usp8riot]

Yes, it's regretful when people try to use unpeaceful methods to try to endorse a religion of peace. Sometime people believe too strongly with emotion rather than reason and take it overboard. And religion of good and peace can not be rightfully endorsed through irrational emotion. It's sad to say that a lot of people who try to do right by promoting a religion too strongly only hurt it and God's view of them and others. I don't believe a true man of God can be a right winger or left winger. The truth takes no one's side. The truth is neither an extreme of anything nor a lack of anything, it is a peaceful balance. Not a strong hate or an overbearing love.