Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences

[Nevlach]

Because there's no empirical evidence to support the claim that there is one. And the 'evidence' there is after 2000 years of proclamation that there is one, is terrible and from what i've seen, non-existant and easily debunked and quickly falsifiable.

What reasonable person wouldn't be, short of absolutely certain, at least sure by this point?

[Nevlach]

Yes it does, you are incorrect, again.

Galileo was considered a HERETIC.

Told ya.

Dragon's did not exist , sorry to burst your bubble dic, er, Heretic.

[TOMapleLaughs]

A neverending attack of the belief that there may be a God is certainly antitheistic. It is also hate. And antitheistics would have us believe that only theist religions can breed hate?

But then again a person with religious or spiritual beliefs can call themselves an atheist as well.

Hypocrisy is clearly everywhere. So what's wrong with the hypocrisy of having atheism becoming an offical religion? Some atheists have obviously decided that they don't care that it's hypocritical. Looking at the First Church of Atheism, it doesn't seem to be entirely antitheistic, esp. when they embrace religion symbol, etc. That brings the hope that they wouldn't just get together to whine about theists and God or to plan another propaganda bombing. They would instead practice and preach their beliefs? Fascinating. I'm speculating, of course. I'd be curious to see what they'd actually do.

[Buddhas Hand]

A neverending attack of the belief that there may be a God is certainly antitheistic. It is also hate. And antitheistics would have us believe that only theist religions can breed hate?

But then again a person with religious or spiritual beliefs can call themselves an atheist as well.

Hypocrisy is clearly everywhere. So what's wrong with the hypocrisy of having atheism becoming an offical religion? Some atheists have obviously decided that they don't care that it's hypocritical. Looking at the First Church of Atheism, it doesn't seem to be entirely antitheistic, esp. when they embrace religion symbol, etc. That brings the hope that they wouldn't just get together to whine about theists and God or to plan another propaganda bombing. They would instead practice and preach their beliefs? Fascinating. I'm speculating, of course. I'd be curious to see what they'd actually do.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

A neverending attack of the belief that there may be a God is certainly antitheistic. It is also hate. And antitheistics would have us believe that only theist religions can breed hate?

But then again a person with religious or spiritual beliefs can call themselves an atheist as well.

Hypocrisy is clearly everywhere. So what's wrong with the hypocrisy of having atheism becoming an offical religion? Some atheists have obviously decided that they don't care that it's hypocritical. Looking at the First Church of Atheism, it doesn't seem to be entirely antitheistic, esp. when they embrace religion symbol, etc. That brings the hope that they wouldn't just get together to whine about theists and God or to plan another propaganda bombing. They would instead practice and preach their beliefs? Fascinating. I'm speculating, of course. I'd be curious to see what they'd actually do.

[Sharpshooter]

I guess it just seems to me that there is at least enough evidence and arguments to keep one's mind open to the possibility whether it be through the universe having a beginning, fine-tuning, the appearance of design, DNA, origin of life, origin of consciousness, evidence for the historical Jesus, evidence for the resurrection, beauty in nature,the existence of concepts like love or forgiveness, human comprehensive abilities compared to the entire animal kingdom, personal experiences, like 100+ philosophical arguments, etc.

Now I'm aware of the counter arguments to each of the "evidences" I just mentioned but I find the majority to be ultimately unsatisfying for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that there is most definitely no god. At best both sides are making statements of faith based on previous world views, already held. I mean sure maybe there is none, maybe there is but at the very least I would say one should remain open to the possibility and keep searching. So many atheists think theists and deists believe in a god or gods based on completely no evidence at all which is just not true.

[Sharpshooter]

A neverending attack of the belief that there may be a God is certainly antitheistic. It is also hate. And antitheistics would have us believe that only theist religions can breed hate?

But then again a person with religious or spiritual beliefs can call themselves an atheist as well.

Hypocrisy is clearly everywhere. So what's wrong with the hypocrisy of having atheism becoming an offical religion? Some atheists have obviously decided that they don't care that it's hypocritical. Looking at the First Church of Atheism, it doesn't seem to be entirely antitheistic, esp. when they embrace religion symbol, etc. That brings the hope that they wouldn't just get together to whine about theists and God or to plan another propaganda bombing. They would instead practice and preach their beliefs? Fascinating. I'm speculating, of course. I'd be curious to see what they'd actually do.

[Nevlach]

Those things you listed are all arguments....not evidence, for God. I could make very good arguments for teapots around Jupiter, but I can't bring you evidence for them. That's the problem with God. People try to bring arguments in place of tangible evidence, when all one's simply asking is, "Where's the beef?". I don't care what your favorite cook-book says about how to cook beef, or how it sacrificed itself so you could eat of its flesh and drink of its blood, when you're hungry. People want to see the cow, after they've been told how good the milk tastes. If you can't produce the cow, then why the hell should people believe you have any milk?

(I'm sure the metaphor isn't lost on you, but there'll be some local yokel who tries to argue the metaphor instead of what the metaphor represents.)

