Thread: Why is it so hard to disprove religion?

Hello everyone, I believe that we live in a scientific era where all myths and lies can be easily explained and disproved.
Why that isn't the situation with religion, I know that religion has a deep roots into our existence and like that it is not easy to be removed from our world nor I believe it would be completely removed in close future. But my question is why there is not a comprehend explanation of religion absurdity and it's falsehood? Why there is no one competent enough to do a thorough research and to post basic evidences?

I am speaking about Abraham religions because they got the biggest impact on our society. I am not saying that religions are root of all evil, neither that they are utter bad, people are bad. But believing in something irrational and teaching your children to believe in it is not a good thing. We are all aware of how great impact religion had through the history in BAD and good ways, why there are not enough strong researches that will explain to people that religions are man-made?


The other question would be, for what reasons are Abraham religions created? I have several thoughts but I can't be satisfied with neither one, is it because of massive manipulation and control? Is it to create a guider on how to behave and live, book of moral system? Or are there some deeper reasons for it's existence?

But my question is why there is not a comprehend explanation of religion absurdity and it's falsehood?

Because you can lead people to the facts but you can't force them to understand them.

Can you post any obvious facts that will make a sane person to question his/her beliefs? Or even better some evidences that will make a radical religious person to question his beliefs,

Didn't you read what I just posted?
Stating facts will not, if the recipient is determined not to listen/ accept, do anything to dissuade abeliever.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

Can you post any obvious facts that will make a sane person to question his/her beliefs? Or even better some evidences that will make a radical religious person to question his beliefs,

No, because faith isn't based on facts or evidence. That is why it is called faith. You can't disprove it.

You can't disprove faith. It has already been shown to be highly irrational and illogical, but neither God nor faith can be disproved. It's not the job of science to prove a line of thinking is incorrect or irrational. That is a natural side effect of learning.

The theist uses faith as a weapon and when this is allied to the spreading of religion by the sword it becomes far too powerful, I'm afraid.
Shame on the world for allowing religion to flourish.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

Hello everyone, I believe that we live in a scientific era where all myths and lies can be easily explained and disproved.

Disproving things is very difficult.

For example, both of us (I hope) agree that dragons don't exist.
Now - try and prove that dragons don't exist.
Go on - try.
I bet that I (acting as devil's advocate) can cast doubt on anything you say regarding their lack of existence.

We both agree they don't exist - but we would both have considerable difficulty proving they don't exist.

I agree with all of you and that's very understandable but is there any valid research by scientist or historians on characters upon whom religions are based, in this case Muhammad and Jesus?

Yes. Loads of historical research has been conducted in regards to the lives of those figures. It might be a tad bit more difficult to find out which ones were written with the express purpose of glorifying those figures, however.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

But my question is why there is not a comprehend explanation of religion absurdity and it's falsehood?

Because you can lead people to the facts but you can't force them to understand them.

that's excellent.

and i'll add to that, that if someone has faith in a Creator (like I do, but not a big fan of organized 'religion') it can be hard to 'talk someone out of their faith.'

i don't know with certainty that a God exists, but it is out of faith that i persist in that belief.

but as far as the bible goes, there are many areas of it that shouldn't be taken literally. but that took me a long time to get there. it isn't as simple as telling someone...'hey, two plus two equals four.' and the other person says...oh of course, i get it! you're right.

whether you have faith in God or not...it is a peronal thing. so, that (to me) is why it is hard to 'disprove' for faith is not based on facts to begin with. at the same token, it would be equally 'hard' for me to 'prove' to you that God exists, if you don't believe that at all.

truth is, i don't know with certainty, but my belief is based on faith. your belief that he doesn't exist is based on facts.
if someone were to go from believing to not believing and visa versa, it would be through their own personal journey, if you will.

no one talks a believer out of believing. and no one talks an atheist into believing.

just my take on that. :=)

Originally Posted by wegs

if someone were to go from believing to not believing and visa versa, it would be through their own personal journey, if you will.
no one talks a believer out of believing. and no one talks an atheist into believing.

I guess the brain needs to believe in something no matter how unlikely ('The Believing Brain').
The poor atheist is armed only with a few statistics and a bit of logic and reason. No match for the theist armed with a holy book and faith, even if the holy book is no more than hearsay based on myth, and false accounting.
The theist does not need to prove there's a god up there, the emphasis is always on the atheist to prove there isn't. Seems like our logic cells are flawed.

