The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jay73 For something that is "merely", it seems to be taken very seriously indeed. and FWIW, I am not against science, just questioning the claims that are frequently made about it, particularly that it is radically opposed to faith.

And why shouldn't it be taken seriously? It works.

Originally Posted by jay73 No, it isn't. There is proof in science, there isn't any proof of science. Unless one argues that any activity is justified by its results, which would be what pragmatic philosophy does. But that is just shifting the whole question: now you would have to prove why results should be justification of anything. So again: science adopts empiricism as a dogma.

The proof IN science is the proof OF science.

For example, if we:

1) put together a whole lot of conclusions we've arrived at through science, from disciplines in physics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, mathematics, biology, computing, engineering,
2) combine them into a single effort to put two men on the moon and bring them back
3) successfully do so

Then not only did we prove all of the conclusions, but we also proved the validity of the scientific process through which we arrived at them.

When the religious process delivers such a result, I'll be impressed.

Originally Posted by jay73 Which is just a rephrasing of: only empiricism is valid. But on what grounds? Because we assume it is.

Wrong. We accept it based on its superior results.

Originally Posted by jay73 I think there are more accurate definitions of dogma. Strictly, dogma does not necessarily relate to "information", which already suggests empiricism and only distorts the question.

If you have a better definition, then don't speculate, offer it.

Originally Posted by jay73 Disaster? Like ecological disaster? Nuclear disaster? millions slaughtered in wars thanks to technology?

Science does not cause any of those things, people do. Ecological and nuclear disasters happen when the known risks are ignored. And millions were being slaughtered in wars long before technology. In fact, technology can be credited in part for ending the concept of "total war," because it's hard to support slaughtering innocent civilians when you can contact them and see that they're just people.

If you really want to see some slaughter, pick up your Bible.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli If such evidence exists, there would be no atheist on this earth.

Indeed, and this is part of the problem with the idea of your god. If he existed, there would be so many ways for his presence to be known that the idea of atheism would be laughable.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli The only evidence i think we have is holy book and its content.

Which is no evidence at all, because no holy book can be proof of its own accuracy. "It's true because it says it's true, which must be true, because it says it, because it's true" is circular logic.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Oh I just remember of one powerful Egyptian King Firawn (Firon or Pharaoh), who claimed himself as god and at his 90's he was drowned in dead sea chasing Prophet Musa and israelis. In Quran, Allah mentioned that his body will be preserved so that it will be a sign for people who come after. And after almost 3000 years his body is recovered from sea and now is in some Egypt museum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFq6w...eature=related So today We will save you in body that you may be to those who succeed you a sign. And indeed, many among the people, of Our signs, are heedless. Quran 10:92

I can't watch Youtube at the office, but I'd say that if there really were physical evidence that supports claims in the Koran, you could find plenty of mainstream resources to confirm it.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli {...}Allah has mentioned clearly Mohammed (pbuh) was seal of Prophets and messengers. There wont be any after him.{...}

Here we go again..listen books are same level source of proof as movies, games, stories to children at bedtime so on. They are just ancient version of nowaday mentioned stuff - and they share same process to sort fiction from facts. For example God is showed in these movies Oh, God! and Bruce Almighty and angels in Touched by an Angel TV series. According to your logic - they are also true just like for example Matrix because you can't proove yet that these versions doesn't work at all.

{...}You wont believe in India we have several living gods.{...}

Some time ago you said there is only one God when i mentioned people from different religions fight with each others version..trolling or hypocracy much? The problem is not in fact God can't exist but if it exists and doesn't do anything to proove it exists including precisely like holy book says the end result is same like it doesn't exist. If you claim it does precisely by book text because some book say it does then you automatically believe in every other book in history since you don't see anything that is said there beeing real in real world!!! Holy book is still just book. Just like BMW and Audi both are still just cars not one is fish other elephant.

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie True for Atheists. I am NOT a Scientist, but I am an Atheist. If I were the scientist the the point is I would be the person who SHOULD go and understand it. I am the layman who is simply humble enough to acknowledge that just because *I* can't explain something, doesn't mean it's not explainable.

