Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 158
Like Tree34Likes

Thread: If science proves so in-depth that God-religions are false, then why are there so freaking many believers in the world?

  1. #1 If science proves so in-depth that God-religions are false, then why are there so freaking many believers in the world? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Im beginning to think God-Religions....
    (Specifically scriptures)
    are historical records
    mixed with fantasy and fairytales
    mixed with lies
    mixed with imagination
    mixed with cultures
    mixed with undeveloped science
    mixed with human guesses
    mixed with conclusively wrong hypothesizes.

    Then why are God-Religions so popular?
    It it because people subconsciously wish for something to be guiding and guarding their lives?
    Could it be because they want answers for why devastating things that happen to them?
    Would it be because of how people are unwilling to accept that life ends when life ends;
    or it could be the inability to argument how it would be like after one dies?
    Is it because people consciously hope for a divine being to be caring for them?
    Or the desire to have an all-powerful entity to lean on for emotional support?
    Maybe its due to the how incomplete science really is.


    Why do you think God-Religions are so popular?
    My main guess: NeuroScience?


    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Im beginning to think God-Religions....
    (Specifically scriptures)
    are historical records
    mixed with fantasy and fairytales
    mixed with lies
    mixed with imagination
    mixed with cultures
    mixed with undeveloped science
    mixed with human guesses
    mixed with conclusively wrong hypothesizes.
    It's taken you all these years and you're just beginning to think that?

    Then why are God-Religions so popular?
    Because people are still gullible.

    Maybe its due to the how incomplete science really is.
    Wrong.
    It MAY be an indicator of how incomplete some people's knowledge of science is though.


    pavlos, MrMojo1 and seagypsy like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    well, do u know anyone who knows everything in science without any blind spots?

    even the stringtheory is currently being researched.
    (it hasnt been mastered, of course there will be answered blind spots)

    and even scientists (including this forum) have problems answering constant (Why?) questions.
    why does the apple fall to the ground? because there is gravity
    why is there gravity? because energy bends space.
    why does energy bend space? because....... we dont know (so lets just dismiss this as an answered question)
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Maybe its due to the how incomplete science really is.
    Wrong.
    well, i still state my stand: Science is not complete.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    well, i still state my stand: Science is not complete.
    Correct.
    And well-understood by EVERYONE involved in science 1.
    What's your point here?


    1 And, also equally understood, is that science, to be science, will always be incomplete. If it were complete then we wouldn't have scientists, we'd just have book-keepers.
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    well, i still state my stand: Science is not complete.
    Correct. But irrelevant.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Why do you think God-Religions are so popular?
    Lack of education/poor education indoctrination and inculcation, and complete gullibility.

    Remember the children of religious people have religion forced on them from an early age, and once they are brainwashed, it is hard to deprogram them, especially if they live in a community of religious people.

    Many teenagers from religious parents, who go to college in another part of the country/world, are open to new experiences. And as such a lot become non-religious.

    If we could educate the world to roughly the same standard there would be a lot less religious adherents.

    Sadly at present this is impossible but we are getting there.

    Addenum: I'm an Arsenal (soccer team) supporter, my dad was too as was his dad, but in my household I broke the trend as I allowed my boys to chose who they want to support rather than buy the Arsenal memorabilia (I had an Arsenal shirt as soon as I could walk). but my boys were allowed to get to an age to chose for themselves, I have one Liverpool, and one Chelsea. point being children follow whatever there parents do, unless they're allowed to chose when they're about 10 to 12 years.
    Last edited by pavlos; April 6th, 2013 at 08:45 AM. Reason: Addenum:
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Remember the children of religious people have religion forced on them from an early age, and once they are brainwashed, it is hard to deprogram them, especially if they live in a community of religious people.
    this would be a truly perfect description of me. i didnt know how to put it into words at first.

    but anyway, my parents will rage if they see im talking about these stuff on the forum.

    yes i agree: it is hard to deprogram them.

    worse: it is harder for them to deprogram themselves.
    pavlos likes this.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Science doesn't prove any religions are false. That never was and never should be the goal a scientific pursuit. We seek to explain what we know, not disprove what we cannot know.

    Religion could eventually see a natural die off in the face of overwhelming scientific discovery, but I doubt it. There will always be people so desperate to find meaning and purpose, so afraid of being alone on a little ball of dirt and water in the middle of vast emptiness, that they will create their own reason for being even if one is not presented to them.

    God exists because we are afraid. There will always be things to frighten us, so why should God not persist?
    RamenNoodles likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    The problem is that of mixing the idea of God with that of religion, ok this may sound a little odd but really if you think about it most religions are built upon superstitions that are constantly being disproved by science. Science is giving us the correct answers, but where do we turn for the correct answers that science will never be able to answer? We turn back to at least some concept of God when we ask why did it all begin or why does everything exist in the first place, because science can explain the process of everything but never the why. Tradionally the why has always been the perview of religion, the problem with religion is that religions are made by man not by God, they can't and don't know so the answers they give us are wrong. So again we must go beyond science but also beyond religion, and here we find that the idea of God isn't the sole domain of any or indeed all religions it is instead there for all us to choose what we wish to believe, because when science and religion cannot aswer the ultimate questions it means we only have ourselves left, for which each of us must then choose that which we will believe. But just to look at it another way imagine for a second if there was a way to find out or know the answers to the ultimate questions, surely this would just lead to dissappointment and then the question is this all their is, yet because we only have our own imaginations to answer these questions we will never truely be dissappointed or limited by any particular answer.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Perhaps people just want to cling desperately onto a belief that gives their lives some moderate sense of purpose. Indoctrination is probably the main culprit in my opinion, I know a few academically intelligent individuals who are also obsessed with religion. I.E, they attend church every sunday, attend bible studies during the week, proliferate their beliefs on others and condemn those who don't believe in them.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Perhaps people just want to cling desperately onto a belief that gives their lives some moderate sense of purpose. Indoctrination is probably the main culprit in my opinion, I know a few academically intelligent individuals who are also obsessed with religion. I.E, they attend church every sunday, attend bible studies during the week, proliferate their beliefs on others and condemn those who don't believe in them.

    I think the problem is that we all look for meaning and think about what life, the universe and everything is all about at some time in our lives often at many times, but it's when charlatans, whether they be religious, scientific or from some cult or other, convince people they have the answers to questions they cannot possibly have that people can get drawn in and believe in their particular brand of faith, people give up thinking for themselves or trying to find their own answers, just becoming zombies to false profits and trickery. It's really easy to just buy in an idea that you can just go somewhere where other people have all the answers and have everything mapped out, the truth is things just never work like that because nobody has or even could have these answers, but unfortunately people's 'faith' blinds them from this simple truth.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Science doesn't prove any religions are false. That never was and never should be the goal a scientific pursuit. We seek to explain what we know, not disprove what we cannot know.
    Many scientific discoveries were made accidentally. Just because science did not set out to disprove the world's religions doesn't mean that it cannot, or has not. And certainly there is a difference between disproving the truth of a religion and disproving the concept of a god.

    Quote Originally Posted by [B
    ryanawe123][/B]Why do you think God-Religions are so popular [in spite of all the evidence suggesting that they are false]?


    There are many reasons for that. One of them is desire. Many people are scared by the implications of a purposeless universe.

    Another is ignorance. Most religious proponents don't understand science, and are suspicious of it as a result. They're susceptible to misinformation and propaganda because they have no choice but to make value decisions based on perceived authority. This also explains conspiracy theorists. (A mistrust of government + A colossal failure by that government leading to the 9/11 attacks = 9/11 Truth movement; or, Ignorance of how monolithic stones were moved in antiquity + Belief that alien life must be more technologically advanced than us = ancient aliens)

    An overlooked cause of religious belief, in my opinion, is loyalty. Most people who belong to a denomination were born into it, raised that way by their parents. And most of them actually believe in it. But there are many who identify as believers simply because their parents did, almost as a defense mechanism. My own mother, for example, seems to believe in God because her mother did, even though she has never observed as her mother did, nor has she attended church with any regularity whatsoever. She believes as a kind of validation of her mother's parentage. It's just like how people tend to agree with their parents' parenting style in retrospect even though they would never repeat it with their own children.