Either I am unable to express myself or you are unable to read what I posted. I never mentioned disproving existence of God nor FAITH. I said 'Religion' which is something completely different.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

Either I am unable to express myself or you are unable to read what I posted. I never mentioned disproving existence of God nor FAITH. I said 'Religion' which is something completely different.

you will be able to disprove a person's religon, when you become able to disprove his/her faith in 'a god.'
Faith in a god, often times leads people into organized ways of worshipping...or 'religions.'
Every religion tries to prove that it is the 'one true way to worship' God. To that end, you could spend a lot of time comparing religions.
But, they all stem from a desire to follow 'a god.' (or gods, depending on the religion)

Unless you mean something entirely different, that is how I perceived the question.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

The other question would be, for what reasons are Abraham religions created? I have several thoughts but I can't be satisfied with neither one, is it because of massive manipulation and control? Is it to create a guider on how to behave and live, book of moral system? Or are there some deeper reasons for it's existence?

I meant to answer this, too...as it's an interesting question.

Just taking an educated guess, I'd say it was to keep control over society. The three main Abrahamic religions served as good moral guides for many people, as well. They provided order, at times of uncertainty. People by nature, also like to belong to something...to feel accepted. Community worship is very popular for that very reason. How many christian churches today, have several groups/activities for their congregants to take part in? Many. Religion becomes a way of life for many people. Sometimes, the religion itself becomes more of what they follow, than merely following and worshipping God. In the Catholic faith, there was a time when people were more interested in the legalistic aspects of it, than in loving their fellow neighbor. When a religion becomes more important than what it was intended to do in the first place (and that is to worship God)...then, it is completely off course.

Sad, many are more interested in rules and the legalities of their 'religion,' than that of believing in 'their God.'

Originally Posted by HB3l1

Either I am unable to express myself or you are unable to read what I posted. I never mentioned disproving existence of God nor FAITH. I said 'Religion' which is something completely different.

You need to be clearer then. Religion exists.

What exactly do you want to disprove? Historical facts behind religion? (e.g. we have historical evidence of Mohammed and Buddha but little of Jesus) Or the reality of "miracles"? (some may be real events even if not miraculous, some may just be stories or metaphors) Or ... ?

I believe that one of the main reasons that religions are created is to explain the unexplainabe , lack of understanding back then leaded people to create a supernatural explanations. Some of the first religions known to a human race has similar concept of rules and beliefs like an Abraham religions so I strongly believe that evolution itself has a big influence on complexity of religions today. Some sly and smart people saw a great number of opportunities in religions so they decided to put more effort into creating a one, in this case Abraham religions. Who read holy books of Abraham religions can clearly notice similarity between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

What do you think, will in our future (let's take a year 2300) religions still exist in a way they exist now,will they vanish or will religions evolve into something completely different?

I am absolutely certain they will still exist.(Unless humans become extinct.) It appears to be a fundamental and essential part of human nature.

Originally Posted by Strange

I am absolutely certain they will still exist.(Unless humans become extinct.) It appears to be a fundamental and essential part of human nature.

So you believe that religions will remain the same, only with less or more followers?

Originally Posted by HB3l1

So you believe that religions will remain the same, only with less or more followers?

Not necessarily the same. There are and always have been a huge variety of religious beliefs and practices (even if you just focus on the Abrahamic religions, or even just Christianity). I'm sure they will continue to change and evolve, with new ideas and complete new religions appearing from time to time. It's just history.

Fair enough, I can't disagree with you. Even if somehow we get our memory about religions and god completely removed from our brain there will always be someone who will search for a deeper understanding of world that science can't provide yet, or will at least be unhappy with the information that science give, there will always be someone who is unhappy with the fact that after our death we simply don't exist anymore.

I am not as educated as you guys here, but my logic says that religion will probably still exist in our future but in completely different form. From a statistic point of view you can see that number of atheists and agnostics is constantly increasing, and with science development and internet globalization people can easier find a lot of valid information about religion absurdity so to a sane person it would be a trigger to question his beliefs. There are some scientific explanations that are still vaguely explained to most mediocre people, and most of them cannot accept it, and that's why it keep religious people religious (one of the reasons) .

I believe that followers of Abraham religions will be reduced to minimum in distant future, but some other variations of religions will always exist.

P.S Now to use a moment and to say that I am terrible sorry if it hurts you to read posts with a lot of grammatical mistakes. I am giving my best.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

P.S Now to use a moment and to say that I am terrible sorry if it hurts you to read posts with a lot of grammatical mistakes. I am giving my best.

You are a veritable English professor compared to some on this forum.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

From a statistic point of view you can see that number of atheists and agnostics is constantly increasing, and with science development and internet globalization people can easier find a lot of valid information about religion absurdity so to a sane person it would be a trigger to question his beliefs.

People can also find a lot of nonsense on the Internet and accept it as true. AiG, Conservapedia, NaturalNews, etc. are excellent examples.

@Redpanda That is really encouraging, thanks a ton friend!

It's not actually hard to rip the foundation out from under a theist's belief in God.

Any time a theist approaches me and tries to advertise their religion to me, I very quickly manage to get them to admit to me that the sole basis of their belief is emotional commitment. It's not hard.