Not everything is explainable.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Not everything is explainable.

Exactly. That's why Science is SO SO awesome. All these amazing and wonderful things that we have not yet come to be understood. Many religious nuts say Science is so smug because it thinks it has the answers to everything, when that's total nonsense. Why would scientists ever want that??? That's boring, science just wants to find more and more things to learn about.

But then, you seem to actually be saying that everything IS explainable... How do you explain XYZ? God did it. That's XYZ explained, super! No need to think about it any more.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Not everything is explainable.

Which means that it simply stays "unexplained" until such a time as we have the knowledge/technology to investigate it successfully.
It doesn't mean you automatically use god or some other supernatural force to explain the phenomenon.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Not everything is explainable.

Yes it is. Difference is what methods and tools you use in your way to explain stuff. For example you can't explain temperature with radiation "thing" but you still can using termometer. If God exists and after death you will get afterlife where you will probably interact with it(holy books say we will) it will either activate existing way of interacting with it or give new one and then you will understand it. Because without some sort of language that is explained you can't communicate.

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie {...}Many religious nuts say Science is so smug because it thinks it has the answers to everything{...}

The biggest important difference between science and religion is that science have BOTH questions and answers while religion have ONLY questions. Also anyone against science should get rid of any progress made so far and live in savage environment with what God is given to them by default since God knows better(holy books say so) but then don't cry it will be pain.

Originally Posted by jay73 Let's take sports. Why does football (or soccer) have different rules than, say, basketball? What empirical evidence were those rules derived from? None. They were laid down ex nihilo, without any other reason that the inventor's decision to do so. If we follow them, it is because we believe he was right. There is no way of knowing whether he was because there is no factual basis. Yet no-one (except the occasional comedian) complains that sports are groundless and that they should therefore be abandoned. And how is acceptance of those rules any different from the acceptance of a God?

I must have played football with a hundred different variants on the rules, plus there's a competitition committee that meets every year to propose and approve rule changes, so this is a horrible analogy.

Originally Posted by jay73 Maybe you should read up on psychology. Whether a person adopts a rationalist worldview or not ultimately depends on his/her personality, i.e. perspective on the world, not on any characteristics of that world itself. To that extent, everyone is born cross-eyed; but some prefer not to see it and to mistake their own perspective for something self-evident. That would apply to both rationalists and religious fundamentalists (who, as many psychologists agree, share the same type of personality).

So in other words, you're mistaking "faith" with "preconceptions." Got it.

Rationalism is the only proven effective mechanism for challenging and dispelling inaccurate preconceptions. It's interesting that you're making this argument and using evolution as an example, because it proves my point, not yours. Evolution was a rational explanation for observed phenomena which directly challenged the preconceived notions of the time.

And I'd argue that nobody is born cross-eyed, but we don't grow up in isolation, so the preconceptions of our environment quickly become ours.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Not everything is explainable.

Not right now, no.

Originally Posted by SL00b Not right now, no.

Yes it is... God did it.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli {...}Atheists take every usual thing as granted and unusual things as exceptions and ignore them. But for theist every usual and unusual thing is a sign. As no "usual" thing has no way to get produced by itself.{...}

Some time ago lightning strike was considered God weapon and anger - is it really true with what we know today?

True for scientists.... not for Atheists.{...}

This is another typical perfect proof example why religion is narrow minded - not only it sees world black & white it also is putting people in cages where they won't do or think anything that is outside what religion wants. Open mind is key to success and this is why science WINS religion - it is open-minded to new ideas, new discoveries and is even answering to important questions about ourselves while religion is like dictatorship with God as ruler in front seat.

{...}FYI, Many of great scientists were (are) believing in supernatural power GOD. They couldn't prove, but they believed.{...}

Because they are thrown in world where people believe it is right to believe in it. Imagine you would be born in cannibal society and suddenly you discovered cannibalism is wrong - even if you knew it is wrong from that day later you still will want believe in it because the past influence is way too strong to overcome. This is why newborn child are clean! Nature is already fixing this mistake that stupidity is passing from one generation to other.