    So there isn't just one cause, and all of the various causes are and always will be pervasive. Fear and ignorance will never go away. Loyalty to one's parents never goes away. There will always be people who don't get it, or who are easily persuaded, or extremely charismatic and eager to spread the Word. This is why religion will never die. You might see certain denominations die out--I think Judaism is a prime candidate for the history books over the next few centuries--but religion itself will never go away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Just because science did not set out to disprove the world's religions doesn't mean that it cannot, or has not. And certainly there is a difference between disproving the truth of a religion and disproving the concept of a god.
    The truth of a religion is not based in the idea that God exists? I don't understand your statement.
    Last edited by Flick Montana; April 8th, 2013 at 06:32 AM.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post

    The truth of a religion is not based in the idea that God exists? I don't understand your statement.
    Not necessarily. One can deduce the truth of a religion simply by exploring its origins, or testing the claims it makes. I can show you that Islam is false simply by demonstrating that it is a crude forgery of Christian mythology, without even addressing the existence of Allah. Likewise, showing that Yahweh originated as one god among a Canaanite pantheon goes a long way to squashing Judaism as the "true" religion. There are many other examples, but I think you get the point.

    From there, you can decide for yourself if it's more likely the deities they speak of are real or simply invented along with the stories surrounding them, but when the founding texts are rendered useless the question becomes academic.
    Phlogistician likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    I think it's ALL invented and, thus, impossible to disprove.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I think it's ALL invented and, thus, impossible to disprove.
    It's impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist, but we're not talking about disproving gods. We're talking about disproving religions. Religions make factual claims that can be tested and debunked.
    Phlogistician likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Anti-Pseudoscience Some's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    44
    The creator created everything.
    Atheism can't be a reasonable alternative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    can someone summerize what the video above this post says?

    my computer's flash player wont work properly.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    It's faff.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    The creator created everything.
    Prove it.

    Atheism can't be a reasonable alternative.
    Why not?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    The creator created everything.
    Unfounded and totally unsupported assumption.

    Atheism can't be a reasonable alternative.
    On the contrary. (Weak) atheism is the only RATIONAL option.

    Yeah, and apart from anything else, the video title (Physicists prove god exists) is laughably wrong. It's grasping at straws.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's faff.
    What is faff?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's faff.
    What is faff?
    Nonsense, garbage, hooey, bullcrap, a desperate attempt to give drivel meaning by attaching science to it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Science doesn't prove any religions are false. That never was and never should be the goal a scientific pursuit. We seek to explain what we know, not disprove what we cannot know.
    Many scientific discoveries were made accidentally. Just because science did not set out to disprove the world's religions doesn't mean that it cannot, or has not. And certainly there is a difference between disproving the truth of a religion and disproving the concept of a god.

    Quote Originally Posted by [B
    ryanawe123][/B]Why do you think God-Religions are so popular [in spite of all the evidence suggesting that they are false]?


    There are many reasons for that. One of them is desire. Many people are scared by the implications of a purposeless universe.

    Another is ignorance. Most religious proponents don't understand science, and are suspicious of it as a result. They're susceptible to misinformation and propaganda because they have no choice but to make value decisions based on perceived authority. This also explains conspiracy theorists. (A mistrust of government + A colossal failure by that government leading to the 9/11 attacks = 9/11 Truth movement; or, Ignorance of how monolithic stones were moved in antiquity + Belief that alien life must be more technologically advanced than us = ancient aliens)

    An overlooked cause of religious belief, in my opinion, is loyalty. Most people who belong to a denomination were born into it, raised that way by their parents. And most of them actually believe in it. But there are many who identify as believers simply because their parents did, almost as a defense mechanism. My own mother, for example, seems to believe in God because her mother did, even though she has never observed as her mother did, nor has she attended church with any regularity whatsoever. She believes as a kind of validation of her mother's parentage. It's just like how people tend to agree with their parents' parenting style in retrospect even though they would never repeat it with their own children.

    So there isn't just one cause, and all of the various causes are and always will be pervasive. Fear and ignorance will never go away. Loyalty to one's parents never goes away. There will always be people who don't get it, or who are easily persuaded, or extremely charismatic and eager to spread the Word. This is why religion will never die. You might see certain denominations die out--I think Judaism is a prime candidate for the history books over the next few centuries--but religion itself will never go away.
    I agree, I also think that religion offers validation of superiority over others. To cling to a faith is to be better than all those who don't cling to that faith. It's picking a team. And picking a mascot that says "your way of being" is better than your neighbors(global) which gives you rights over those people. The right to judge them, the right to make war on them, the right to throw stones at them, the right to hoard resources away from them. The right to survive when it is perceived
    (whether accurately or not) that there are not enough resources to sustain us all.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Just because science did not set out to disprove the world's religions doesn't mean that it cannot, or has not. And certainly there is a difference between disproving the truth of a religion and disproving the concept of a god.
    The truth of a religion is not based in the idea that God exists? I don't understand your statement.
    It's been my understanding that religion does not always require the existence of a god. It only requires the existence of a dogma. I could be wrong. But I see many things to be religious that do not involve a creator of all things type of god. The fanaticism of sports lovers is sometimes quite religious. I have seen shrines built to favorite teams or players. Rituals practiced that are believed to bring the team a win such as wearing mismatched socks or spinning three times and spitting in your neighbors ear. All stupid superstitious behaviors but are done with such passion and belief that if the team fails to win, the fan takes it as a personal loss and gets major attitude with any fan he believes didn't support the team as faithfully as he did. It's all really ridiculous when you think about it. But religion does take many forms and almost anything can become a religion when someone devotes too much of their time to defending it without question. IMO, the god figure is simply the central focus that all the energy of maintaining the dogma is directed at. Sports teams get worshiped in odd ways as I described above. But they don't require that. Nor are they even aware of it. All they want is to sell products (ie tickets and merchandise, after all pro sports is just a business like any other). Of course, sports teams are actually real and do seem to affect those who pay attention to them and those who have the misfortune of living close to a major stadium of some kind.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6
    When the Romans became Christians, they incorporated their own religion into it. They worshiped a Sun God and other dieties. The Vatican decided what books would remain in what is called the Holy Bible. If you read the Book of Enoch, you will find a much clearer account of our history. Enoch walked with God, but the Vatican didn't include his revelations in The Holy Bible. Furthermore, we couldn't have possibly come from the cave men. The time frame is wrong. They didn't have vocal cords for speech. They could only grunt and howl. If they were still in existence, they would still be living in caves and using crude tools. Read everything that you can written by Zecharia Sitchin. Also, the deluge (flood) occurred because of the angels mating with earthlings and having evil, giant offspring. You can catch Mr Sitchin on uTube.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheila Montgomery View Post
    Furthermore, we couldn't have possibly come from the cave men.
    What do you mean by "cave men"?

    The time frame is wrong.
    What do you base that on?

    They didn't have vocal cords for speech. They could only grunt and howl.
    How do you know that?

    Read everything that you can written by Zecharia Sitchin.
    Who is he/she? Which journals has their scientific research been published in?

    Also, the deluge (flood) occurred because of the angels mating with earthlings and having evil, giant offspring.
    Of course it did.

    You can catch Mr Sitchin on uTube.
    Not a great source for scientific information. Do you have anything more credible?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,214
    [QUOTE=Strange;410331]
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheila Montgomery View Post

    They didn't have vocal cords for speech. They could only grunt and howl.
    How do you know that?
    Well obviously it is information gleaned from this documentary:

    Caveman (1981) - IMDb
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheila Montgomery View Post
    Enoch walked with God
    False.

    Read everything that you can written by Zecharia Sitchin.
    Why would I want to waste time reading books written by a completely delusional crank?
    And, equally to the point, why would you recommend them?
    Oh, I get it now...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Who is he/she? Which journals has their scientific research been published in?
    You haven't come across Sitchin before?
    Lucky you.
    There's a Wiki page, but I prefer Rational Wiki's description: Zecharia Sitchin (Azerbaijani: Zaxariya Sitçin) (1920–2010) was a complete crank who believed in a "twelfth planet" called Nibiru that created all life on Earth. It is apparently a "yo-yo" planet that only shows up every so often, or something. It is also responsible for the asteroid belt. All of this is supposedly found in a prophecy written by the ancient Sumerians and confirmed in the New Testament.

