Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Super19

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences

2,035 posts in this topic

Good grief Sharpshooter, really addicted to this god thread eh?? So out of your 23000+ posts, how many have been in this thread or the other god threads?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're turned on by the thought that i'm turned on.

Gross.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, totally on point. You definitely checkmated Sharpshooter there!

Anyways, some of these Atheists are almost as bad as religious people, both at two extreme ends of something that hasn't been proven 100% one way or another. One believes in something that can't be seen while the other doesn't believe in anything that cannot be seen or scientifically proven. There are arguments on both ends but they all have one thing in common.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure 22,000+ have been attributed to responding to your retarded posts, Charlie Brown.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF??? Are you serious? What you said is a little disturbing and creepy.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or making stupid posts like this?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know the difference between a Scientific Theory and a theory?

It's not that a God can't be verified, but that the claim as put forth by theists as their specific god being 'real' can be reasoned, argued and evidenced against. Many other claims of truth can be as well, like a flood that killed everything and everyone, save for two of all the planet's creatures in all their forms today on one boat.

Otherwise, there's a teapot that's orbiting Jupiter at this moment being watched over by a sentient plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

Do you doubt that the teapot and spaghetti being aren't real? Don't ask me for evidence though.

And there's a difference between science and dogma.....science changes because it's meant to....dogma doesn't, because it isn't meant to. Please don't try and compare the two in that regard.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The council of Nicaea deciding on what official positions the church would hold is irrelevant to the actual truth behind the history. For example if they wanted to edit out Jesus being married and downplay the role of women in the Bible, that wouldn't negate whether or not Jesus existed in the first place or whether or not he was resurrected. It would mean that people corrupted the history of it all for their own benefits, but hey people are good at doing stuff like that.

Arguments are not evidence no, but evidence can lead to arguments. Foot prints on the sand can lead to one arguing someone was there before.

Even if we were to agree and say there is no evidence, just arguments, those arguments I still feel are strong enough to keep an agnostic outlook as opposed to an atheistic one; which is my point of this discussion.

I wasn't trying to construct the entire case that a murderer was there and for sure killed someone. My point was the gun could be used as evidence, regardless of whether or not it was actually the murder weapon or the person was murdered at all. Similarly, say with the fine-tuning argument, it can be argued this is evidence of a supreme mind at work, regardless of whether or not there is one. Like I said; despite the list I posted there still might not be a god, perhaps there's even a good chance there is not one, but based on what we know and the arguments that have arisen (I'll forgo saying evidence haha) I think it's reasonable to take a more agnostic position rather than an atheist one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly....just like this one that i'm now responding to. You've hit the nail on the head once again, by demonstrating how to make retarded posts.

Carry on.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know what the hell you are talking about, honestly? I mean, you bring up these ridiculous analogies that you made up in 2 seconds to "validate" your answers to people's posts. Anyways, off to study, wasting too much time reading nonsensical posts.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever...it seems you believe what you want to believe and read what you want to read (reading comprehension be damned). Just too stubborn to be open-minded I guess.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, i'm the one with the comprehension difficulties, even though you're the one who admits to not 'even knowing what the hell i'm talking about'

I believe they call this projection.

Don't worry, you'll learn what that means after you leave high-school(That's the one you're in right now)

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you asking me??

If you are, I would agree with you....you don't have a clue.

Stay in school and keep studying....I pray every day that something will penetrate that special protective helmet of yours.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, i'm the one with the comprehension difficulties, even though you're the one who admits to not 'even knowing what the hell i'm talking about'

I believe they call this projection.

Don't worry, you'll learn what that means after you leave high-school(That's the one you're in right now)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave the Council's work to one side then, and just address the main point and thrust of your post then.

Arguments have to based on something...like evidence, or reason and rationalizations.....and if those are shown to be faulty, like many of the suppositional ones being proffered by the religious as 'logical', then you must decide which argument on its face is more logical, as you are one who puts themself forth as being logical and rational and of sound mind.

Again, do the truth claims on face value, pass the smell test for you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofcourse telling people to go to highschool strenghtens your argument. Kids these days, stop being childish and respond accordingly.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.