Originally Posted by SL00b Indeed, and this is part of the problem with the idea of your god. If he existed, there would be so many ways for his presence to be known that the idea of atheism would be laughable.

Believe me its laughable. When i look at any thing, i feel his presence. Small stone, tree, animals, star, moon, human being. Everything remind his presence. For a atheist these are mere natural. There is veil on eyes, seal on heart. Even if they see the sign, they wont accept.

Which is no evidence at all, because no holy book can be proof of its own accuracy. "It's true because it says it's true, which must be true, because it says it, because it's true" is circular logic.

I never say, holy book is true because its saying so. I said holy book can be proved true with help of science. Quran and science go hand to hand. They didn't contradict so far.

Maurice Bucaille was a French medical doctor, member of the French Society of Egyptology and an author. In 1976, he published his book, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science which argued that the Qur'an contains no statements contradicting established scientific fact. In 1991, another book by Bucaille, Mummies of the Pharaos: Modern Medical Investigations, was published in English.

Like him there are several. But you wont believe because you don't want to. If some scientist said E=mc2. You believed. But if same scientist says, there is GOD. You wont believe him. M I right? (E=mc2 was mere example, dont argue on that. )

I can't watch Youtube at the office, but I'd say that if there really were physical evidence that supports claims in the Koran, you could find plenty of mainstream resources to confirm it.

watch at home.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli And Do you think, scientist will leave without investigation anything discovered? That too dead body of 3000 years old !!! Check book of Doctor Morris Bucaille - The Bible, The Qur'an and Science.

That's not enough.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Science cant prove books are divine, same time science cant disprove also.

If you can prove non-divine origin, you'll disprove divine origin automatically. Seems realistic.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli If such evidence exists, there would be no atheist on this earth.

If no such evidence exists, then it is possible that everything written in quaran is a lie.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Like him there are several. But you wont believe because you don't want to. If some scientist said E=mc2. You believed. But if same scientist says, there is GOD. You wont believe him. M I right? (E=mc2 was mere example, dont argue on that.

That's just nonsense. E=MC^2 can be accepted as true, but it can be shown to be true through science as well. So much science is pieced together out of building blocks of knowledge, because at some level you need to be able to take a baseline of facts and progress from there. Here, you would start with E=MC^2 as a fundamental truth when progressing forwards, but IF you want to you can go all the way back to justify it. There is naturally no such scenario for God and all. You can start from God existing and move forwards, but you can't go back, so everything is obviously undermined.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Believe me its laughable. When i look at any thing, i feel his presence. Small stone, tree, animals, star, moon, human being. Everything remind his presence. For a atheist these are mere natural. There is veil on eyes, seal on heart. Even if they see the sign, they wont accept.{...}

Did you know some animals sense danger? We have dog who turns panic before thunderstorm from distance so that translates as he feels God coming? Also want sign of miracle? Turn off computer and ask God to or Ghost to turn it on pressing that small button on PC case and even better disable power source before that so that they turn it on with miracle not trickery. Miracles is what describes supernatural beeings like God in first place and if they can't do miracles they don't exist or are different from description which also prooves books are fake proof.

{...}If some scientist said E=mc2. You believed. But if same scientist says, there is GOD.{...}

Lol in that case second scientist will be fake because when science comes with public announcement with discovery they provide details. Go back in school in math lesson. When you asked teacher why is that or this formula correct or incorrect she or he easily in front of your eyes prooved it. When someone simply says something is true without any supporting base of facts|evidence it is just not science anymore.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli {...}I never say, holy book is true because its saying so. I said holy book can be proved true with help of science. Quran and science go hand to hand. They didn't contradict so far.{...}

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Science cant prove books are divine, same time science cant disprove also.

Double standarts = lies in face = discussing with you = waste of our time. If you will say science itself can't proove book then it is still hypocracy because if you can't proove temperature with radiation you don't need radiation next to you when you proove it using something else because all involved tools make proof not just one.