    Basically he's yet one more deluded lying nut job.
    With far too many totally gullible believers/ followers.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Oh, he is responsible for the Nibiru stuff. Sheesh. Why is someone mentioning him on a science site?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6
    Read the Books of Jasper, Enoch, and Jubilees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheila Montgomery View Post
    Read the Books of Jasper, Enoch, and Jubilees.
    Why?
    Have they got better jokes than rest of the bible?
    Presumably you mean Jasher, not Jasper?
    In which case wouldn't that be difficult?
    The Book of Jasher (also, Jashar) or Book of the Just Man (Hebrew sēfer ha yāšār ספר הישר) is an unknown book mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.
    Bit hard to read an unknown book isn't it?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheila Montgomery View Post
    Read the Books of Jasper, Enoch, and Jubilees.
    Are you aware that this is a SCIENCE forum? Not a superstitious nonsense forum?
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I agree, I also think that religion offers validation of superiority over others. To cling to a faith is to be better than all those who don't cling to that faith. It's picking a team. And picking a mascot that says "your way of being" is better than your neighbors(global) which gives you rights over those people. The right to judge them, the right to make war on them, the right to throw stones at them, the right to hoard resources away from them. The right to survive when it is perceived
    (whether accurately or not) that there are not enough resources to sustain us all.
    Yes, but I don't know if that's necessarily a reason why people believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheila Montgomery View Post
    When the Romans became Christians, they incorporated their own religion into it. They worshiped a Sun God and other dieties. The Vatican decided what books would remain in what is called the Holy Bible. If you read the Book of Enoch, you will find a much clearer account of our history. Enoch walked with God, but the Vatican didn't include his revelations in The Holy Bible.
    This is drivel. Ahistorical nonsense.

    Furthermore, we couldn't have possibly come from the cave men.
    We didn't "come from" cavemen, we were cavemen. Humans lived in caves and other earthen dwellings for thousands of years. If you're referring to Neanderthals, I would agree that we didn't evolve from them, but alongside of them. They were a different species.

    The time frame is wrong.
    How so?

    They didn't have vocal cords for speech. They could only grunt and howl.
    Cavemen were human, so they were just as capable of speech as we were. And Neanderthals were also capable of speech, though that's a bit more recent discovery, so I'm not surprised your pastor or whoever you get this misinformation from isn't aware of it.

    If they were still in existence, they would still be living in caves and using crude tools.
    Again, if you're talking about Neanderthals, that's unlikely. As a species of human, it's more likely that they would have been assimilated into our society in some way. It's also very plausible that we have Neanderthal ancestory thanks to cross-breeding.

    Read everything that you can written by Zecharia Sitchin.
    And now all that was unclear becomes crystalline. You kneel at the altar of a false prophet, darling.

    Also, the deluge (flood) occurred because of the angels mating with earthlings and having evil, giant offspring. You can catch Mr Sitchin on uTube.
    Mr. Sitchin does not support any of his wild claims with evidence. It's all speculation and misinformation. I suggest thinking critically and skeptically in the future, lest you be hornswaggled by people like him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheila Montgomery View Post
    Furthermore, we couldn't have possibly come from the cave men. The time frame is wrong. They didn't have vocal cords for speech. They could only grunt and howl.
    I get that you have your own ideas about the history of man, but don't try to insert science into your religious definitions. It just makes you look foolish.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I agree, I also think that religion offers validation of superiority over others. To cling to a faith is to be better than all those who don't cling to that faith. It's picking a team. And picking a mascot that says "your way of being" is better than your neighbors(global) which gives you rights over those people. The right to judge them, the right to make war on them, the right to throw stones at them, the right to hoard resources away from them. The right to survive when it is perceived
    (whether accurately or not) that there are not enough resources to sustain us all.
    Yes, but I don't know if that's necessarily a reason why people believe.

    deleted, my response made no sense. just woke up from a nap and it all seemed wonky... will come back to this when more awake.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Currently, all publicized religions (even if proven wrong) do not collapse due of the existence of motivation driven by fear of the torment encapsulated inside itself.

    Note: That there is no religion that does not encompass torment as an element.

    No new religion lacking the encapsulation of torment, in the form of:
    Hell, bad luck, retribution or reincarnation, will last any longer than a few generations.
    Last edited by RamenNoodles; April 9th, 2013 at 08:34 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    [LEFT]Currently, all publicized religions (even if proven wrong) do not collapse due of the existence of motivation driven by fear of the torment encapsulated inside itself.
    Would you like to rephrase that. I'm not sure (I don't have a clue ) what you mean.

    Note: That there is no religion that does not encompass torment as an element.
    What do you base that on? I don't believe Buddhism or Shinto, for example, include torment.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    buddhism. 7(or eight) gates of hell or reincarnation.

    shinto i have head before vaguly, has some bad-luck or something.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    shinto i have head before vaguly, has some bad-luck or something.
    I am impressed by the depth of your scholarship and compelling arguments. Or something.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Note: That there is no religion that does not encompass torment as an element.
    Bullshit.
    Mine doesn't.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Note: That there is no religion that does not encompass torment as an element.
    Bullshit.
    Mine doesn't.
    Yeah - but if you punished your follower then he would probably stop talking to you.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Yeah - but if you punished your followers then he would probably stop talking to you.
    Not what I meant.
    The religion I subscribe to doesn't have "torment" as an element.

    (Unless you have a dislike of hot dogs).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Hot dogs was a clue.

    Hail Eris!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    If science proves so in-depth that God-religions are false, then why are there so freaking many believers in the world?

    People are contradictory and do not always do what is best for them or even in many cases know that which is best for them. How many people around the world regularly drink to excess or how many people smoke or take drugs?, and yet we all know this is wrong and bad for us, people also gamble and they know this wrong. But just like tobacco, alcohol, drugs or gambling religion can be and often is addictive, but unlike the those things how many religious addiction centres do see or hear about?, many people don't seem or understand the power of religious indoctrination, and I will say this again for good measure, you don't have to be religious or believe in any particular religion to believe in God, as some religions would like to have you believe. People can and should make their own minds up about the idea of a concept of God and without the fairy stories perpetuated by religions for millenia.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Yeah, but the whole point is that this topic was broken from the start. It begins with a fallacy. Science proves nothing false, rarely does it even prove anything to be true. Science is not just about proofs, it's just a way of examining the world around you.

    I know people like to cite a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of certain religions as the reason they get so much heat, but the same is true for scientific pursuits. Archaeologists are NOT trying to prove God didn't make dinosaurs, Geologists are NOT trying to prove the world is more than 6000 years old, Biologists are NOT trying to prove Adam and Eve impossible. We simply study our field, make our findings, and accept the most reasonable and substantiated ideas as the best option. If something else is demonstrated to be ridiculous during that process, it is not because of the intent of the sciences. It is, and I cannot stress this enough, simply a part of learning.
    Ascended likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    The premise of the topic is fine. Scientific inquiry can and does eliminate any rational basis for belief in any known religion. There's nothing wrong or controversial about that statement, it's just (apparently) that some people want to pretend that there's no overlap between the claims of science and religion (looking at you, Flick) even though the overlap is quite apparent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Archaeologists are NOT trying to prove God didn't make dinosaurs,
    But they have, more or less.

    Geologists are NOT trying to prove the world is more than 6000 years old,
    But they have.

    Biologists are NOT trying to prove Adam and Eve impossible.
    But they have.

    We simply study our field, make our findings, and accept the most reasonable and substantiated ideas as the best option. If something else is demonstrated to be ridiculous during that process, it is not because of the intent of the sciences. It is, and I cannot stress this enough, simply a part of learning.
    No one has suggested that science [i]attempted[\i] to do any of this. The only suggestion is that it actually has. I don't know why you're so hung up on this. You're defending against an argument that hasn't been made, and then trying to say that because science hasn't tried to do any of this, it hasn't actually happened. That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    But Flick clearly stated: If something else is demonstrated to be ridiculous during that process, it is not because of the intent of the sciences. It is, and I cannot stress this enough, simply a part of learning.
    I.e. no dissonance required.
    The intent wasn't there, the "disproofs" came out as a consequence.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    But Flick clearly stated: If something else is demonstrated to be ridiculous during that process, it is not because of the intent of the sciences. It is, and I cannot stress this enough, simply a part of learning.
    I.e. no dissonance required.
    The intent wasn't there, the "disproofs" came out as a consequence.
    Flick has also stated in this very thread that it was impossible to disprove the truth claims of religion, so I'm not convinced the "something else" he's referring to in that comment has to do with religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana
    Science doesn't prove any religions are false. That never was and never should be the goal a scientific pursuit. We seek to explain what we know, not disprove what we cannot know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Science has not PROVEN God-religions false.

