The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jens Ehrr ... How does that make me wrong? (I'm not even religious).

LOl but you are arguing with people who most definitely are religious
its called scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Originally Posted by jens Ehrr ... How does that make me wrong? (I'm not even religious).(and)First of all, from an academical pov, nothing is ever proven (hence theorie). While science can easily disprove "the creation myth" (based on facts), non of that counts as proof

evolution is a proven fact, a scientific theory does have evidence to back it up, otherwise it would only be a hypothesis

Originally Posted by Okie evolution is a proven fact, a scientific theory does have evidence to back it up, otherwise it would only be a hypothesis

Incorrect.

A theory can't be proven by definition, it's not even supposed to be (science doesn't deal with absolutism, it's about explaining things).

When a theory does get proven (usually by accident) it becomes a theorem.

PS: ... and yes, I obviously do believe in evolution.

Originally Posted by floppywhopper LOl but you are arguing with people who most definitely are religious

Thing is, it highly annoys me when people who share my position on this keep using false facts and arguments. It makes us all look bad.

Originally Posted by jens A theory can't be proven by definition,

you dont understand what a "Scientific Theory" is https://www.livescience.com/21491-wh...of-theory.html

it does NOT mean it cant be proven, it has evidence so it is proven

Originally Posted by Okie you dont understand what a "Scientific Theory" is https://www.livescience.com/21491-wh...of-theory.html it does NOT mean it cant be proven, it has evidence so it is proven

You're missing the entire argument and lack the required philosophical knowledge, disproving the proposition P does make its mirror -p proposition correct if their exist *zero* other options.

If I state that I have 2 coins in my pocket:
P = 2 coins
-P = not 2 coins
... both can't be correct and both can be proven to be false (or why that's a false argument for P in a single sided P vs -P proposition).

However...
In this case your you're obviously ignoring the possibility that both are wrong.
I can cary 0,1,3,4 ... coins as well.

Honestly, IMHO you're still stuck in that weird political aganda, claiming Atheism is the lack of belief (instead of the denial of a belief) while it's obviously not.
No academic will ever agree with that.

A "Scientific Theory" isn't meant to prove anyting. It's meant to explain things and giving extra possibilities

Originally Posted by Okie yeah, you are wrong, there is no god, there never was an adam & eve, humans are hominids which is of the great ape family, thats right your closest living relative that is not human is the chimpanzee, and if the bible is wrong about where we came from why trust it for anything else?, religion is the oldest troll-bait in the history of civilization

Hold on a sec.

The Bible says that sin has separated us from God. What are the sins listed in the Bible?

So if it is not Aliens who left Earth, or hide on it on purpose to not reveal themselves, therefore we do not see them then it is Sin that prevents us from having access to God.

But this is ridicilous. Adam and Eve were like little kids in Garden of Eden back then. They were told not to eat from specific tree. Nowaday people can not eat from that tree, cause we live in information age, yet they do not have such tree presented and order given. Therefore cannot achieve Garden of Eden on Earth. Only thing we do have is this:

There is but one way a person can be saved and that is to repent and confess sins and then putting trust in Christ to save them. No one can ever out-sin the work of Christ on the cross. The blood of the Lamb of God covers every sin ever committed. Only the sin of unbelief cannot be forgiven if when Christ comes a person has not asked to be saved by the only name given to us to be saved and that is Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). There is no other possible way.

So what is the point of believing in sin if it does not matter? And we live in sinful world. So by definition we do not qualify for vessels of JC|1|M.

You guys are just using different definitions for "prove". Honestly, I've already explained this, like 100 pages ago

Originally Posted by ntubski You guys are just using different definitions for "prove". Honestly, I've already explained this, like 100 pages ago

So that's why this thread got a "magic roundabout" tag.

jens is dancing around the facts like he (or she) refuses to accept fact as fact, that scientific theory has evidence and facts to back them up (which is proof) proof enough to stand up in any court, and that biology and evolution proves humans evolved from lower more primitive life forms, which disproves the creation myth of the bible, and it totally destroys the entire dialog and plot of the bible & koran proving all three Abrahamic religions to be a fraud, i did not touch the topic of other god worshipping religions because they are just too absurd and silly to even bother with, but since judaism & christianity & islam has such a strong influence on civilization i feel obligated to debunk them every chance i can get because they are divisive and they cause harm to the progress of society

""All the ideologies and religions have their own answers for the big questions, but these are usually bound as a dogma to some kind of tribe. Religions in particular feature supernatural elements that other tribes, other faiths, cannot accept, And every tribe, no matter how generous, benign, loving and charitable, nonetheless looks down on all other tribes. What's dragging down human progress worldwide is religious faith.""

One mistake that atheists often make is to think that the whole Christian doctrine of sin and salvation depends on the historicity of Adam and Eve. It does not. The main biblical source for what is technically called soteriology is Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and Paul does not start with Adam. He starts with an observed fact that surely nobody can disagree with: people constantly behave badly. He chooses to illustrate this with a sequence of quotations from the Book of Psalms, but you could illustrate it just as well with a sequence of quotations from yesterday's newspapers! Humanity is in a mess. We all know what is right but we all do what is wrong. Some people behave better than others, but nobody comes off well. Even my mother, who was a lifelong atheist, believed in original sin; she just didn't call it that. "Something has gone wrong with the human race," she used to say.

Paul certainly believed in the historicity of Genesis 2 (and he does refer to Adam later on), but his main argument does not in any way depend on that belief. He starts with the existing mess and then sets forth the death and resurrection of Jesus as the way out of it provided by God. How we got into this mess is a very interesting question, but I don't think we have any right to insist that the Good Lord should provide us with a literal and historical answer. The important thing is how we get out of it.

It's worth pointing out by the way that there is no "Adam" or "Eve" in the original story. There is only "The Man" and "The Woman", the male and female halves of the human race. So it will work equally well as an allegory. Even St Jerome, who was pretty conservative, wrote that the author (whom he believed to be Moses) had written the account "in the style of a popular poet". It is only after the Fall that "The Man" (Ha Adam) drops the article and becomes Adam and then gives his wife the name "Eve".

you can twist and spin it in to any shape of metaphor as you want, without the original sin of adam & eve the whole thing falls apart, no sin, no need for jesus,

the whole of religion is a "for profit" scam and thats all it is

"The income of the priest class is totally dependent on their continued ability to sell invisible goods to suckers, they praise and glorify faith to the skies, complimenting people on how much of it they have. If it weren't for faith, they'd be out of business, and they know it."

and they are the dirtiest tricksters that uses the same scary tactics as organized crime protection racket: "join our club and pay your dues or something really bad is going to happen to you" it is basically psychological terrorism

"Their commodity is fear. They blackmail their parishioners with threats of hell and damnation. These poor deluded people give them their hard earned money to save them from a hell that does not exist, and from eternal torment that was invented by the corrupt minds of priests to rob the living and in addition, they are exempt from taxation! Insult to injury!

Let me tell you that religion is the cruelest fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race. It is the last of the great scheme of thievery that man must legally prohibit so as to protect himself from the charlatans who prey upon the ignorance and fears of the people.The penalty for this type of extortion should be as severe as it is of other forms of fraud and theft."

Originally Posted by jens A theory can't be proven by definition, it's not even supposed to be (science doesn't deal with absolutism, it's about explaining things). When a theory does get proven (usually by accident) it becomes a theorem.

If we are talking about science and not about mathematics, and if we are aware that the word "proof" can be used in a loose sense as well, then it shouldn't be so difficult to understand each other...

If I state that I have 2 coins in my pocket: P = 2 coins -P = not 2 coins ... both can't be correct and both can be proven to be false (or why that's a false argument for P in a single sided P vs -P proposition). However... In this case your you're obviously ignoring the possibility that both are wrong. I can cary 0,1,3,4 ... coins as well.

It seems that you are making some confusion here. Besides, you are playing with an ambiguous statement: do you have / don't have at least two coins, or exactly two coins? By the way, the minus sign is not the best choice as a negation sign. Try with ~ or ¬.

(...) claiming Atheism is the lack of belief (instead of the denial of a belief) while it's obviously not. No academic will ever agree with that.

Oh. I should check my atheism then.

Originally Posted by jens It doesn't need to be a 100% resolvable. It's simply about the proposition of p, where p means theist (knowing god exist) and -p means atheist (knowing god doesn't exist). While both need a "burden of proof", it doesn't matter whether you are correct or not. If you're showing arguments for either (wrong or right), that is _your_ "burden of proof" (or why Huxley added agnostic in the mix as he considered both absurd).

IMHO there is no burden of proof if the issue is "unknowable". All that remains is speculation and there Occam's Razor applies. There are patterns of events accumulating complexity in Locality all requiring only the Laws of Physics, or put another way, The Way Things Are and Interact. It's everywhere. There is NO pattern only attributable to a Prime Mover. Therefore, even in mere speculation, there are odds and they are dramatically against that of a Supreme Being, at the very least with any information available to Homo Sapiens. Furthermore, apparently there is no difference if is Absolute Truth or Right Opinion, so why even care about it?

Since it is not allowed to Thumbs Up in this section, I'd like to point out that Philip Lacroix nailed it. Absolute proof does exist in Mathematics since it is a pure construct. In the larger world (which is nevertheless wonderfully consistent with Mathematics) there are so many variable we are left with a little less than Absolute Proof and must settle for Probability. That said I will bet on 75+% odds all day every day given the opportunity.

Basically a valid theory means it has yet to be falsified. Given enough time and advancement, theory routinely exceeds 75+%. Look up "5 Sigma".

But rules of life are followed(and hijack not count cause unfair). How is it peoples fault articles like this exist?

We were|are all God’s creation, whatever God was|is.