I just ask them to offer me a good reason why *I* should change beliefs to join their faith. Whatever they tell me, I quickly point out that it's not proof. (There are many different arguments for theism but none of them are airtight.) After about the fifth or sixth one they tell me about their emotional experiences - at which point I suggest to them that those experiences are really the sole reason they believe. And most of the time, they admit to that fully.

On the other hand, if, instead of listening, you try to prove to them that atheism is true, you'll get nowhere at all.

Originally Posted by kojax

It's not actually hard to rip the foundation out from under a theist's belief in God.

Any time a theist approaches me and tries to advertise their religion to me, I very quickly manage to get them to admit to me that the sole basis of their belief is emotional commitment. It's not hard.

I just ask them to offer me a good reason why *I* should change beliefs to join their faith. Whatever they tell me, I quickly point out that it's not proof. (There are many different arguments for theism but none of them are airtight.) After about the fifth or sixth one they tell me about their emotional experiences - at which point I suggest to them that those experiences are really the sole reason they believe. And most of the time, they admit to that fully.

On the other hand, if, instead of listening, you try to prove to them that atheism is true, you'll get nowhere at all.

It is a no win scenario. People of deep faith, simply don't need or regard proof of their belief. They simply believe.

Frankly they shouldn't be demeaned for that. Wonder if that holding on to their "belief" is what keeps them going?

I don't agree with my mother, or sister, in belief. I have learned not to even discuss it. It serves no purpose. They won't understand what I "believe" and I don't accept (as buy into) theirs.
Disagreeing should not mean disrespecting, another's beliefs. In my humble opinion.

Originally Posted by kojax

On the other hand, if, instead of listening, you try to prove to them that atheism is true, you'll get nowhere at all.

Huh?
Atheism covers a wide, inhomogeneous, spectrum.
"Proving" it is impossible since you'd have to select which particular sub-stance you're trying to "prove" - and, having done that, it could be pointed out that that doesn't do anything for the other "parts" of atheism.

Originally Posted by babe

Frankly they shouldn't be demeaned for that. Wonder if that holding on to their "belief" is what keeps them going?
Disagreeing should not mean disrespecting, another's beliefs. In my humble opinion.

Oh, huuuuge can of worms.
People shouldn't be demeaned for holding beliefs contrary to reality?
If it were anything but religion chances are they'd be assigned to the funny farm.

Whether people feel as though they've been demeaned when someone did not accept their wacky ideas is irreelvant. Of course they would feel demeaned if someone rejected their outlandish claims. It's seen constantly on science boards where such and such poster makes claims about Relativity that are nonsense and when shown that the claims are nonsense, they claim that the "academics are too closed minded to see the TWOOF™" and show all the usual antics of having felt demeaned.

You can't always walk on eggshells around the goofy beliefs others shove out into the world. Why bother? Just show where they are in error and if the other party lacks critical thinking or objective reasoning and decides to feel demeaned for it- Too bad.

Tolerating it from one source while refuting it for another source would be biased discrimination.

Ah, finally!
There was a quote I wanted to put in my previous post, but all I could remember was the gist, not enough to Google for, and I'd forgotten who said it.
Anyway:
We are allowed to question people about their politics or ethics and expect them to defend their beliefs, or at least hold their own in any other important matter by recourse to evidence, yet somehow on the massive subject of God and how he might have us behave, all rational discussion must stop the moment we hear 'I believe'.
Derren Brown.

If ever you could get through to people that what we feel and observe is only a model of the world built up inside our brains, and that the brain is independent of reality, then religion could be disproved in that way. The angels of our better nature and the demons of our worst nature lie purely inside the head and they have no other reality, except of course for the theist.
Indeed, put it all down to evolution (safe answer).

Originally Posted by babe

They simply believe.

Frankly they shouldn't be demeaned for that.

Believe in the immaculate conception? You're a member of one of the largest religious groups on the planet.

Believe in alien abductions? Whacko.

"People who don’t like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn’t have such funny beliefs" unknown
In whatever form those beliefs may come. Even politically or sports related, etc.. As Randi said "The market for nonsense is infinite."

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Believe in the immaculate conception? You're a member of one of the largest religious groups on the planet.
Believe in alien abductions? Whacko.

All belief is more than likely to be wrong, while its falsifications are more than likely to be true.
The first was a belief invented by Homo Religioso, which is a dying species.
The second is a belief invented by Homo Pseudoscientificus, which will probably be around for a while yet.
Therefore, most likely to be true is atheism as this is not a belief but an argument against a belief system.
It is strongest when put forward by Homo Scientificus which I believe (sic) will become the dominant form of Homo Sapiens this century.
Eventually we will say goodbye to Homo Religioso, Homo Philosophicus, Homo Politicus and Homo Pseudoscientificus.

Originally Posted by ox

[It is strongest when put forward by Homo Scientificus which I believe (sic) will become the dominant form of Homo Sapiens this century.
Eventually we will say goodbye to Homo Religioso, Homo Philosophicus, Homo Politicus and Homo Pseudoscientificus.

I can't imagine why. The Age of Enlightenment was 400 years ago and not much has changed since then.

even the answers here are garbage.............

Methinks you need to go away.

Originally Posted by knowsci

even the answers here are garbage.............

Can you please corroborate your claim? I personally believe that this forum is astoundingly interesting and educational.

Believe in the immaculate conception? You're a member of one of the largest religious groups on the planet.

Believe in alien abductions? Whacko.

So your point is that believing in something that can't be explained by science is utter stupidity?

Originally Posted by HB3l1

So your point is that believing in something that can't be explained by science is utter stupidity?

I think he was pointing out the double standards.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

Originally Posted by knowsci

even the answers here are garbage.............

Can you please corroborate your claim? I personally believe that this forum is astoundingly interesting and educational.

Don't speak to him. It isn't safe.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

Believe in the immaculate conception? You're a member of one of the largest religious groups on the planet.

Believe in alien abductions? Whacko.

So your point is that believing in something that can't be explained by science is utter stupidity?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

My point was simply that the idea of an event like the immaculate conception being a commonly-held belief, whilst we mock those who claim to have been abducted by aliens is a demonstration of our ignorance in the face of evidence. You will find the same amount of evidence that both of these events have happened (essentially, none), yet we accept one readily and with enthusiasm, while the other is seen as either the result of too much moonshine or a serious delusion.

Don't speak to him. It isn't safe.

Maybe we just have to awake his 'good' side.

My point was simply that the idea of an event like the immaculate conception being a commonly-held belief, whilst we mock those who claim to have been abducted by aliens is a demonstration of our ignorance in the face of evidence. You will find the same amount of evidence that both of these events have happened (essentially, none), yet we accept one readily and with enthusiasm, while the other is seen as either the result of too much moonshine or a serious delusion.

I completely agree with you on this one, people who support their claims without any evidence while mocking claims of others are being completely ignorant. But then again science doesn't have answer on all questions and we 'have' to search answers in something that may look unrealistic from a scientific point of view. (Not talking about religion) But this is totally out of subject now, so I am going to stop right here.

The main thing is that I purely understand the subject question I posted, I just hate myself now for not being able to understand it earlier....

In answer to the OP. Simple. You cannot disprove what has no means to be proven and thus cannot be proven or disproven.

Can we say the religions that died out in the past have been disproven?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Can we say the religions that died out in the past have been disproven?

Not really, people just stopped believing in them. There was nothing done to disprove them, people just lost interest in them. In time all the religions we have today will be replaced with equally unprovable beliefs as styles and ideologies change. Religion is a psychological crutch that many human beings seem to need in order to maintain stability of emotions. If htey cannot process logic well, they need to believe in supernatural things in order to justify and validate their illogical whims.

Kind of like if I said not eating chocolate will cause the gods of happy thoughts to abandon me. I use the 'evidence' that when I eat chocolate I feel happy thoughts that must be gifted to me by the happy thought gods. Because due to lack of understanding (hypothetically speaking) of how dopamine in the brain works and its production is stimulated causes me to believe that the only explanation is through the happy thought gods. And an unwillingness or inability to think critically for whatever reason would cause me to reject scientific explanation because it forces me to realize that I am not special, that there is no supernatural being that loves me, and that I am simply the sum of my parts and the consequence of countless chemical reactions... well that all kinda hurts the ego a bit. Ego does not like being rejected or cut down to size. So the belief in the happy thoughts god's demand that I eat chocolate gives me an excuse to eat copious amounts of chocolate while ignoring and/or denying my base chemical drive to eat what makes my brain produce dopamine and that I am simply a slave to the biological processes that make me what I am.

For most people, losing the ego causes one to lose the will to live, lose the motivation to treat others with dignity, or to find value in life of other life forms. This is detrimental to the individual and sometimes those who the individual inflicts their newfound depressive misanthropy and self hatred upon. So ... where was I going with this? Probably some off topic tangent.... carry on.

A few years ago, I argued about religion with someone every week. Unlike the crackpot ideas on this forum, religion seems to grip the emotions. It's comforting to think that we have some higher purpose. I had to create my own point of life, because...um...I got bored I guess. I really dunno. But it is certainly a comfort. And imaginary. In this case, that doesn't matter. In religion, if you keep it imaginary, it doesn't matter that it is imaginary. (For example, don't start executing non-believers. Preaching religion to others might have indirect consequences, so imao you shouldn't do that.)

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by babe

They simply believe.

Frankly they shouldn't be demeaned for that.

Believe in the immaculate conception? You're a member of one of the largest religious groups on the planet.