    Scientific discovery has merely attributed many facets of religious dogma to natural processes. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're misusing the word 'proof'.

    Has the study of the fossil record of horses proved that unicorns don't exist? No. Is it ridiculous to believe in unicorns? That's probably subjective, but I'd say yes.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Science has not PROVEN God-religions false.

    Scientific discovery has merely attributed many facets of religious dogma to natural processes. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're misusing the word 'proof'.

    Has the study of the fossil record of horses proved that unicorns don't exist? No. Is it ridiculous to believe in unicorns? That's probably subjective, but I'd say yes.
    I was using the word colloquially, as the OP used it. If you want to get technical about it, proof only exists in math. But, obviously, the word is used to mean something like "heavily suggested by evidence" in regular conversation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Sorry, I use words the way they are meant to be used. Especially when discussing science-related topics.

    If you're suggesting that scientific discoveries have replaced acts of God with explainable natural phenomena, I would obviously agree. Just be careful with terminology.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Sorry, I use words the way they are meant to be used. Especially when discussing science-related topics.
    I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. The OP made the context of the term clear, and I refuse to believe that you're completely obtuse to that fact. Nobody else seemed to struggle with this as you did. Even Dywhatever put the word in quotation marks.

    If you're suggesting that scientific discoveries have replaced acts of God with explainable natural phenomena, I would obviously agree. Just be careful with terminology.
    Perhaps you should loosen up a bit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    The term was given context by someone who has no understanding of science and you're going to accept that over the definition of the scientific term? I don't see how that could possibly make discussion easier.

    As for loosening up, I'm actually pretty friendly. I'm finding you to have a bit of an attitude, though, and I don't deal well with things like that. You'll be responded to in the same manner in which you respond to me.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The term was given context by someone who has no understanding of science and you're going to accept that over the definition of the scientific term? I don't see how that could possibly make discussion easier.
    It's not an incorrect usage. Dictionary.com defines the word "prove" (using the first definition) as "to establish the truth or genuiness of, as by evidence or argument." It's simply not the scientific definition, much like how the word "theory" is used differently in a scientific context.

    And in any event, realizing that the OP has limited knowledge of science or the scientific process should have been a clear tell that he or she was not using the word "prove" in the sense you're attempting use it now.

    As for loosening up, I'm actually pretty friendly. I'm finding you to have a bit of an attitude, though, and I don't deal well with things like that. You'll be responded to in the same manner in which you respond to me.
    The sum total of my attitude was telling you to lighten up. Meanwhile, you called me obtuse. I'd say you're the one with the attitude problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Scientific studies have not 'proven" God false, but it has demonstrated the beliefs and scriptures as very absurd, irrational and difficult to accept.
    Which is very similar to demonstrating something to be false.
    icewendigo likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    It's not an incorrect usage. Dictionary.com defines the word "prove" (using the first definition) as "to establish the truth or genuiness of, as by evidence or argument." It's simply not the scientific definition, much like how the word "theory" is used differently in a scientific context.
    Whilst discussing the topic of science "proving" something, yes, I tend to use the scientific definition of a mathematical proof. Something impossible to do when it comes to God. You cannot prove there is no God in scientific terms. If you want to continue to entertain this thread, one in a myriad of nonsensical posting by the OP, I won't stop you. Nor will I continue to argue which definition or use of terminology is apropos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    The sum total of my attitude was telling you to lighten up. Meanwhile, you called me obtuse. I'd say you're the one with the attitude problem.
    I'm sorry if I came off rude. It's true that tone is hard to read over the internet. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intent. I'm not interested in conflict so I'll just apologize and that can be that.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Whilst discussing the topic of science "proving" something, yes, I tend to use the scientific definition of a mathematical proof. Something impossible to do when it comes to God. You cannot prove there is no God in scientific terms.
    Two final thoughts, and I'll leave it at that: 1) Using the term in your context is fine, except that it wasn't being used in that sense here, so insisting upon it without also clarifying where you stand on the claim made by the OP in the context it was intended isn't helpful. But now we understand each other, and it's all good. 2) No one has discussed disproving a god; rather, the discussion has been science disproving the truth claims of religion, which you and I seem to agree on.

    I'm sorry if I came off rude. It's true that tone is hard to read over the internet. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intent. I'm not interested in conflict so I'll just apologize and that can be that.
    It's fine, and I apologize as well. I wasn't trying to provoke you. I was confused as to why you were bringing up intent when the OP was essentially saying "Now that we know religion is BS, why do people still believe?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    The vast majority of people are taught their religion well before they have any ability to decide its merits--that teaching is embedded with well tried methods of persuasion and emotional connection to family, rewards, fears, shame and even a philosophical bent that creates and pretends to answer nonsensical questions. While all people are born atheist, this learning makes most people irretrievably religious by the time they have the cognitive ability to evaluate the merits of the embodied beliefs they were taught by their family.
    RamenNoodles likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Yeah, but the whole point is that this topic was broken from the start. It begins with a fallacy. Science proves nothing false, rarely does it even prove anything to be true. Science is not just about proofs, it's just a way of examining the world around you.

    I know people like to cite a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of certain religions as the reason they get so much heat, but the same is true for scientific pursuits. Archaeologists are NOT trying to prove God didn't make dinosaurs, Geologists are NOT trying to prove the world is more than 6000 years old, Biologists are NOT trying to prove Adam and Eve impossible. We simply study our field, make our findings, and accept the most reasonable and substantiated ideas as the best option. If something else is demonstrated to be ridiculous during that process, it is not because of the intent of the sciences. It is, and I cannot stress this enough, simply a part of learning.
    I think here you make the point very well that science is about science, it doesn't have an agenda. When we come to look at religion or religious teachings though scientific eyes we are looking at how that which we are seeing in the religion matches up to that we observe around us to be true from the evidence of repetition and observation. When the two things match up then scientists say so, they don't care whether they do or don't they only care about getting the correct result, not actually what that result is, the same thing also if the religions reality doesn't measure up to the facts, again scientists will say so, here again no vested interests, no agenda, simply wanting to find the truth. As you correctly allude to science doesn't set out to disprove religion, but at the same time it doesn't seek to avoid that which many religions claim within their domain, and as such when the two do coincide science gives it's honest apprasial with so often just happens to disprove religious fiction that was created specifically by a religion or religion as part of their propaganda to support their religion.

    For many centuries the worlds most powerful religions have sort to hold back scientific advancement because they have seen that the ideas science presents to us about how the world and indeed universe work are so often in conflict with those of religious teachings, but because religion has not been able to hold back scientific understanding we now know many of the things that were taught by religion for hundreds of years have turned out to be false, which now calls into question not only the truthfulness but also the honesty of so many other religious teachings. Science doesn't try and teach us religion is wrong it helps to educate us so that we can all see for ourselves when something is likely to be false, if we hadn't had any scienctific advancement there may still be people worshipping rocks or sea shells, though our advancement and education we now know better.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;409728]
    Then why are God-Religions so popular?
    Because people are still gullible.
    Utter non-sense.

    Maybe its due to the how incomplete science really is.
    Wrong.
    It MAY be an indicator of how incomplete some people's knowledge of science is though.
    I know science quite enough and to know that SCIENCE and RELIGION are not the SAME thing to be compared nor in the same field!
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    The creator created everything.
    Unfounded and totally unsupported assumption.

    Atheism can't be a reasonable alternative.
    On the contrary. (Weak) atheism is the only RATIONAL option.

    Yeah, and apart from anything else, the video title (Physicists prove god exists) is laughably wrong. It's grasping at straws.
    Ohhhh please tell me how being a Muslim, a theist, in which Islam actually tells Muslims to believe in science (irrelevant to the belief of God) and to acquire knowledge is not a rational option.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Utter nonsense
    What, you don't think a belief in god is an indicator of gullibility?
    Maybe I should have used the far-less-disputable/ controversial word "credulous".

    I know science quite enough and to know that SCIENCE and RELIGION are not the SAME thing to be compared nor in the same field!
    So what?
    Please read the entire argument (oh, and the rest of the thread) before jumping in.

    The question was "Is a belief in God due to science being incomplete?"
    My reply was that it MAY be true that some people posit God due to their own lack of knowledge of science.

