Will Science Eventually Drown Religion?

[imaplanck.]

"Will Science Eventually Drown Religion? "


No!

 

[audible]

audible
I think this site offers enough evidence to counter this claim

then please go ahead and enlighten us.
a few local links please.

then you haven't done much reading on the historical application of communism in russia in china

then please go ahead and enlighten me.
a few links would help, ones that show it was an atheist philosophy.

 

[lightgigantic]

audible

then please go ahead and enlighten us.
a few local links please. then please go ahead and enlighten me.

you haven't located any threads innvolving atheists arguing amongst themselves?

a few links would help, ones that show it was an atheist philosophy.

you mean you never wondered why gulags didn't catalyze a religious renaisance in communist russia and china

 

[sderenzi]

I hope all religious organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Religion is drowning in its own lies.

 

[imaplanck.]

*************
M*W: Religion is drowning in its own lies.

What evidence do you have for that? I would say that you are very wrong in stating that.

 

[lightgigantic]

I hope all religious organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.

its not uncommon for theists to also express the same concern

I hope all atheistic organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.[/

 

[glaucon]

its not uncommon for theists to also express the same concern

I hope all atheistic organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.[/

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

 

[lightgigantic]

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of your claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. Your dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition.

 

[glaucon]

to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience).

Correct.

To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of your claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics.

Correct.

Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. Your dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable.

Unsubstantiated, and inconclusive.

And I made no dogmatic claim. I merely pointed out that it's much more reasonable to not beleive in the invisible.

 

[wsionynw]

to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of your claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. Your dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition.

Except that ahteists don't try to prove the non-existance of God, they simply don't believe in him, it or whatever.
Theists like to believe in the God of the gaps.

 

[Roman]

sderenzi, are religions dedicated to finding truth, or revealing it?

My opinion, since you asked, is that religious beliefs are going to get more and more important the more science describes the universe.
I find in this forum that there is a general idea among atheists that people are religous because they misunderstand the science of the universe, or because not understanding the science, they developed religion.
I may not have a very scientific background, but my beliefs have nothing to do with trying to understand the scientific nature of the universe. The ways and whys of the universe are totally independent of my belief in a deity.
I am not very scholarly on religions, either. But, I believe that I am far from being alone.

You don't know much about science, you don't know much about religion. You probably know little about your own religion.

Basically, you're religious because you're ignorant. Belief is no substitute for knowledge.

 

[lightgigantic]

wsionynw

Except that ahteists don't try to prove the non-existance of God, they simply don't believe in him, it or whatever.

Some atheists may speak like that but in this case it is a very definitive statement by glaucon .....

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...[/I]

its not like he is saying god may or may not exist - he is saying god is imaginary - I was pointing out that making such claims are very difficult for a logical person

 

[glaucon]

...

its not like he is saying god may or may not exist - he is saying god is imaginary - I was pointing out that making such claims are very difficult for a logical person

Again, your logic is unsound.

I make no denial of the possibility of a god, merely that, until substantiated, it is unreasonable to beleive in one.

 

[lightgigantic]

glaucon

"And I made no dogmatic claim. I merely pointed out that it's much more reasonable to not beleive in the invisible

the point is that you don't have the means to determine that it is imaginary, so when you make statements like

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

they are in fact dogmatic

 

[lightgigantic]

Again, your logic is unsound.

I make no denial of the possibility of a god, merely that, until substantiated, it is unreasonable to beleive in one.

so you want to back down from your claim that god is imaginary?

 

[glaucon]

glaucon

the point is that you don't have the means to determine that it is imaginary, so when you make statements like

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

they are in fact dogmatic

The onus is not upon the disbeliever, rather it is upon the believer. I don't need the means to determine whether or not some supposed thing exists or not. Given a complete lack of evidence, the onus is upon that person that believes in the imaginary to provide such. This is why we are not the ones who have to convince the insane that we're sane.

Clearly, the statement is not dogmatic. One is of course free to believe in the imaginary.

 

[glaucon]

so you want to back down from your claim that god is imaginary?

lol

Not at all.

Imaginary, until proven otherwise.

Like the unicorn.

 

[spidergoat]

Religion will adapt to emerging science, eventually. There is still plenty of room for inspirational mythology, one modern equivalent of which is Star Trek.

 

[lightgigantic]

glaucon

The onus is not upon the disbeliever, rather it is upon the believer. I don't need the means to determine whether or not some supposed thing exists or not. Given a complete lack of evidence, the onus is upon that person that believes in the imaginary to provide such. This is why we are not the ones who have to convince the insane that we're sane.

Clearly, the statement is not dogmatic. One is of course free to believe in the imaginary.

In a debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on theists. This, however, is a false assertion. As philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side.

so perhaps you would like to explain how you came to your conclusion

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...


To be more specific, your view positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?