And just because things look or 'appear' fine tuned, does not mean that a creator therefore consciously designed the universe. The universe is not designed FOR human life, but for a fleeting moment can sustain it according to the laws of the universe. MAKE NO MISTAKE, the universe, is trying to kill you, and I promise you, it eventually will kill everything inside it....sparing no one and nothing. We are on a collision course with oblivion. THAT'S 'the design' of the universe from its inception. The stuff in between the birth and death of the universe is simply that transition, with a buncha cool temporary stuff in between.

"That's All Folks!"

[Biexallent]

I think sharpshooter and co are a bit too turned on with all this talk, but hey, that's just what I think.

[Nevlach]

I should maybe have clarified - Of course the "evidences" I listed are not scientific evidences that = proof of a god or supreme mind. But they are the kind of evidences that arguments can then be made from (and in my opinion that at least warrant keeping a more open mind about the whole topic).

[DefCon1]

Because there's no empirical evidence to support the claim that there is one. And the 'evidence' there is after 2000 years of proclamation that there is one, is terrible and from what i've seen, non-existant and easily debunked and quickly falsifiable.

What reasonable person wouldn't be, short of absolutely certain, at least sure by this point?

[Biexallent]

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.

[Nevlach]

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.

[Sharpshooter]

Hmm I would say the terms "arguments" and "evidence" overlap somewhat. For example just randomly picking a few things from my list, because DNA and life exists then arguments can be made that these things are evidence of a sort of god/being or supreme mind rather than blind forces of nature or nothing. So arguments are made based on the evidence available.

Like if I find a gun at a murder scene, just the gun itself being there does not prove a murderer was also there (obviously the dead body would but that's besides the point for now) but the gun can be used as evidence that a murderer was there and that was what he used. So based on the evidence available an argument can be made (in this case a gun was at the scene, perhaps it's likely the murderer used that specific gun).

[Pouria]

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.

[Sharpshooter]

I think sharpshooter and co are a bit too turned on with all this talk, but hey, that's just what I think.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.

[Pouria]

Arguments is not evidence....evidence is evidence, my friend. The strength of a claim or an argument rest on the strength of the evidence for the argument or claim. I can't argue very strongly that Big-Foot exists, because I don't have any credible evidence, even though I have plenty of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes aren't considered 'strong' evidence. The 'history' in the Bible sounds more like story-telling and anecdotal evidence. Many things have been exaggerated after-the-fact. Many stories were edited and re-edited over the centuries. (Council of Nicea??)

All these 'historical' things were decided on by a bunch of men trying to consolidate political power....and not just the politicians like Constantine, but the bishops of each sect as well. Gifts were exchanged, treasures were given to increase the wealth of each person in order to expedite the political consolidations of the religious stories and doctrines, in order to use a template across the reaches of the empire that had grown vast through military conquest. Constantine knew that he could win these lands by military conquest, but to hold them, he needed something more powerful.....a shared and common belief, that he could be a part of and control.....which is what he did by conspiring with the other power hungry men, who agreed to the same story in order to rule their own lands, and to increase their own wealth.

This is the birth of Christianity as we know it to be today. This is when the supernatural assignments give through doctrine were agreed upon.

Once we cut through the bulls#$%, and realize that it was man who made god, we get closer to seeing what these religions really are....which are essentially institutions of power and wealth. It's the oldest pyramid scheme.

Even your example is faulty, my friend, and I don't mean the obvious contradiction that I highlighted.. Real detectives wouldn't assume the just because a gun was found at the scene of where a dead body was, that they could jump to the conclusion that the body was there as a result of murder. Even if there was a body, and a gun, there are steps that one MUST take before saying that foul place occurred, because the gun may have been used by the person as a means of suicide, or accidental discharge, resulting of death. So, too with the metaphor of religious claims and 'evidence' one has to carefully take a look at the claim in front of them and investigate the likeliness of whether or not things appear as they seem, OR if what is being displayed to you is an illusion of the actual truth. One NEEDS good critical thinking skills to separate a crime scene from an accident scene, in a gun/dead body situation or a 'dead guy' was born of a virgin, died and came back to life, turns water into wine, can walk on water, oh and is also his own father, even though he's the son, and part of a holy apparition as well. There's a smell test to everything that you evaluate as a person Nevsie....and you know or should know, that if you apply the same smell test to religion as you do to most everything else in life.....something stinks about the smell of the religious claims of truth and 'history' and 'evidence'.

You can lead a horse to water.....or a detective to an accident scene, but you can't force him to conclude it's an accident scene if he's going into it with his mind made up that it has to be a crime scene, as he was told there is a gun AND a dead body....i mean, what more do you need, right?

[Pouria]

Much like god, you'd think the 47 pages before this didn't exist.

[Sharpshooter]

Having no empirical evidence, does not prove if something exist or not. There is no way of knowing exactly if there is a god or not. It is similar to the big bang theory which is technically just a theory not a fact. How earth was created might have been through other alternatives different than the big bang theory. You can't easily debunk or falsify something that can't be seen or verified. So if god did exist, how could it be falsified? I just think that as human beings we still have a lot of things to learn and there is constant changes in science as we discover more and more. So a science book now, could be much different 100 years from now. I just take the approach that somethings cannot be proven 100% since we as humans are still incapable of uncovering the real truth to some of these cases at this point.