Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


Super19

Recommended Posts

Well no, a LOT of things can actually be answered by Science. "Is there a god" specifically, is not one of those things.

However, related subjects such as evolution, the origins of the universe/Big Bang etc can and do dispute vast swaths of the assorted holy books and the religions that believe in them and start to poke a lot of holes in religious *ahem* "theories" about the existence of god.

From there, it's a very minute leap of logic and common sense to determine on one's own that "god" (or gods) are nothing more than constructs of primitive peoples to help explain and define to them what were confusing events and due to a lack of scientific knowledge at the time, unexplainable. That framework was later then twisted and used by those in power to control the masses for political purposes. There is PLENTY of data and history to show all of that as well.

Now again, that last paragraph in no way "proves" there's no god(s) but it does certainly bring their existence in to serious question and should give most modern, intelligent humans at the very least, pause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course science can prove many things, I'm not arguing against that.

Science does make many question their beliefs. There seems to be a lot more agnostics around now then there was a decade ago. I've had to think about my beliefs from time to time. But I always come back to: science brings no reason to life. And I don't think everything exists just for the sake of existing.

But nothing can be proven anyway. Like I've said before, God could have created the big bang; and there's no way we could find out. I like hearing people's beliefs. I just don't like it when people present them as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another religious joke..

One of the best examples of how ridiculous government paperwork can be is illustrated by a recent case in Louisiana. A company president was trying to buy some land in Louisiana for a plant expansion, and he wanted to finance this new facility with a government loan.

His lawyer filled out all the necessary forms, including the abstract---tracing the title to the land back to 1803. The government reviewed his application and abstract and sent the following reply:

'We received today your letter enclosing application for your client supported by abstract of title. We have observed, however, that you have not traced the title previous to 1803, and before final approval, it will be necessary that the title be traced previous to that year. Yours truly.'

As a result, the lawyer sent the following letter to the government:

'Gentlemen, your letter regarding title received. I note you wish title to be claimed back further than I have done it.

'I was unaware that any educated man failed to know that Louisiana was purchased by the United States from France in 1803. The title of the land was acquired by France by right of conquest of Spain. The land came into possession of Spain in 1492 by right of discovery by a Spanish-Portugese sailor named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by Queen Isabella.

'The good queen, being a pious woman and careful about title, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope of Rome upon Columbus' voyage before she sold her jewels to help him.

'Now the Pope, as you know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. And God made the world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to assume that He also made that part of the United States called Louisiana, and I now hope you're satisfied.'

I don't get it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe this discussion continues still.

Instead of bickering over what is the origin of life, or whatever it is now that's being discussed, why don't some of you learn to realize that we don't have the answer? There's not enough proof, and there never will be.

Instead of being stuck on what happened in the past, perhaps it's time to look to the future instead, and get on with life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharp was banished? For what?

In that case, here's a link to another 'atheism is on the rise' article:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1018/breaking31.html

Mr. Quinn here seems to believe that checking off 'no religion' doesn't necessarily mean the person isn't either religious or spiritual. Grasping at straws? Or does he have a point.

It underlines that while people are still open to the undefinable idea of religion and spirituality, more and more don't exactly want to be linked an organized church. I'd probably be put into this category as well.

Of course, organized church has some work to do if they want to re-expand their flock. Hey, if the end of days happens on schedule this year, then you can guarantee a boost in membership. Yay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...