    I.e. if they knew more science then they'd have less, or no, reason to accept the "God supposition" since the vast majority of claims of what "God" has supposedly done (that is, the "evidence" of his existence) have been shown by science to have come about perfectly naturally - no god required.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Ohhhh please tell me how being a Muslim, a theist, in which Islam actually tells Muslims to believe in science (irrelevant to the belief of God) and to acquire knowledge is not a rational option.
    Easy.
    Science says you don't accept a "hypothesis" without evidence.
    There is no evidence for god.
    Accepting an unevidenced, unsupported proposition is irrational, especially as an ever-present pervasive life style.

    Oh yeah: how/ where exactly are Muslims told to believe in science 1? By whom?


    1 Although I do consider that the phrase "believe in science" is, in and of itself, an unscientific statement. Science doesn't require "belief" (especially in the religious sense of the word).
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Utter nonsense
    What, you don't think a belief in god is an indicator of gullibility?
    Maybe I should have used the far-less-disputable/ controversial word "credulous".

    I know science quite enough and to know that SCIENCE and RELIGION are not the SAME thing to be compared nor in the same field!
    So what?
    Please read the entire argument (oh, and the rest of the thread) before jumping in.

    The question was "Is a belief in God due to science being incomplete?"
    My reply was that it MAY be true that some people posit God due to their own lack of knowledge of science.

    I.e. if they knew more science then they'd have less, or no, reason to accept the "God supposition" since the vast majority of claims of what "God" has supposedly done (that is, the "evidence" of his existence) have been shown by science to have come about perfectly naturally - no god required.
    Gullibility or credulous, doesn't matter. It's still wrong, how come I use science in my life and still have a faith in a supreme creator? I don't think of myself to be guillible.

    I'm reading the thread at the moment, just too long. Lol.

    And to answer that question, no it's not a necessity to believe in a supreme creator or a God due to science being incomplete, because at a point science would have to stop, sure we can know 99% of everything, but 100%? Doubt so.

    Though most of the religious people are gullible but the idea of a belief in a God is considered to be gullible doesn't work.

    As I've said, God can play as a third-player, create the universe, create the laws in which universe interacts with and just let it interact with it's self, yes, our need of a God in the future might decrease but the existence of God can't be fully denied or confirmed.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Ohhhh please tell me how being a Muslim, a theist, in which Islam actually tells Muslims to believe in science (irrelevant to the belief of God) and to acquire knowledge is not a rational option.
    This is a false statement. It pays lip service to the fact that scientific findings often contradict faith. However, it pays this lip service as a facade. Islamic claims often muddle the actual scientific evidence in order to distort it into appearing to support the Koran.

    It is just as dishonest as Christianity.

    One could easily say what you said, but replace "Muslim" with "Roman Catholic."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Gullibility or credulous, doesn't matter. It's still wrong, how come I use science in my life and still have a faith in a supreme creator? I don't think of myself to be guillible.
    Well of course you wouldn't.
    No one likes to think of themselves as gullible.
    You're doing what all 1 the other "scientifically-minded believers" do - living with a cognitive dissonance.
    They simply don't apply scientific skills to their own belief. They use an argument something along the lines of "SCIENCE and RELIGION are not the SAME thing to be compared nor in the same field".
    An "argument" that lets them continue with the intellectual disconnect and feel comfortable.

    Though most of the religious people are gullible but the idea of a belief in a God is considered to be gullible doesn't work.
    How not?
    If someone (who declares themselves to be science-minded) were told that there's an ... wait for it ... invisible pink unicorn living in my garage would they question that statement? Investigate? Apply science?
    And yet they accept this "god" without applying the same criteria as would be used on just about any other claim of a comparable nature.

    As I've said, God can play as a third-player, create the universe, create the laws in which universe interacts with and just let it interact with it's self
    In other words a god of an extremely small gap and a belief with EXACTLY the same "validity" as declaring "a platypus sneezed and the snot became the universe", or any other "god". Hooray for Atum, Amun and the like.
    If that's "all" god did why does he require worship? Why does he require consideration AT ALL since he's obviously no longer involved in the proceedings?

    but the existence of God can't be fully denied or confirmed.
    And the final seal on the absurd irrationality of it all.
    If he can't be confirmed then why all the fuss? Why worship? Why live your life as if it were true?


    1 I say "all" but that's not strictly true. Some (apparently) realise there's a disconnect and proceed to bastardise and pervert science in the name and "defence" of their belief.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Ohhhh please tell me how being a Muslim, a theist, in which Islam actually tells Muslims to believe in science (irrelevant to the belief of God) and to acquire knowledge is not a rational option.
    This is a false statement. It pays lip service to the fact that scientific findings often contradict faith. However, it pays this lip service as a facade. Islamic claims often muddle the actual scientific evidence in order to distort it into appearing to support the Koran.

    It is just as dishonest as Christianity.

    One could easily say what you said, but replace "Muslim" with "Roman Catholic."
    As far as I've seen, science has not contradicted my faith. And I believe you mean that Qur'an is vague, well, because the Qur'an was sent upon Mohammed in the Arabic language prime time, and since Qur'an was more sophisticated you can say that makes some things difficult to understand, that doesn't mean that we have not understood it. Some things could have more than one meaning but the general idea is the same. For the second muddle part, it's because of the horrible English-Arabic translations, through my search on online Qur'an websites, I've seen words in translated verses that don't give the same meaning as in the Arabic word in the original scripture, so this might give some difficulties for non-Arabic Muslims or those who are interested in Islam have difficulties to understand. I've seen a British female author that actually translated the Qur'an and used it as a source on a TED talk on the whole 72 Virgin talk..

    I really don't know Roman Catholicism so I'm not going to replace a Muslims with a Roman Catholic.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I'm not talking about translation issues, here. I'm talking about direct lying and claiming that the Koran predicts scientific discoveries, claiming that science proves the Koran, etc.

    Look, my opinion is that the Koran is a very well thought out book. But it is not a science book, it is a faith book. Much of what it says is wise. Some of it- not so wise and the entirety of it is not based on scientific methodology but on faith and practice.
    Mohammed was not formally educated, but he was still educated by the school of hard knocks. He was a brilliant man, but not a scientist.

    The problem that you run into is that those of the faith want to validate the faith with science and when the science contradicts it- They lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    As far as I've seen, science has not contradicted my faith.
    You mean you retain your faith despite the contradictions/ errors in the Quran? Or that you haven't actually looked at those contradictions/ errors?

    And I'm still waiting for you to address this:
    Oh yeah: how/ where exactly are Muslims told to believe in science? By whom?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I'm not talking about translation issues, here. I'm talking about direct lying and claiming that the Koran predicts scientific discoveries, claiming that science proves the Koran, etc.

    Look, my opinion is that the Koran is a very well thought out book. But it is not a science book, it is a faith book. Much of what it says is wise. Some of it- not so wise and the entirety of it is not based on scientific methodology but on faith and practice.
    Mohammed was not formally educated, but he was still educated by the school of hard knocks. He was a brilliant man, but not a scientist.

    The problem that you run into is that those of the faith want to validate the faith with science and when the science contradicts it- They lie.
    Sorry about that, most of those who are interested in studying the Qur'an find most of their problems is with a not-so-helpful translation. I'm not saying that science is PROVES the Qur'an, because the Qur'an as you've described it is a religious book for a moral/spiritual main purpose, though that doesn't prevent it from having some knowledge in it.

    Again, you're correct, it's more like a life-manual more than a scientific paper, but that doesn't mean that a book that is not scientific to contain some science in it, though it's not quite detailed but it's still something.

    And by referring to those who alter verses to use them as an evidence to support their cause, I don't like them, neither Islam, after all it's false and helps no one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    As far as I've seen, science has not contradicted my faith.
    You mean you retain your faith despite the contradictions/ errors in the Quran? Or that you haven't actually looked at those contradictions/ errors?

    And I'm still waiting for you to address this:
    Oh yeah: how/ where exactly are Muslims told to believe in science? By whom?
    So far, I, myself have debunked 200+ common misconceptions about the Qur'an.. Sadly most of which are in Anti-Islam websites who just want to destroy Islam by any mean necessary, which doesn't work.

    Here's my address, and I believe I've already answered you about the Haddiths and verses from the Qur'an in an another topic, but here we go again:

    Haddiths (Teachings that are spoken by Mohammed):

    "Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave."
    "Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim (Male or female)."
    "There's no enviousness but in two, a man who God gave him money which he used in the right and in a man who God gave him knowledge and wisdom and so works by it and teaches it." (I've translated this, couldn't find a English translation)

    The translation of the previous Haddith is that, generally enviousness is forbidden in Islam, because it's wishing for something because an another person has it and not you (associated with jealousy), but in knowledge and good use of money it's not forbidden because it comes with good benefit.

    Continue:
    "Who he leads a path which he seeks knowledge in, God eases for him a path to Heaven." (90% accurate translation by me, should do fine)
    "If the son of Adam dies, his work stops, but three, an on-going Saddaqah (As in you do/build something in which people after you benefit from), or knowledge which can be benefited from, or a good son which prays for him."
    "Who goes out in a path seeking knowledge, he's in the path of God until he returns).
    "The grace of a man of knowledge upon a worshiper is the same as me (Mohammed) upon you."
    "God and his angels and the people of Heavens and Earth, even the ant in it's hill, and the whale pray for those who teach people good."
    "Do you know who is most generous? ... God is the Most Generous, then I am most generous to humankind, and the most generous people after me will be those who will acquire knowledge and then disseminate it. (They) will come on the Day of Resurrection singly, like a ruler."

    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Aside from the polytheistic beliefs of the Greeks, there probably was no religion more tolerant of scientific pursuits than Islam. As Hassnhadi shows, a healthy reading of the text would easily allow for Islam to again lead the world's religions in acceptance and pursuit of scientific knowledge. I mean, look, there's a reason almost every star and constellation in the sky has an Arabic name, and why our numbers are called "Arabic numerals." There was a time when Islam was the cultural and scientific center of the world.

    Those days, unfortunately, are long gone. Islam today is a militant, corrosive element in society, and there's no sign of change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi
    As far as I've seen, science has not contradicted my faith.


    It depends on what your faith is. If you view the Quaran's truth claims as literal, then science has long ago debunked it. If you view it wholly as metaphors and morality tales, then obviously not. What science does in either case, however, is remove the necessity of a personal god by pushing it beyond the point of plausible connection to your book's creation myth.
    seagypsy and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Well put. The original motives were not so bad. But today, they are not so honorable.
    In the old days, it did not seem too likely that science would contradict faith. But today, it does contradict faith and it leads to desperate measures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    In my opinion. The sign of a truly faithful Muslim is one that becomes atheist, and that Islam is the path to atheism.

    My reason for feeling this way is that Islam constantly pushes the concept of seeking knowledge. It is one of the primary responsibilities as a Muslim to always seek out knowledge so that you are not fooled by "shaytan".

    It has been my observation that the result of gaining knowledge is the gradual recession of faith, until it eventually fades away to nothing. I have met few that are highly knowledgeable in the sciences and math that still retain faith. And the few that do, admit that they have no logical reason, that they maintain it out of fear or emotional need and not much else.

    If you follow the commands to constantly seek knowledge to the point that you lose faith, in the end you are atheist but you have learned a great deal and you will be a better person for it. And you may have picked up some good habits through the discipline habits required by the religion.

    Unfortunately, many Muslims these days are lazy in their practice. They do the bare minimum if that much. They avoid pork and pray once in a while, if some other muslims are looking. And dress in a way that won't piss off their elders so long as their elders are still around. Otherwise they are little different than the majority of other religious folks who claim a faith while never reading the texts that go with it and only following traditions passed down to them by their grandparents, filtered through the opinions of those grandparents. So in the end, they are following their grandparents opinions rather than the religion they claim to follow.

    But for those who actually understand what is in the Qur'an and seek out knowledge, and continue to do so regardless of its affect on their faith, they will become atheists in due time.

    This is based on my personal experience with the religion, the culture and having read the Qur'an for myself rather than having others tell me what it says. And understanding (interpreting) it through my own experience and logic skills rather than having someone else tell me what it means.

    This is my opinion, take it for what it is. Any other opinion would be as valid as my own, no matter how much one contradicts the other.
    Meraxes likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Well put. The original motives were not so bad. But today, they are not so honorable.
    In the old days, it did not seem too likely that science would contradict faith. But today, it does contradict faith and it leads to desperate measures.
    I actually think the original motives of Islam were terrible. Muhammad was a conquerer who is mischaracterized as a champion of the oppressed. Many Muslims who eventually become atheists first take a detour into Christianity because of the sharp contrast between the relatively mild-mannered Jesus and their warrior prophet.

    And I don't know that faith didn't contradict science back then, but it didn't seem to matter if it did. Sort of like how there are scientists today who are Christian by only letting the two overlap in vague areas ("Look at how good God is to give us this majesty," etc).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    In my opinion. The sign of a truly faithful Muslim is one that becomes atheist, and that Islam is the path to atheism.

    My reason for feeling this way is that Islam constantly pushes the concept of seeking knowledge. It is one of the primary responsibilities as a Muslim to always seek out knowledge so that you are not fooled by "shaytan".

    It has been my observation that the result of gaining knowledge is the gradual recession of faith, until it eventually fades away to nothing. I have met few that are highly knowledgeable in the sciences and math that still retain faith. And the few that do, admit that they have no logical reason, that they maintain it out of fear or emotional need and not much else.

    If you follow the commands to constantly seek knowledge to the point that you lose faith, in the end you are atheist but you have learned a great deal and you will be a better person for it. And you may have picked up some good habits through the discipline habits required by the religion.

    Unfortunately, many Muslims these days are lazy in their practice. They do the bare minimum if that much. They avoid pork and pray once in a while, if some other muslims are looking. And dress in a way that won't piss off their elders so long as their elders are still around. Otherwise they are little different than the majority of other religious folks who claim a faith while never reading the texts that go with it and only following traditions passed down to them by their grandparents, filtered through the opinions of those grandparents. So in the end, they are following their grandparents opinions rather than the religion they claim to follow.

    But for those who actually understand what is in the Qur'an and seek out knowledge, and continue to do so regardless of its affect on their faith, they will become atheists in due time.

    This is based on my personal experience with the religion, the culture and having read the Qur'an for myself rather than having others tell me what it says. And understanding (interpreting) it through my own experience and logic skills rather than having someone else tell me what it means.
    I wish all Muslims subscribed to your view of Islam. The problem is that, as with any holy text, there are contradicting philosophies and injunctions that can be called "true Islam." The Abbasid caliphate valued the ones promoting scholarship, and launched an era in which a ton of great science and philosophy was done, and not just by Muslims. The inclusiveness of Islam during this period meant that non-Muslims in all fields could flourish. One of the greatest influences on non-religious thinking during the Abbasid caliphate was Aristotle.

    But then you run into Al-Ghazali, who used that warning against being tricked by "shaytan" to turn the tide from science to faith. It's precisely that Quaranic injunction that allowed that brand of thinking to ruin Islam.

    This is my opinion, take it for what it is. Any other opinion would be as valid as my own, no matter how much one contradicts the other.
    You should disabuse yourself of that notion. Not all opinions are valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    It is bitter distress to some people(myself included): the internal conflict where propaganda, religions, superstitions, and belief systems are forced deep into the consciousness of immature offspring; who have not yet developed the sense of rational and logical decision-making capability to discern the factuality of the issue that is forced into individuals when they were young, naive and gullible.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Interesting- where did you quote that from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Haddiths (Teachings that are spoken by Mohammed):

    "Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave."
    "Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim (Male or female)."
    "There's no enviousness but in two, a man who God gave him money which he used in the right and in a man who God gave him knowledge and wisdom and so works by it and teaches it." (I've translated this, couldn't find a English translation)
    -rest elided for concision-
    You will note that:
    A) not one of those mentions science.
    B) despite the (claimed) exhortation to acquire knowledge there's STILL the basic (flawed) assumption that the belief has a factual basis, viz.
    "Who he leads a path which he seeks knowledge in, God eases for him a path to Heaven."
    "Who goes out in a path seeking knowledge, he's in the path of God until he returns).
    "God and his angels and the people of Heavens and Earth, even the ant in it's hill, and the whale pray for those who teach people good."
    "Do you know who is most generous? ... God is the Most Generous, then I am most generous to humankind, and the most generous people after me will be those who will acquire knowledge and then disseminate it. (They) will come on the Day of Resurrection singly, like a ruler."

    So, basically, you're told to "seek knowledge" (NOT be scientific though) while NOT QUESTIONING the existence of god.
    Right.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Aside from the polytheistic beliefs of the Greeks, there probably was no religion more tolerant of scientific pursuits than Islam. As Hassnhadi shows, a healthy reading of the text would easily allow for Islam to again lead the world's religions in acceptance and pursuit of scientific knowledge. I mean, look, there's a reason almost every star and constellation in the sky has an Arabic name, and why our numbers are called "Arabic numerals." There was a time when Islam was the cultural and scientific center of the world.

    Those days, unfortunately, are long gone. Islam today is a militant, corrosive element in society, and there's no sign of change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi
    As far as I've seen, science has not contradicted my faith.


    It depends on what your faith is. If you view the Quaran's truth claims as literal, then science has long ago debunked it. If you view it wholly as metaphors and morality tales, then obviously not. What science does in either case, however, is remove the necessity of a personal god by pushing it beyond the point of plausible connection to your book's creation myth.
    Thank you for the previous sentence, really brought back my faith in humanity and religion.

    Well, though I've studied Qur'an or began into religious debate not more than a year ago and I'm barely 15, I've really understood the essence of the Qur'an and the general text it wants to deliver to anyone who reads it, and as far as my religion and science goes there's no contradiction between the two, Islam doesn't condemn science and science just doesn't like the concept of God THOUGH it does NOT deny it.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    and as far as my religion and science goes there's no contradiction between the two
    Yeah?
    How long did it take for the Earth to be created according to each, for example?
    Are you sure there's no contradiction there?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Aside from the polytheistic beliefs of the Greeks, there probably was no religion more tolerant of scientific pursuits than Islam. As Hassnhadi shows, a healthy reading of the text would easily allow for Islam to again lead the world's religions in acceptance and pursuit of scientific knowledge. I mean, look, there's a reason almost every star and constellation in the sky has an Arabic name, and why our numbers are called "Arabic numerals." There was a time when Islam was the cultural and scientific center of the world.

    Those days, unfortunately, are long gone. Islam today is a militant, corrosive element in society, and there's no sign of change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi
    As far as I've seen, science has not contradicted my faith.


    It depends on what your faith is. If you view the Quaran's truth claims as literal, then science has long ago debunked it. If you view it wholly as metaphors and morality tales, then obviously not. What science does in either case, however, is remove the necessity of a personal god by pushing it beyond the point of plausible connection to your book's creation myth.
    Thank you for the previous sentence, really brought back my faith in humanity and religion.

    Well, though I've studied Qur'an or began into religious debate not more than a year ago and I'm barely 15, I've really understood the essence of the Qur'an and the general text it wants to deliver to anyone who reads it, and as far as my religion and science goes there's no contradiction between the two, Islam doesn't condemn science and science just doesn't like the concept of God THOUGH it does NOT deny it.
    Well, it does depending on how you read it. And yes, there are obvious contradictions between any creation myth and modern science. Even as metaphor, come to think of it, creation myths don't pass the test.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Well put. The original motives were not so bad. But today, they are not so honorable.
    In the old days, it did not seem too likely that science would contradict faith. But today, it does contradict faith and it leads to desperate measures.
    So far I haven't seen anything that contradicts my faith from science, even when we're talking, scientifically about the existence of God.. Since you can't prove (scientifically) he exists or not, it's just a matter of belief.. God is abnormal to the Physical laws so you really can't use it to prove his existence or to prove it not.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    So far I haven't seen anything that contradicts my faith from science, even when we're talking, scientifically about the existence of God.. Since you can't prove (scientifically) he exists or not, it's just a matter of belief.. God is abnormal to the Physical laws so you really can't use it to prove his existence or to prove it not.
    Cognitive dissonance in action!
    Three cheers for irrationality and how the human mind can convince itself that two opposing views really aren't if.....you.....just.....consider.....them.....from.....this.....angle.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    In my opinion. The sign of a truly faithful Muslim is one that becomes atheist, and that Islam is the path to atheism.
    Atheism is the belief of no existence supreme creator, "God", and Islam is the belief of an existing how can you be a Muslim and an Atheist in the same time?

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    My reason for feeling this way is that Islam constantly pushes the concept of seeking knowledge. It is one of the primary responsibilities as a Muslim to always seek out knowledge so that you are not fooled by "shaytan".
    Not necessarily, Shaytan is not the only one who's going to fool you, humans can do worse, believe me.. But also Islam honours an educated individual as they can represent a good model for other individuals to follow, a one who truly benefits the others.

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    It has been my observation that the result of gaining knowledge is the gradual recession of faith, until it eventually fades away to nothing. I have met few that are highly knowledgeable in the sciences and math that still retain faith. And the few that do, admit that they have no logical reason, that they maintain it out of fear or emotional need and not much else.
    Wouldn't argue on your first statement, have been there but I've increased my faith due to knowledge, the second is always possible, the third is the one I'm having a problem with, it depends on the person majorly and their view of God, in Islam, Ali (cousin of Mohammed) has a great quote:" Some people worshiped God for a need, this is the worship of the traders, and some people worshiped God from fear and this is the worship of the slaves, and some people worship God thankfully, and this is the worship of the free."
    This means that you don't worship God because you want heaven, or you're afraid of him.. More like to be thankful for what he has done to you and such.

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    If you follow the commands to constantly seek knowledge to the point that you lose faith, in the end you are atheist but you have learned a great deal and you will be a better person for it. And you may have picked up some good habits through the discipline habits required by the religion.
    Again, the amount of knowledge you acquire is not inversely proportional to the amount of faith you have, I'm still a full Muslim, just with more knowledge to help me in my life and yes I'll be a better person morally.

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Unfortunately, many Muslims these days are lazy in their practice. They do the bare minimum if that much. They avoid pork and pray once in a while, if some other muslims are looking. And dress in a way that won't piss off their elders so long as their elders are still around. Otherwise they are little different than the majority of other religious folks who claim a faith while never reading the texts that go with it and only following traditions passed down to them by their grandparents, filtered through the opinions of those grandparents. So in the end, they are following their grandparents opinions rather than the religion they claim to follow.
    Wouldn't disagree but still doesn't apply to all, and the dress is somewhat wrong, you dress well to give a good impression to other people, I've seen some females literally dress like "attention-whores" in here and still many elders are around..

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    But for those who actually understand what is in the Qur'an and seek out knowledge, and continue to do so regardless of its affect on their faith, they will become atheists in due time.
    Will? Can't fully agree on that, List of Muslim scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a list of scientists who still carried on their faith with them, and that's a really long list.

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    This is based on my personal experience with the religion, the culture and having read the Qur'an for myself rather than having others tell me what it says. And understanding (interpreting) it through my own experience and logic skills rather than having someone else tell me what it means.

    This is my opinion, take it for what it is. Any other opinion would be as valid as my own, no matter how much one contradicts the other.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    I wish all Muslims subscribed to your view of Islam. The problem is that, as with any holy text, there are contradicting philosophies and injunctions that can be called "true Islam." The Abbasid caliphate valued the ones promoting scholarship, and launched an era in which a ton of great science and philosophy was done, and not just by Muslims. The inclusiveness of Islam during this period meant that non-Muslims in all fields could flourish. One of the greatest influences on non-religious thinking during the Abbasid caliphate was Aristotle.

    But then you run into Al-Ghazali, who used that warning against being tricked by "shaytan" to turn the tide from science to faith. It's precisely that Quaranic injunction that allowed that brand of thinking to ruin Islam.
    Agree on the first statement, and I'm not a fan of Al-Ghazail, but Ahmed Al-Waeli is a great Muslim scholar who really corrected a lot of misconceptions even among Muslims, I haven't seen all of his work but as far as I've seen it really shows the true spirit of Islam.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Well put. The original motives were not so bad. But today, they are not so honorable.
    In the old days, it did not seem too likely that science would contradict faith. But today, it does contradict faith and it leads to desperate measures.
    I actually think the original motives of Islam were terrible. Muhammad was a conquerer who is mischaracterized as a champion of the oppressed. Many Muslims who eventually become atheists first take a detour into Christianity because of the sharp contrast between the relatively mild-mannered Jesus and their warrior prophet.

    And I don't know that faith didn't contradict science back then, but it didn't seem to matter if it did. Sort of like how there are scientists today who are Christian by only letting the two overlap in vague areas ("Look at how good God is to give us this majesty," etc).
    Mohammed didn't conquer anything, he's only been to 4 places, Mecca (Birth place), Al-Medina (Second Hijra), Jerusalem (Israa' And Mi'raj), Habbasha (The King of Habbasha invited the Muslims to say away from Qurayesh'a harm on them). If you mean the conquers of other countries like North Africa and such, those weren't by Mohammed..

    "Warrior prophet" Really?! Realllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. The warrior prophet is the same person who when he returned to Mecca after winning against Qurayesh told Muslims not to hurt anyone or anything and do not even cut a plant from it's root, "warrior prophet" Yeaaaa.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Interesting- where did you quote that from?
    Mohammed, those are common Haddiths known by Muslims...
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    So far I haven't seen anything that contradicts my faith from science, even when we're talking, scientifically about the existence of God.. Since you can't prove (scientifically) he exists or not, it's just a matter of belief.. God is abnormal to the Physical laws so you really can't use it to prove his existence or to prove it not.
    Cognitive dissonance in action!
    Three cheers for irrationality and how the human mind can convince itself that two opposing views really aren't if.....you.....just.....consider.....them.....from.....this.....angle.
    Elaborate.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    and as far as my religion and science goes there's no contradiction between the two
    Yeah?
    How long did it take for the Earth to be created according to each, for example?
    Are you sure there's no contradiction there?
    According to science: 4.5 billion years
    According to my religion: 6 Stages (No exact time given)

    "The Qur'an does not contain a complete chronology of creation. It declares variously that it took "six ayums" to create the "seven heavens and earth". An 'ayum' is defined as a stage, or a relative quantity of time rather than a 24 hour period."
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Elaborate.
    Okay, I'll do it AGAIN.

    So far I haven't seen anything that contradicts my faith from science
    See posts #79, #81, #88 and #90, for example.

    Since you can't prove (scientifically) he exists or not, it's just a matter of belief.
    Agreed. A non-scientific, irrational, unsupported belief.

    God is abnormal to the Physical laws so you really can't use it to prove his existence or to prove it not.
    Let's take a closer look at this.
    On the one hand you claim to have a scientific outlook, and here you are with "God is abnormal to the Physical laws".
    Er, firstly you'd have to show that god actually exists BEFORE you can claim he's "abnormal to physical laws".
    And, merely because we cannot disprove his existence, is no reason at all to shape your life around him.
    We can't disprove Russell's Teapot. Should we form a religion around that and dictate how people should behave according to what the Teapot wants?
    Holding, and more importantly, promoting a belief (any belief) with no justification for that belief other than "it can't be disproved" is intellectually dishonest, not rational and fraudulent.

    The dissonance is this: clinging to an unsupported belief, especially one that has as much influence on life, behaviour, law, morals... etc, is highly irrational and is directly opposed to the scientific view.
    Anyone claiming to be science-minded while, at the same time holding a belief in "god" is behaving as two separate people.
    RedPanda likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Interesting- where did you quote that from?
    my personal written opinion on how i feel.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    926
    ahh double post............
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    According to science: 4.5 billion years
    Er, the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, that's it's AGE, not how long it took to form.

    According to my religion: 6 Stages (No exact time given)
    Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in TWO Days And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
    Sura 41:9
    Okay, that has "day" instead of "ayum", but, if an ayum is not a day what is it?
    What is different about these "periods" to distinguish them from one another?
    If they're NOT days (i.e. the "ambigiuity" over ayum being a modern re-interpretation to avoid conflicts over 6 days vs. "4.5 billion yrs/ however long it actually took") how long are they?
    I.e. the current acceptance/ promotion of ayum as "undefined" to (apparently) square with science is incorrectly applied anyway.
    What about, for example, the hadith in Sahih Muslim (6707) where these "periods" are specifically named as days? Monday, Tuesday...


    And after that what happened?
    So He completed them as seven firmaments in TWO Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.
    Sura 41:12
    Whoah!
    AFTER the Earth was created we got the stars!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Elaborate.
    Okay, I'll do it AGAIN.

    So far I haven't seen anything that contradicts my faith from science
    See posts #79, #81, #88 and #90, for example.

    Since you can't prove (scientifically) he exists or not, it's just a matter of belief.
    Agreed. A non-scientific, irrational, unsupported belief.

    God is abnormal to the Physical laws so you really can't use it to prove his existence or to prove it not.
    Let's take a closer look at this.
    On the one hand you claim to have a scientific outlook, and here you are with "God is abnormal to the Physical laws".
    Er, firstly you'd have to show that god actually exists BEFORE you can claim he's "abnormal to physical laws".
    And, merely because we cannot disprove his existence, is no reason at all to shape your life around him.
    We can't disprove Russell's Teapot. Should we form a religion around that and dictate how people should behave according to what the Teapot wants?
    Holding, and more importantly, promoting a belief (any belief) with no justification for that belief other than "it can't be disproved" is intellectually dishonest, not rational and fraudulent.

    The dissonance is this: clinging to an unsupported belief, especially one that has as much influence on life, behaviour, law, morals... etc, is highly irrational and is directly opposed to the scientific view.
    Anyone claiming to be science-minded while, at the same time holding a belief in "god" is behaving as two separate people.
    Debating how long an ayum actually was will not get you anywhere, Muslims treat that term much the way Christians do the idea of god days vs human days. Christians will say that a day to god is like a million years to us. or a thousand, depending on who you ask. And most of the Muslims I encounter do the same with ayums. Having unique definitions for words when they apply to god is a way of getting around the contradiction between science (reality) and religion (fantasy).

    This is why you cannot successfully debate the lack of validity of faith in terms of modern science. They make up meanings as needed to suit their claims. And they can do that, because religion is nothing more than a fancy comic book story anyway. Full of super heros, super villians and the black and white myth of right and wrong.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    See posts #79, #81, #88 and #90, for example.
    Seen them, replied to all of them besides your last one, I'll reply to it afterwards this reply.

    Since you can't prove (scientifically) he exists or not, it's just a matter of belief.
    Agreed. A non-scientific, irrational, unsupported belief.
    It's obviously non-scientific BECAUSE IT'S A BELIEF NOT A FACT. I know it's not supported but the existence of religion but believing in a set of belief, 'religion' does no harm.

    God is abnormal to the Physical laws so you really can't use it to prove his existence or to prove it not
    Let's take a closer look at this.
    On the one hand you claim to have a scientific outlook, and here you are with "God is abnormal to the Physical laws"..
    It's a point of view, stating that if God exists, the laws of physics would not apply on him.

    Er, firstly you'd have to show that god actually exists BEFORE you can claim he's "abnormal to physical laws".
    Since I'm a Muslim, I do believe that God exists, even hypothetically speaking that God exists. No one can fully prove that God does/doesn't exist.

    And, merely because we cannot disprove his existence, is no reason at all to shape your life around him.
    We can't disprove Russell's Teapot. Should we form a religion around that and dictate how people should behave according to what the Teapot wants?
    Holding, and more importantly, promoting a belief (any belief) with no justification for that belief other than "it can't be disproved" is intellectually dishonest, not rational and fraudulent.
    If you believe that God is justice-full, and commands you to do good and seek knowledge and to be helpful, why not? Second of all, yes we can't disprove Russell's Teapot, and it's your choice to form a religion around Russell, not the teapot, because teapots are quite evil.

    The dissonance is this: clinging to an unsupported belief, especially one that has as much influence on life, behaviour, law, morals... etc, is highly irrational and is directly opposed to the scientific view.
    If you find it to be rational and goes well with your set of beliefs why not?
    Anyone claiming to be science-minded while, at the same time holding a belief in "god" is behaving as two separate people.
    Reallyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.... I find that to be false on so many levels. I've seen scientists everywhere who have both.. And they say they have no problem balancing these two. Closest person is my biology teacher.. And you can see how biology is close to religion especially in evolution theory.
    "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X.
    "The future belongs to those who prepare for it today." - Malcolm X.
    "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough!" - Karl Marx's last words
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: April 5th, 2013, 05:17 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2010, 12:41 AM
  3. Religions from around the world!
    By ronan in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2009, 08:56 AM
  4. How Evolution Proves the Existence of God
    By williampinn in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 03:01 PM
  5. Believers. At end time, What is the first item of God’s perf
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2008, 01:09 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •