Science has proven....!!!!!!!

miamited · Dec 31, 2011

Hi guys,

For all of you on the, 'science has proven' track. Here ya go:

Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods - Los Angeles Times

mandyangel · Dec 31, 2011

miamited said:
Hi guys,

For all of you on the, 'science has proven' track. Here ya go:

Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods - Los Angeles Times

Would expect nothing less from the LA Times. Man did make the Gods that atheists follow-- Darwin, Richard Dawkins, and the monkeyman. These are the God's of atheists, they take what they say as absolute truth and are desparate to convince everybody else to believe it too.

Now I know what they will say-- well what does that say about your faith? But for people who SO REJECT religion in all forms, its kinda funny that they have a religion all their own.

Keachian · Dec 31, 2011

Attributing atheistic rhetoric to theists... check.

ThatGuy573 · Dec 31, 2011

Is there proof that god mad everything?

Keachian · Dec 31, 2011

ThatGuy573 said:
Is there proof that god mad everything?

Is there proof that he didn't make everything through our current understanding of creation?

Greg1234 · Jan 1, 2012

miamited said:
Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods - Los Angeles Times

excuses excuses

begt · Jan 16, 2012

progmonk said:
Is there proof that he didn't make everything through our current understanding of creation?

I've been an atheist all my life (my mother is a christian; she never goes to church though), and it was long before I even heard of Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris etc. I dont take anything they say as being true without having thought about it carefully. For instance, I disagree with much of what Hitchens says about politics.

But for people who SO REJECT religion in all forms, its kinda funny that they have a religion all their own.

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not playing basketball is a sport, or that "off" is a TV channel.

The burden of proof is on the believers to prove their god(s), or anything supernatural in the first place. There are so many religions, holy texts etc. that it would be silly to favor one over the others.

begt · Jan 16, 2012

Greg1234 said:
excuses excuses

Excuses?

I very much doubt that you have studied these matters in as great detail as they have. You should not reject what they've come up with just like that.

ViaCrucis · Jan 16, 2012

Even approaching the psychological, neurological and anthropological angles that religion is a product of human social evolution (et al); this really and ultimately says nothing about the actual existence of divinity, the possibility of real revelation, or to the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of Christian truth-claims.

That is, those of us who have faith shouldn't be frightened by such things. And it is fear that spurs anger and creates the hostility present here.

Is God any less real because mankind has a biological and/or psychological desire to aim toward the unseen and divine? Or does man have these inward drives because, created in the Divine Image, the longing for the truly Real is imbedded in our own biological hardware?

-CryptoLutheran

Greg1234 · Jan 16, 2012

begt said:
The burden of proof is on the believers to prove their god(s), or anything supernatural in the first place. There are so many religions, holy texts etc. that it would be silly to favor one over the others.

Many ways to say the same thing.

pjnlsn · Jan 19, 2012

It might well be proven in some contexts. But as it is a claim about the past, it is bound to be merely the most likely reason for religion: We do know that religion is psycholgically useful, and useful in societies, and we also know that there is no proof whatsoever that there actually some godly being, which, idk, implanted the idea in all our heads, or conjured up a particular document.

With that, the most likely explanation becomes that man invented religion.

As far as why there's no proof, I said this in another thread, but for the sake of documentation:

The reason why there's no proof is because it's not possible to prove the core concept of most religions: That of the existence of some sort of godly being.

For, according to the most common version of god-concept I've heard, there's not enough information even be able to tell what a possible proof of the claim (that the godly being exists) would look like.

If, for example, someone made the claim that, say, the planets moved according to Newton's theory of universal gravitation, I could take that data, and tell anyone who asked what would evidence for that claim, what might prove it, and what would contradict it.

The most common version of the god-concept being so vague and insubstantial, you cannot even do that, much less actually find and demonstrate a proof.

theFijian · Jan 20, 2012

Do we really need multiple socks in the same thread to say the same thing?

artybloke · Jan 20, 2012

ViaCrucis said:
Even approaching the psychological, neurological and anthropological angles that religion is a product of human social evolution (et al); this really and ultimately says nothing about the actual existence of divinity, the possibility of real revelation, or to the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of Christian truth-claims.

That is, those of us who have faith shouldn't be frightened by such things. And it is fear that spurs anger and creates the hostility present here.

Is God any less real because mankind has a biological and/or psychological desire to aim toward the unseen and divine? Or does man have these inward drives because, created in the Divine Image, the longing for the truly Real is imbedded in our own biological hardware?

-CryptoLutheran

Good grief - that makes sense - what's it doing on Christianforums?

SkyWriting · Jan 20, 2012

miamited said:
Hi guys,For all of you on the, 'science has proven' track. Here ya go:Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods - Los Angeles Times

I'm glad the story starts with the twisted logic of John Lennon.

And no religion too

No? No "groups of people" who have a particular set of values?

I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

It seems John is asking for both grouping together
AND for like mindedness. Just another intolerant religion claiming to not be a religion. Tsk tsk.

John Lennon - Imagine Lyrics

pjnlsn · Jan 20, 2012

SkyWriting said:
No? No "groups of people" who have a particular set of values?

He's talking about where there would be nothing to divide people.

SkyWriting said:
It seems John is asking for both grouping together
AND for like mindedness. Just another intolerant religion claiming to not be a religion. Tsk tsk.

Yeah, he's asking people to live together in harmony. You could say technically he's intolerant.......of intolerance, but I don't see the problem with that, or why you're so hostile. He's an idealist, and I don't think that's very useful to be, but idk, I think it's quaint in a way.

Smidlee · Jan 20, 2012

Oh no. Not the "God" gene idea again. John Cleese - The Scientists - 2008 - YouTube

"Thank you , I needed that"

SkyWriting · Jan 21, 2012

pjnlsn said:
He's talking about where there would be nothing to divide people.Yeah, he's asking people to live together in harmony. You could say technically he's intolerant.......of intolerance, but I don't see the problem with that, or why you're so hostile. He's an idealist, and I don't think that's very useful to be, but idk, I think it's quaint in a way.

That's because you are also intolerant of intolerant people. You can't have it both ways. If you are a tolerant person, you MUST accept that others might not be like you are. But only if you don't want to be a hypocrite.
Many of us are. It has to do with being human, but given morality by God.

SkyWriting · Jan 21, 2012

Smidlee said:
Oh no. Not the "God" gene idea again. John Cleese - The Scientists - 2008 - YouTube

"Thank you , I needed that"

Is that like the God Particle?
The God Particle - National Geographic Magazine

pjnlsn · Jan 23, 2012

SkyWriting said:
That's because you are also intolerant of intolerant people. You can't have it both ways. If you are a tolerant person, you MUST accept that others might not be like you are. But only if you don't want to be a hypocrite.

Perhaps he's not tolerant, then.

What he's talking about, and what he wants (or wanted) was for everyone to live together in harmony. And towards that purpose he envisioned that all of the things that divide people be gone.

SkyWriting said:
Many of us are. It has to do with being human, but given morality by God.

We are different, yes. And that's exactly what Lennon is saying, he's imagining a world where there is nothing to divide people, unlike now.

Code:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

But like I said: "I don't see the problem with that." "He's an idealist, and I don't think that's very useful to be, but idk, I think it's quaint in a way."

theFijian · Jan 23, 2012

"Imagine no possessions" ..... I don't think he tried very hard to imagine that one

Science has proven....!!!!!!!

Ted

Regular Member

On Sabbatical

Newbie

On Sabbatical

In the beginning was El

Newbie

Newbie

Confessional Lutheran

In the beginning was El

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Newbie

Veteran

The Librarian

The Librarian

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency