Thread: The Enquiring Atheist

The Abrahamic religions are all monotheistic. So if there is only one god then I would have to assume that the sole deity would be fairly happy with that. Yet there's divided opinion amongst the three as to what constitutes the one god. The difference wouldn't be the monotheist belief by itself, since it's shared by all three, but there's something obviously setting them apart. Now if they all have one god then should it not be the same god? Why the differing opinions?

Do we blame the differences on prophets? Why would the one god need prophets saying contradictory or contrary things about him/her/it. Are the prophets the main reason these religions don't see eye to eye? Surely we realize these philosophers or prognosticators are only human, or at least in human form. Is that how it goes, people agree on one god but can't agree on one human? I ask you in the name of all theistic religions, what is more important? I see 3 monotheistic religions that through all the shit and turmoil of existence have managed to agree on the most important matter at hand, one god. Does the other thing they agree on matter a load of crap to god, and that is believing the other two religions are wrong about him/her/it? Why would that be more important than the one god belief? Important in the fact that you are willing fight over it, that is.

Just because I say that a show is the best television show on television, doesn't mean that everyone else will unanimously agree. The largest differences that I can think off "assuming you are referring to christianity/islam/buddhism", would be in the prophets "as you said". After that, you have varying rules to follow, rules created by prophets/teachers.

Monotheistic religions tells me that their differences have nothing to do with the one god. One god being common to all. But there is no rejoicing, in fact it appears that the three monotheistic religions refer to 3 gods. In a perverse set of circumstances, together they have created a polytheistic society, except in this case the three gods are all pretty much equal. Either that or they all worship the same god.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

The Abrahamic religions are all monotheistic.

Ironically, two of them dispute that for one of the others.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

The Abrahamic religions are all monotheistic.

Ironically, two of them dispute that for one of the others.

Would that be the God/Jesus divine partnership? The sharing of godship status?

There's that whole 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost' thing. I've never really understood how a religion which plainly has three divinities could claim to be monotheistic.

In mathematics we can use many different methods to solve a problem, yet arrive at the same answer as the solution.

We may all speak different languages with completely different words and pronunciation, yet the meaning of what was said could be the exactly the same.

We may all look different as individuals, as race, as ethnicity and yet we are all one human species.

We may study different subjects according to our interest and gain degrees according to what we study, yet what each one of really gains is The Knowledge that ultimately benefits us all as humans.

We may choose different method of transportation or even different routes, yet arrive at the same destination.

We may each choose to believe in a different religion or may choose to not to choose any religion, yet may be on a way towards One God.

If one tool will suffice to do the job then why use two or why use multiple tools? Today, one imaginary god seems to be all the religious business model needs to extract the maximum profit from society. These religions mentioned also allow their followers to mold this imaginary god into their very own personal best friend, sorta like a multi tool swiss army knife type of tool. The one BMFgodWIC probably would not allow a muslim to make a small bomb to blow up a church of christians, but a molded personal best friend god is the right tool for that job. It's also the right tool to stir up a mob and stone a blasphemer to death, or deny medical help to save a mother in hard labor delivery,........yadda yadda.......

Originally Posted by shlunka

Just because I say that a show is the best television show on television, doesn't mean that everyone else will unanimously agree. The largest differences that I can think off "assuming you are referring to christianity/islam/buddhism", would be in the prophets "as you said". After that, you have varying rules to follow, rules created by prophets/teachers.

Did you mean Judaism/Christianity/Islam?

Originally Posted by AlexG

There's that whole 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost' thing. I've never really understood how a religion which plainly has three divinities could claim to be monotheistic.

Yet I would imagine you would understand a 3D image to have length, width, and depth?

Originally Posted by Josey

Originally Posted by AlexG

There's that whole 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost' thing. I've never really understood how a religion which plainly has three divinities could claim to be monotheistic.

Yet I would imagine you would understand a 3D image to have length, width, and depth?

3d. Three dimensions. Length, width, depth.

Monotheistic, 1 deity.

Father, Son, Holy Ghost = 3 deities.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by Josey

Originally Posted by AlexG

There's that whole 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost' thing. I've never really understood how a religion which plainly has three divinities could claim to be monotheistic.

Yet I would imagine you would understand a 3D image to have length, width, and depth?

3d. Three dimensions. Length, width, depth.

Monotheistic, 1 deity.

Father, Son, Holy Ghost = 3 deities.

In the christian faith a demigod was created to help gain power. Of course, the competing religions know this is a bunch of crap and deny it to be true. No matter, it seems the more ridiculous the claim, the more gullible the following herd of sheeple stampeding to become a member/believer. Holy ghost? a god? all of this Bull requires a blind dumb faith, and the human race has plenty of qualifiers.

If you had a country with the population split equally between Jews, Christians & Muslims then would you classify that nation as polytheistic?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If you had a country with the population split equally between Jews, Christians & Muslims then would you classify that nation as polytheistic?

Generally speaking,

Theist = Person who believes in God

Atheist = Person who does not believe in God

Monotheist = Person who believes in One God

Polytheist = Person who believes in more than one god.

I think it is more appropriate to use this terms for individuals. If a nation has population which is a mix of three branches of faith with each one accepting Abraham as a Prophet of God (which I think is your question) or even if it has the population mix with others, then such a nation can be said as having a population which is pluralistic in nature. A person can be a theist or atheist, monotheist or polytheist in a nation with all of theses equally split, but such a nation can not be labeled as "polytheist nation".

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If you had a country with the population split equally between Jews, Christians & Muslims then would you classify that nation as polytheistic?

Have you thought this through? This country would have to have religious freedom. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........ Excerpt from Mark Twain's "The Lower Animals" In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.
Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.
.

Originally Posted by sampson

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If you had a country with the population split equally between Jews, Christians & Muslims then would you classify that nation as polytheistic?

Have you thought this through? This country would have to have religious freedom.

The equal split really means nothing. Carve up a population anyway you want with different percentages of each religion and the state is still polytheistic but only if the 3 monotheistic religions maintain their god is separate from the others. Yet neither of the three religions will disagree on how many gods exist. However they disagree about the one god they believe exists.

So do all monotheistic religions worship the same god? Does the fact that they disagree about the god indicate that they know nothing of their one god?

[QUOTE=zinjanthropos;430287]

Originally Posted by sampson

Does the fact that they disagree about the god indicate that they know nothing of their one god?

It indicates their gullibility, because everything they say they know is just hearsay. They have no first hand knowledge of any god, their's or any other claimed god, as we know that is not possible.

You may not be interested in reading my reply since your questions are no directed towards me, but for some reason I felt compelled to reply. You may simply ignore.

Every monotheist believes in One Creator so inevitably they all believe in same God because according to them there is no other god to be worshiped.

Each believer holds a different view of God (sometimes even within the same religion) because of level of one's own imperfection, since we all know each one of us is far from perfect. If one studies different religions he will find that within every religion there are sects who tries to gain the deeper understanding of what is taught in it and he will clearly notice that these believers even though may belong to different religions, there view of God will be similar to a large extent but not identical as according to their own level of imperfection.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

You may not be interested in reading my reply since your questions are no directed towards me, but for some reason I felt compelled to reply. You may simply ignore.

Every monotheist believes in One Creator so inevitably they all believe in same God because according to them there is no other god to be worshiped.

Each believer holds a different view of God (sometimes even within the same religion) because of level of one's own imperfection, since we all know each one of us is far from perfect. If one studies different religions he will find that within every religion there are sects who tries to gain the deeper understanding of what is taught in it and he will clearly notice that these believers even though may belong to different religions, there view of God will be similar to a large extent but not identical as according to their own level of imperfection.

How many levels does this 'imperfection' have? How and who measures it?

Every monotheist believes in One Creator so inevitably they all believe in same God because according to them there is no other god to be worshiped.

Illogical and also not every theist believes in creation.

Originally Posted by sampson

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

You may not be interested in reading my reply since your questions are no directed towards me, but for some reason I felt compelled to reply. You may simply ignore.

Every monotheist believes in One Creator so inevitably they all believe in same God because according to them there is no other god to be worshiped.

Each believer holds a different view of God (sometimes even within the same religion) because of level of one's own imperfection, since we all know each one of us is far from perfect. If one studies different religions he will find that within every religion there are sects who tries to gain the deeper understanding of what is taught in it and he will clearly notice that these believers even though may belong to different religions, there view of God will be similar to a large extent but not identical as according to their own level of imperfection.

How many levels does this 'imperfection' have? How and who measures it?

Every monotheist believes in One Creator so inevitably they all believe in same God because according to them there is no other god to be worshiped.

Illogical and also not every theist believes in creation.

As believer I say every level other than God's is an imperfection. According to my own statement you can claim that every answer I provide would be imperfect though. I think I need to apply the old saying on myself. "Silence is Golden".

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Every monotheist believes in One Creator so inevitably they all believe in same God because according to them there is no other god to be worshiped.

My sentiments exactly. Try telling that to some.

Each believer holds a different view of God (sometimes even within the same religion) because of level of one's own imperfection, since we all know each one of us is far from perfect. If one studies different religions he will find that within every religion there are sects who tries to gain the deeper understanding of what is taught in it and he will clearly notice that these believers even though may belong to different religions, there view of God will be similar to a large extent but not identical as according to their own level of imperfection.

Well I'm going to jump all over that one, although I think it is a wonderful answer. However it falls under the same category has having to believe another human before you believe in a god. This human who imparted the god belief in you is not only imperfect but a sinner as well in many cases. So now you have put your trust in an imperfect human who is also a sinner. Do you not see a problem with that? I mean you have to steadfastly contend that the imperfect human sinner was perfect and pure when you learned of god from him/her. It's a contradiction like no other, yet you have faith in its truthfulness.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

.

Well I'm going to jump all over that one, although I think it is a wonderful answer. However it falls under the same category has having to believe another human before you believe in a god. This human who imparted the god belief in you is not only imperfect but a sinner as well in many cases. So now you have put your trust in an imperfect human who is also a sinner. Do you not see a problem with that? I mean you have to steadfastly contend that the imperfect human sinner was perfect and pure when you learned of god from him/her. It's a contradiction like no other, yet you have faith in its truthfulness.

Exactly, this is why I asked, "How and who is the judge? That question has not ever been answered .......except by hearsay.

Originally Posted by sampson

Exactly, this is why I asked, "How and who is the judge? That question has not ever been answered .......except by hearsay.

According to Faithfulbeliever, imperfect people are the judge. They tell you God exists. They tell you everything you want to know about God. Even as imperfect as people can get, they can be trusted implicitly, with no proof whatsoever. Unfortunately it's hard to be perfect when you're imperfect. Not only must a theist put their faith in another human being before believing in God, they must trust an imperfect one. That supposedly is the perfect way of doing things.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by sampson

Exactly, this is why I asked, "How and who is the judge? That question has not ever been answered .......except by hearsay.

According to Faithfulbeliever, imperfect people are the judge. They tell you God exists. They tell you everything you want to know about God. Even as imperfect as people can get, they can be trusted implicitly, with no proof whatsoever. Unfortunately it's hard to be perfect when you're imperfect. Not only must a theist put their faith in another human being before believing in God, they must trust an imperfect one. That supposedly is the perfect way of doing things.

The imperfection is when faith and facts are co-mingled, confused and become the 'gospel', because of the dormancy of the cerebrum. They have a free on/off switch for the cerebrum. The lord short-changed me and did not install that off switch.

The issue amongst the Abrahamic religions, as far as I understand is that:

Islam was formed with the belief that Christianity had lost its way, had become corrupt, and was no longer what it had allegedly always been about.

Christianity was formed with the belief that the Messiah had come, and with word that Judaism had lost its way, had become corrupt, and was no longer what it had allegedly always been about.

Judaism insists the Messiah has yet to be born, and adheres to the old testament with the belief that Jesus was a false prophet - and that Judaism has had it right all along.

So they all believe in the same god - it's just that as time passed groups had become discontented with the widely-held beliefs of their faith, and so they broke off with the justification that the "true-way" and the "old-ways" are not mutually inclusive, but rather the "true-way" has been lost through time, or had been lost through corruption and misinterpretation.

Edit:

So in conclusion, infighting amongst the Abrahamic Religions might be the result of believing the other groups are heretics. Why care? The same reason an Agnostic Heterosexual such as myself cares about what the Westboro Baptist Church does - despite it having absolutely no effect on how others might perceive my beliefs, and having no effect on me personally. I'd imagine they are discontented with one another because they think the other groups are swaying people into believing the "wrong" faiths - which they believe have moral consequences, and because it has an effect on society as a whole. But then again, that only represents a portion of those adhering to Abrahamic religions.

Another reason for infighting could simply be a cultural one. Most Muslims and Jews got along fine, until the Zionist movement - where the issue didn't start over religion, but because of an issue with the changes to the cultural landscape of the Middle-East. You will find that the problem isn't Muslims and Jews, you will find the problem is actually Arabs and Israelites. I think if you dig deep enough you will find a cultural disagreement/issue beneath most of the fighting amongst Religious Groups - regardless of how similar their beliefs may be.

You could make up lots of stories about why the monotheistic religions splintered into three which are consistent with the historical record. Christianity seems to be influenced by Greek thought, stoicism, Platonism, etc. These views would have been introduced to the Jews by the Romans. Similarly Christian ideas infiltrated the Arabs but cultural differences made them resistant to Christianity. The solution, a new scripture. Why do they argue amongst themselves? Partly for the same reason proponents of different scientific or political viewpoints argue, because they want the world to make sense and they think they know how it does (although scientists and ideologues don't get to issue fatwas against those who disagree with them. Edit: Ideologues do!). Everyone who disagrees is a challenge to their security. Unfortunately there's a lot of politics involved as well, particularly in the Middle East.

As far as 'is it the same God?' goes, I think it's like asking if the Sherlock Holmes in the recent 'Sherlock' series is the same as the one Conan Doyle wrote about. I think FaithfulBeliever is right to say 'Each believer holds a different view of God', although I would probably say that this is true in the same way that each reader holds a different view of a fictional character. I am not saying there is no God (I am agnostic, I simply do not know) but I cannot believe either the Bible or Qur'an is literally true (I have never read the Torah). Possibly I could give credence to something more like Buddhism but even then it's a stretch. I'm naturally skeptical, and not just of religion, also of science, economics, social institutions, etc. I tried being skeptical about philosophy too, only to find that was philosophy.

Originally Posted by Limebison

I think FaithfulBeliever is right to say 'Each believer holds a different view of God', although I would probably say that this is true in the same way that each reader holds a different view of a fictional character.

Interesting that you would mention God and fictional character in the same sentence, whether intentional or not, something the Enquiring Atheist would ponder. Now if I was a member of either of the 3 monotheistic religions, my guard would go up and I would sense that something is very wrong. So I wonder how many people in these religions feel the same concerns but for reasons known only to them refuse to 'rock the boat (ark)'? What kind of pressures are closet atheists feeling these days? Physical harm, shame, or outcast from their society... for themselves and family? As the Enquiring Atheist, would it be safe to conclude that there are more atheists than we currently think, but they are under such trepidation that to come clean is something that is undertaken with great risk?

A fictional character and gods in the same sentence? Why not? I see nothing to ponder, nothing to enquire about. That can only be disputed with faith. Education and acceptance by the voters has increased the number of Atheists. Religion dumbs down a society, and the US is an example. The Governor of Texas recently stated the first amendment does not guarantee a freedom from religion. Apparently he is ignorant of the SCOTUS decisions on this matter. George W. once told a jewish rabbi that he would not be able to enter heaven. Apparently GW is not aware that heaven is a fictional place. I hope the rabbi got as good a laugh from that as I did.

The rabbi probably believes in an afterlife. Why else become a rabbi. For a non believer to call you a non believer, is kind of enraging. At least i guess it is.

The father, son, and holy ghost, is the same thing btw. The father, is god itself, the son is jesus, and the holy ghost are all the things we don't understand. Yes, it's easy to give all the things we don't understand an explanation this way, but that's what religions do.

The differences became because of prophets indeed. But not because the prophets wanted this. Usually, a prophet is part of a repressed group of people. Or in islam's case, a great way to sway the belief of the conquered regions. Christianity was a cry for help, to aid the poor in the roman empire. Judaism is the same cry for help, for an enslaved people in the egyptian realm. Islam was the same, for the oppressed people of the conquered regions from Mohammed. I'd say he was pretty brilliant using religion in this way.

You could call those religions, monotheistic, because they all worship 1 deity. But in my eyes, people from the past, simply needed faith to overthrow their oppressors. All the religions lost their usefullness after the time where they actually became the oppressors.

[QUOTE=Zwolver;433432 The fact that a deity could stand idly by when one part of his creation slaughters another part, simply for his namesake, is a mystery i doubt theologist would dare touch.
[QUOTE]To change the acts of a god to interact with society you must write the fiction yourself, YOU can not sit idly by and expect a fictional character from a half a million yr old verbally passed down through the generations tale to interact with reality. No mystery there. The theist would simply say, "god acts in mysterious ways" and be done with the question.

Guided enquiry is better than atheism.

Originally Posted by sampson

The theist would simply say, "god acts in mysterious ways" and be done with the question.

You forgot to mention that God's acts are beyond human comprehension and understanding. Still the Enquiring Atheist asks that if this is so then how do theists know so much about their god? Surely mysterious, incomprehensible and misunderstood implies an admission that what is known about a god is that there's is nothing you can know. A really good theist would tend to avoid such adjectives, I think.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

Guided enquiry is better than atheism.

Why so?

As in science so also in philosophy.There have to be assumptions to reach to a result.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

As in science so also in philosophy.There have to be assumptions to reach to a result.

What do you think atheism is?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

What do you think atheism is?

At one time an Atheist was the first century(AD) ancestor of today's population, and called themselves christians. "One who denies the existence of heathen gods". Times have changed, and today the descendants of these Atheists are now the world's largest organized religion, and still deny the same heathen gods as their ancestors did, .... however the descendants are not considered Atheists, and are free to sling the word at some other denier. Ironic?

I dont understand athiests. Why do they deny the scientifically proven facts
1. That the world started with a Big Bang
2. That there is a Creator
3. That fathers will always be older than their sons
4. Genetically altered stuff is of dubious quality
5. That death is a reality

Originally Posted by parag29081973

I dont understand athiests. Why do they deny the scientifically proven facts
1. That the world started with a Big Bang
2. That there is a Creator
3. That fathers will always be older than their sons
4. Genetically altered stuff is of dubious quality
5. That death is a reality

Oh dear.
1 is not proven
2 is absolutely not proven (nor even evidenced).
3 is not scientifically proven - it's a concomitant. (And irrelevant).
4 is not proven. (And irrelevant).
5 is not "scientifically proven", it's simply a fact.

Can you show me which atheists deny 1, 3, 4 and 5?

Originally Posted by parag29081973

Guided enquiry is better than atheism.

What are the guidelines and who wrote them? "Don't hem me in", sounds like a country song, huh?

I dont understand athiests... paraq

Apparently so. Try Webster's.

The TAO which you can define/describe is not the true TAO
The GOD which you can define/describe is not the true GOD
(jeez guys, that's page one stuff)

If you would seek: Seek understanding beyond definition.

If, on the other hand, you enjoy this sensless banter: Then proceed apace.
If you are a psyc. or anthro. student, I am reasonably certain that there are a few good papers within these "GOD" threads.

bonadventure

Originally Posted by sculptor

The TAO which you can define/describe is not the true TAO
The GOD which you can define/describe is not the true GOD
(jeez guys, that's page one stuff)

Says who?
And what evidence is there that is true?

If you would seek: Seek understanding beyond definition.

Yeah yeah.
Double talk waffle. Great.

bonadventure

The hotel in Calgary?
Or did you mean bon aventure?

But, then again, duck
You ain't biased!
hahahaha

You certainly seem interested in the subject but have a rather peculiar way of going about your quest.

Originally Posted by sculptor

But, then again, duck
You ain't biased!

Correct.

You certainly seem interested in the subject but have a rather peculiar way of going about your quest.

I am interested.
How is it a "peculiar way"?

Yes, my friend, but what is it (exactly) that you are interested in?

ps psst you took the "biased" part out of context(just in case you hadn't noticed)

Um, you said it yourself: the subject.

Yes, but, I suspect that our perspective of "the subject" varies considerably.
Somewhat akin to strapping on your skis in Switzeland to ski in Nepal.

The Enquiring Atheist would like to take this moment to say that I really, really wanted God to manifest himself the other day when Nik Wallenda tightroped across the canyon. Never in my life have I wished so much for a god to show up and just have him flick that sonofabitch off that wire.

What's up with all the oft repeated God (Lord) referencing? I was ready to puke because he did the same thing when he trekked above Niagara Falls last year. How do theists see this? Is it really necessary, do you agree with it?

I didn't watch. Not really interested.
If you want to thank god for getting rid of your boils, shingles, hemeroids, mother in law, or tax bills, etc... or for helping you not fall off of that wirerope.
Go ahead.
If you want to curse god for war, famine, man's inhumanity to man, or your boils, shingles, hemeroids, mother in law, or tax bill, or for letting that oddball not fall off the wire.
Go ahead.

You ever hear of ex seal ex. wrestler, ex gov. Jessy Ventura's filter? Roughly it goes "how does this effect me?" If it doesn't effect him, he doesn't much care.
........................
long ago, we found ourselves on a small 29 passenger airplane(our jet was stranded in a boston blizzard) heading toward the pitsburg hub.
Unfortunately, the nose gear wouldn't lock, so they diverted us to the allentown podunk airport where, after a 40 minute wait, they could scare up one ambulance, and a couple pickup trucks with a few fire extinguishers------"for our safety"----anyway, after endless circling to use up fuel, our pilot brought that plane down so softly, that the only way you could tell that we had made ground contact, was from the noise of the wheels---moments later, the nose came down, and the nose gear folded, dropping the plane's nose to the ground. After we stopped, the pilot came out of his work station, as he was coming out, a lady passenger said "GOD saved us" and the pilot said "I saved yuz"
Credit where credit is due:
We applauded, and thanked him for his skill, and will to live.

render unto ceaser what is ceaser's

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

The Enquiring Atheist would like to take this moment to say that I really, really wanted God to manifest himself the other day when Nik Wallenda tightroped across the canyon. Never in my life have I wished so much for a god to show up and just have him flick that sonofabitch off that wire.

What's up with all the oft repeated God (Lord) referencing? I was ready to puke because he did the same thing when he trekked above Niagara Falls last year. How do theists see this? Is it really necessary, do you agree with it?

Invoking god in public always brings dividends to the invoker. Obama set a record and was rewarded with the office of Prez. plus the Nobel Peace Prize. You need to question yourself as to why you wish death upon another person. Ulcers are certain to follow.

Originally Posted by sampson

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

The Enquiring Atheist would like to take this moment to say that I really, really wanted God to manifest himself the other day when Nik Wallenda tightroped across the canyon. Never in my life have I wished so much for a god to show up and just have him flick that sonofabitch off that wire.

What's up with all the oft repeated God (Lord) referencing? I was ready to puke because he did the same thing when he trekked above Niagara Falls last year. How do theists see this? Is it really necessary, do you agree with it?

You need to question yourself as to why you wish death upon another person. Ulcers are certain to follow.

Wanting God to kill someone for you isn't exactly a death wish upon another person. I mean if God shows up and grants my wish then I would have to think it has nothing to do with me but if He did do it for me then we'd all be in trouble. God wouldn't really kill someone for anybody, would He? He can catch, can't He?

Originally Posted by sampson

If one tool will suffice to do the job then why use two or why use multiple tools? Today, one imaginary god seems to be all the religious business model needs to extract the maximum profit from society. These religions mentioned also allow their followers to mold this imaginary god into their very own personal best friend, sorta like a multi tool swiss army knife type of tool. The one BMFgodWIC probably would not allow a muslim to make a small bomb to blow up a church of christians, but a molded personal best friend god is the right tool for that job. It's also the right tool to stir up a mob and stone a blasphemer to death, or deny medical help to save a mother in hard labor delivery,........yadda yadda.......

Well said.

The EA would like to know this: if we are specially made by God, then what purpose is served for millions of sperm to be destroyed within the womb? We know about the little bugger responsible for you but why would God make millions of unnecessary sperm? If He made you then it can't be by random chance, can it?

1 is not proven

How is the big bang not proven? There isn't a significant percentage of scientists who don't accept the big bang. Absolutely, strictly speaking, nothing in science is proven, but that kind of proof is something that happens in mathematics, not science.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

The EA would like to know this: if we are specially made by God, then what purpose is served for millions of sperm to be destroyed within the womb? We know about the little bugger responsible for you but why would God make millions of unnecessary sperm? If He made you then it can't be by random chance, can it?

He liked Russian Roullette?

Originally Posted by anticorncob28

1 is not proven

How is the big bang not proven? There isn't a significant percentage of scientists who don't accept the big bang. Absolutely, strictly speaking, nothing in science is proven, but that kind of proof is something that happens in mathematics, not science.

Science has to be proven to be accepted as fact.

Science and Math go hand in hand.

Theatre is also a form of Science AND Math. .....think about it.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by anticorncob28

1 is not proven

How is the big bang not proven? There isn't a significant percentage of scientists who don't accept the big bang. Absolutely, strictly speaking, nothing in science is proven, but that kind of proof is something that happens in mathematics, not science.

Science has to be proven to be accepted as fact.

Science and Math go hand in hand.

Theatre is also a form of Science AND Math. .....think about it.

You are mistaken. The nature of the scientific method is that nothing is proven.

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them."

The reduction of confirmation bias is an essential feature of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by anticorncob28

1 is not proven

How is the big bang not proven? There isn't a significant percentage of scientists who don't accept the big bang. Absolutely, strictly speaking, nothing in science is proven, but that kind of proof is something that happens in mathematics, not science.

Science has to be proven to be accepted as fact.

Science and Math go hand in hand.

Theatre is also a form of Science AND Math. .....think about it.

You are mistaken. The nature of the scientific method is that nothing is proven.

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them."

The reduction of confirmation bias is an essential feature of the scientific method.

I find a lot of contradiction. Science is proven. Science is not proven. Math is pretty much cut and dried proven......so what's the story, morning glory, what's the word hummingbird....

is SCIENCE PROVEN....or is Science fictional theories with half way suppositions?

Originally Posted by babe

is SCIENCE PROVEN....or is Science fictional theories with half way suppositions?

I don't understand what you are having a problem with. Did you read the link?

Originally Posted by parag29081973

4. Genetically altered stuff is of dubious quality

Not only is that not "scientifically proven", it is not even true.

(But it looks like parag29081973 has done his usual thing of throwing in some vague and false factoids before wandering off when shown to be wrong...)

Originally Posted by babe

I find a lot of contradiction. Science is proven. Science is not proven. Math is pretty much cut and dried proven......so what's the story, morning glory, what's the word hummingbird....
is SCIENCE PROVEN....or is Science fictional theories with half way suppositions?

It's the use of the word "proof" that's confusing you.
In science nothing is proven, because we accept that there's always a possibility that something may turn up that will show [whatever] to be incorrect.
One can disprove in science (just find a case that contradicts what has been claimed), but you can't prove it - because we haven't explored the entire universe, or seen the whole of time to say "this is 100% correcrt and nothing at all contradicts it".
Mathematics can prove things - because it's a logical system that has specific limits and constraints.
Science, because it deals with the whole of reality and the entirety of the universe and time realises that we can't say categorically "this holds true at all times and in all places".
In "layman's" terms much of science IS "proven" - i.e. what we know is true, but it's known to be true under specific conditions and within certain limits.
Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

One can disprove in science (just find a case that contradicts what has been claimed)

And even that is provisional; after all, you may find that the evidence which disproved (falsified) something was incorrect or misinterpreted.

I'll just also add: when a scientist states something there's always the unspoken (but taken-as-read by other scientists ¹) addendum of "under certain conditions and with known - or unknown - provisos".
The problem arises because popularisers of science (and even teachers) rarely give that addendum - if they're actually aware of it.

1 The fact that it's unspoken isn't a failure - it's so ingrained that it doesn't need to be said.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by babe

I find a lot of contradiction. Science is proven. Science is not proven. Math is pretty much cut and dried proven......so what's the story, morning glory, what's the word hummingbird....
is SCIENCE PROVEN....or is Science fictional theories with half way suppositions?

It's the use of the word "proof" that's confusing you.
In science nothing is proven, because we accept that there's always a possibility that something may turn up that will show [whatever] to be incorrect.
One can disprove in science (just find a case that contradicts what has been claimed), but you can't prove it - because we haven't explored the entire universe, or seen the whole of time to say "this is 100% correcrt and nothing at all contradicts it".
Mathematics can prove things - because it's a logical system that has specific limits and constraints.
Science, because it deals with the whole of reality and the entirety of the universe and time realises that we can't say categorically "this holds true at all times and in all places".
In "layman's" terms much of science IS "proven" - i.e. what we know is true, but it's known to be true under specific conditions and within certain limits.
Hope that helps.

Thank you for answering my question.