Believe in alien abductions? Whacko.

I absolutely do not refute your response. No rhyme or reason in that one.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ox

[It is strongest when put forward by Homo Scientificus which I believe (sic) will become the dominant form of Homo Sapiens this century.
Eventually we will say goodbye to Homo Religioso, Homo Philosophicus, Homo Politicus and Homo Pseudoscientificus.

I can't imagine why. The Age of Enlightenment was 400 years ago and not much has changed since then.

Someone forget to turn the switch on?

I'm amazed no one has quoted Ben Goldacre.

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”

One of those occasions when bad grammar makes for a more compelling sentence. I hate that.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

One of those occasions when bad grammar makes for a more compelling sentence. I hate that.

I see nothing wrong with the grammar of that sentence (unless you are invoking the made up "a preposition is something you can't end a sentence with" rule).

It's not a rule. More of a personal preference.

That would be a stylistic choice not bad grammar, then.

I've had this conversation on writing forums before (Absolute Write). It's a myth in which I believe (see what I did there?). Like the old man who saw Nessy, it pains me to admit that I don't need to support of those around me to accept it as the truth.

Cast your stones, man! I'll fight 'til the bitter end.

The "myth" is it being a grammatical rule.

If you don't like it and want to avoid it, then that is your choice. You can even complain about other people doing it, if you want to. You can, I suppose, say it is "wrong" (in the sense you find it unpleasant).

What you cannot do is say that it is bad grammar. Because that is clearly not true. (You know, objective evidence, and all that.) That would be equivalent to saying relativity is wrong because you don't like it.

Originally Posted by Strange

The "myth" is it being a grammatical rule.

I agree. I never stated it was a rule.

Originally Posted by Strange

If you don't like it and want to avoid it, then that is your choice. You can even complain about other people doing it, if you want to. You can, I suppose, say it is "wrong" (in the sense you find it unpleasant).

Thanks for permission?

Originally Posted by Strange

What you cannot do is say that it is bad grammar. Because that is clearly not true. (You know, objective evidence, and all that.) That would be equivalent to saying relativity is wrong because you don't like it.

I didn't say wrong. I said bad. Like bad manners. You carried it from "bad" to "wrong" without my input. We don't have to agree, but I stand by what I said even though the point of it was simply an aside. Seeing as this is wildly off-topic, I'll drop it.

In the future, I'll be more careful with my judgemental phraseology.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Strange

If you don't like it and want to avoid it, then that is your choice. You can even complain about other people doing it, if you want to. You can, I suppose, say it is "wrong" (in the sense you find it unpleasant).

Thanks for permission?

You must be American. I am obviously not in a position to give or remove permission but there seems to be a common allergic reaction to the innocuous use of the phrase "you can".

I didn't say wrong. I said bad. Like bad manners. You carried it from "bad" to "wrong" without my input.

Fair comment. But if there are good and bad manners/grammar, doesn't that imply the existence of rules? I'm not sure what the difference is between wrong and bad. I suppose wrong is a few steps beyond bad? As in, one can be badly behaved without breaking the law.

But however one defines bad grammar, preposition stranding ain't it. Sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Seeing as this is wildly off-topic, I'll drop it.

Oh, but this is so much more interesting than yet another argument about religion.

Originally Posted by Strange

You must be American.

I know I'm not supposed to say 'unfortunately' here, but for some reason it came to mind...

Originally Posted by Strange

I am obviously not in a position to give or remove permission but there seems to be a common allergic reaction to the innocuous use of the phrase "you can".

I remember learning the difference between "You can" and "You may" from a 6th grade teacher who responded to my pleas of, "Can I use the restroom" with, "I don't know. Can you?"

Originally Posted by Strange

Fair comment. But if there are good and bad manners/grammar, doesn't that imply the existence of rules? I'm not sure what the difference is between wrong and bad. I suppose wrong is a few steps beyond bad? As in, one can be badly behaved without breaking the law.

I don't know. This is the first time I've really thought so deeply about it.

Originally Posted by Strange

But however one defines bad grammar, preposition stranding ain't it. Sometimes it's the right thing to do.

But think of the poor prepositions. Out there all alone. In the cold.

Originally Posted by Strange

Oh, but this is so much more interesting than yet another argument about religion.

It's sad how true that comment is. (See? I can change.)

I doubt we will disagree on this, but, at least in terms of grammar, I'm far more offended by people improperly dangling their participles in my face.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

But think of the poor prepositions. Out there all alone. In the cold.

Not just the prepositions! (As any fule kno).


This should be familiar to Brits of a certain age...

I am so preoccupied with wonders of the earth,that I have no time for heaven and angels. ^_^

P.S I heard dozen times the next conversation ''You can neither disprove nor prove existence of god, so in that case we could be both correct or incorrect in our assumptions.''

How can one say that? Isn't it a bit illogical to disprove something that cannot be proved? In this case gods, orcs, goblins, ghosts, spirits etc..

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I remember learning the difference between "You can" and "You may" from a 6th grade teacher who responded to my pleas of, "Can I use the restroom" with, "I don't know. Can you?"

The same teacher who taught you not to end a sentence with a preposition, I suppose? And presumably told you to avoid the passive and to not split infinitives.

I'm far more offending by people improperly dangling their participles in my face.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

I am so preoccupied with wonders of the earth,that I have no time for heaven and angels. ^_^

P.S I heard dozen times the next conversation ''You can neither disprove nor prove existence of god, so in that case we could be both correct or incorrect in our assumptions.''

How can one say that? Isn't it a bit illogical to disprove something that cannot be proved? In this case gods, orcs, goblins, ghosts, spirits etc..

It's equally illogical to claim "both/ either could be correct" - as shown by the orcs/ goblins/ anything BUT god case.
But, of course, if you point out the parallel you get called facetious, or blasphemous.
Because, as they'll tell you vehemently, "It's not the same".

Disproving religion is easy. It's convincing the religious that's difficult.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I remember learning the difference between "You can" and "You may" from a 6th grade teacher who responded to my pleas of, "Can I use the restroom" with, "I don't know. Can you?"

The same teacher who taught you not to end a sentence with a preposition, I suppose? And presumably told you to avoid the passive and to not split infinitives.

I'm far more offending by people improperly dangling their participles in my face.

Yes. She very nearly ruined the English language for me.

As I got into writing, I began to develop an appreciation for using the language as fits the scenario. Passive statements were shunned when I was a kid, as were sentence fragments. Now, I find passives useful and fragments are the only way to create action within text. The brevity creates excitement. Builds tension. Makes the heart race!

Why in hell would anyone actually give a damn about disproving religion?

Now, disaproving of religion is a whole different matter.

................................
as/re the proper use of the language:
When My future(current) wife (Carol), myself, and my mother were driving to Kentucky, Carol was driving and mom was in the front seat as I dozed in the back seat, Mom glanced at the speedometer and said to Carol: "I thought you said you drive slow". Carol responded, "What I probably said was that I drive slowly". This amused me. My mother had spent much of my youth attempting to educate me in the proper use pf the language----(unsuccessfully as re some comments in these forums). Carol regretted her comment, fearing that she had offended my mother. I however, saw it differently. Knowing my mothers efforts with the seeming sisyphean task of getting me to use english "properly" I was/am reasonably certain that Mom, saw that remark as me having found someone to whom mom could safely pass that baton.

Some battles cannot be won.
perspective, as always, matters.
............

I'm far more offending by people improperly dangling their participles in my face.

ain't nobody perfect

~ The double negative is a great pointer to my own not so private foolishness gauge. 'Is that not so'.

'Yea Right'. Is a good case point of what is so wrong with being so clear as to not have the right to be offended by

a contrary view. Is that not right, yea right.

It is not hard to show the folly of religious belief. Some of us do not seem to comprehend what religiously actually indicates.

Not just a damning indicator of untruths as a fine methods of exposing bull shit.

'You will believe what I tell you and love no other or face eternal damnation and burning in a hell you can not imagine.'

That to make such threat is itself such a foolish untruth as to be seen as desperate. Truths will always drive nonsense away.

That those whom have chosen faith as a guide will not concede easy that they might just be wrong..

SCIENCE is not a religiously held belief. It is a absolute rejection of it. I will concede to a faith but not a blind one into

the reality of proofs and understandings of scientific theory. Is that not so, and yes it is so.

Why is it hard to disprove.... because some do not see so clearly as I. I find that sad.

That good Education is the answer always and complacently.

I believe that religiously and with a support of scientific scrutiny.

astro
I would normally assume that you had understood the placebo effect.

..................
If believing in god, yhwh, bhudda, allah, or fred schwartskoph, etc... makes someone feel better, why would you care?
Let 'em take their god pill and rest assured that their souls will be provided for in the afterlife.
It costs you nothing to allow their contentment mr. Grinch.
Would you steal candy from a baby cause it might make 'em fat?

Originally Posted by sculptor

astro
I would normally assume that you had understood the placebo effect.

..................
If believing in god, yhwh, bhudda, allah, or fred schwartskoph, etc... makes someone feel better, why would you care?
Let 'em take their god pill and rest assured that their souls will be provided for in the afterlife.
It costs you nothing to allow their contentment mr. Grinch.
Would you steal candy from a baby cause it might make 'em fat?

If.. but usually there are many fundamentalist that are capable of doing extreme things for higher ''good''.

Personally i think religion nowadays is more an emotional exit instead of " explaining the unexplaineble"
religion allows us to glorify certain events when they are actually very common (e.g the birth of a child is a miracle )
otherwise miracles would just be considered a coincidence

it can give us a reason to live when everything works against us by allowing us to believe that we are more than one in 7 billion
thats probably why it is so hard to take away someones fate in god,( its like an old friend that has helped you hundreds of times, and then there is that guy that tells you he doesn't exist ?)

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Can we say the religions that died out in the past have been disproven?

Not really, people just stopped believing in them. There was nothing done to disprove them, people just lost interest in them.

Does that not prove those particular religions did not deliver? It seems that although no one can disprove a religion, the religion itself is actually capable of doing so. Given time, a religion will ultimately prove its unworthiness.

Originally Posted by sculptor

astro
I would normally assume that you had understood the placebo effect.

..................
If believing in god, yhwh, bhudda, allah, or fred schwartskoph, etc... makes someone feel better, why would you care?
Let 'em take their god pill and rest assured that their souls will be provided for in the afterlife.
It costs you nothing to allow their contentment mr. Grinch.
Would you steal candy from a baby cause it might make 'em fat?

~ You do me a miss service to judge me as a Grinch.
Doing nothing about false belief structures is unacceptable because of the ignorance of fact it caries with it.
Just as the Earth seems flat so it must be was proven to be wrong so to can religiously held indoctrinated rubbish be swept aside by science.
It is a duty I take seriously to inform of error and correct the wrong.
Can you really not see what is so dangerous about false believed faith based lies.
The spiritual realm and all of the belief structures it caries with it are the trigger for much mischief.
I do not approve.
... and, Yes I would openly discourage the consumption of candy by the 'Baby' and so should you.
Have you noticed the obesity rates ?

For evil to provail. Good men need do nothing.

Let also be understood I am NOT the fun police.. or the thought police..
Being free to say and think what so ever I choose.. Oh, you know.. all this..

Originally Posted by sculptor

If believing in god, yhwh, bhudda, allah, or fred schwartskoph, etc... makes someone feel better, why would you care?

Because, and this is the problem: it doesn't stop there.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Can we say the religions that died out in the past have been disproven?

Not really, people just stopped believing in them. There was nothing done to disprove them, people just lost interest in them.

Does that not prove those particular religions did not deliver? It seems that although no one can disprove a religion, the religion itself is actually capable of doing so. Given time, a religion will ultimately prove its unworthiness.

Good point, but then the people who need it to be proven to are no longer around. Personally, to me it seems like the same religions are always here, just the names get changed to keep it interesting. But the characters are all the same.....They almost all involve at least one demigod born to a virgin mother of some sort. They almost all have a bad guy deity and a good guy deity, and some sort of punishment/reward system for following the rules. IMO, religions are simply outward projections of the human ego.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Would you steal candy from a baby cause it might make 'em fat?

um... yeah. but I'd be more concerned about his tiny little tooth buds starting to rot before he ever even really got to enjoy food.

But I would not steal candy from an adult who damn well ought to be informed enough to make that decision for themselves. A baby is dependent on adults to make decisions for them which are in his/her best interests. And getting fat or getting rotten teeth is sure to increase the chances of the child to develop health problems....

Sorry, I know what you were intending to get at, the scenario just wouldn't work for me. And any child that I am responsible for gets told the truth about santa claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy and any other nonsense magical being intended to distract my child from reality or create unnecessarily fear of the world. None of my kids were traumatized by the truth in regards to fairy tales.

When kids do suffer trauma at finding out these things, it is usually the trauma of finding out the people who are supposed to love them, the people they are expected to trust without question, lied their asses off to them and made a fool out of them for as long as they did.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

If.. but usually there are many fundamentalist that are capable of doing extreme things for higher ''good''.

Although, there are also non-religious extremists who will do the same. I believe Pol Pot is the canonical example.

My kids believed in Santa, and the Tooth Fairy and were not traumatized in the least when they figured it out. Their "uncle" even dressed up as Santa and came to the grandparents house on Christmas to bring them their presents.....it was a blast. Lots of laughter and my daughter looking at Santa, and saying, UNCLE CHARLIE!! Taking the fun of whimsical things out of childrens lives, in my opinion, takes away the breathless wonder and fantasy of being a child.

I would never have changed a single thing I did in regards to Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, and we had no Easter Bunny, just Easter Egg hunts......it was fun.

Originally Posted by babe

My kids believed in Santa, and the Tooth Fairy and were not traumatized in the least when they figured it out. Their "uncle" even dressed up as Santa and came to the grandparents house on Christmas to bring them their presents.....it was a blast. Lots of laughter and my daughter looking at Santa, and saying, UNCLE CHARLIE!! Taking the fun of whimsical things out of childrens lives, in my opinion, takes away the breathless wonder and fantasy of being a child.

I would never have changed a single thing I did in regards to Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, and we had no Easter Bunny, just Easter Egg hunts......it was fun.

That's your opinion and you are as entitled to yours as I am. But telling kids santa is real or that the tooth fairy is real is knowingly and willingly lying to them. And then we have the nerve to wonder why they don't trust us as they get older. I don't believe in lying to kids. I demand honesty out of them and so I show them what it is. Integrity is a rare trait in people these days, it must be taught by example from an early age. And other people's sensitivities are inconsequential to reality.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by babe

My kids believed in Santa, and the Tooth Fairy and were not traumatized in the least when they figured it out. Their "uncle" even dressed up as Santa and came to the grandparents house on Christmas to bring them their presents.....it was a blast. Lots of laughter and my daughter looking at Santa, and saying, UNCLE CHARLIE!! Taking the fun of whimsical things out of childrens lives, in my opinion, takes away the breathless wonder and fantasy of being a child.

I would never have changed a single thing I did in regards to Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, and we had no Easter Bunny, just Easter Egg hunts......it was fun.

That's your opinion and you are as entitled to yours as I am. But telling kids santa is real or that the tooth fairy is real is knowingly and willingly lying to them. And then we have the nerve to wonder why they don't trust us as they get older. I don't believe in lying to kids. I demand honesty out of them and so I show them what it is. Integrity is a rare trait in people these days, it must be taught by example from an early age. And other people's sensitivities are inconsequential to reality.

I respectfully totally disagree with you.

Fantasy for children is as important as reality.

it builds their imaginations in many ways.

Letting them have fantasies, like that did not harm their future honesty or integrity in any way shape or form.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by babe

My kids believed in Santa, and the Tooth Fairy and were not traumatized in the least when they figured it out. Their "uncle" even dressed up as Santa and came to the grandparents house on Christmas to bring them their presents.....it was a blast. Lots of laughter and my daughter looking at Santa, and saying, UNCLE CHARLIE!! Taking the fun of whimsical things out of childrens lives, in my opinion, takes away the breathless wonder and fantasy of being a child.

I would never have changed a single thing I did in regards to Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, and we had no Easter Bunny, just Easter Egg hunts......it was fun.

That's your opinion and you are as entitled to yours as I am. But telling kids santa is real or that the tooth fairy is real is knowingly and willingly lying to them. And then we have the nerve to wonder why they don't trust us as they get older. I don't believe in lying to kids. I demand honesty out of them and so I show them what it is. Integrity is a rare trait in people these days, it must be taught by example from an early age. And other people's sensitivities are inconsequential to reality.

I respectfully totally disagree with you.

Fantasy for children is as important as reality.

it builds their imaginations in many ways.

Letting them have fantasies, like that did not harm their future honesty or integrity in any way shape or form.

I'm not going to get into this debate with you. I don't recognize you as a child psychologist and lets be honest, you respect my opinions as much as I respect yours.

My kids do not need delusions to feed their imaginations, they are all quite imaginative, very artistic and very capable of playing pretend. Being able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy is important to maintaining sanity and critical thinking.

There are plenty of kids in the world who do not grow up with stories of santa claus or the tooth fairy. These are cultural delusions fed to kids of the culture we belong to. There is no scientific evidence that filling kids heads with delusions stunts the creativity or imagination of a developing child.

So unless you have some evidence that suggests otherwise, I will respectfully reject your implications that I have harmed my children by not lying to them.

And as far as I am concerned, there is no further discussion needed between us on the issue.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by babe

My kids believed in Santa, and the Tooth Fairy and were not traumatized in the least when they figured it out. Their "uncle" even dressed up as Santa and came to the grandparents house on Christmas to bring them their presents.....it was a blast. Lots of laughter and my daughter looking at Santa, and saying, UNCLE CHARLIE!! Taking the fun of whimsical things out of childrens lives, in my opinion, takes away the breathless wonder and fantasy of being a child.

I would never have changed a single thing I did in regards to Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, and we had no Easter Bunny, just Easter Egg hunts......it was fun.

That's your opinion and you are as entitled to yours as I am. But telling kids santa is real or that the tooth fairy is real is knowingly and willingly lying to them. And then we have the nerve to wonder why they don't trust us as they get older. I don't believe in lying to kids. I demand honesty out of them and so I show them what it is. Integrity is a rare trait in people these days, it must be taught by example from an early age. And other people's sensitivities are inconsequential to reality.

I respectfully totally disagree with you.

Fantasy for children is as important as reality.

it builds their imaginations in many ways.

Letting them have fantasies, like that did not harm their future honesty or integrity in any way shape or form.

I'm not going to get into this debate with you. I don't recognize you as a child psychologist and lets be honest, you respect my opinions as much as I respect yours.

My kids do not need delusions to feed their imaginations, they are all quite imaginative, very artistic and very capable of playing pretend. Being able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy is important to maintaining sanity and critical thinking.

There are plenty of kids in the world who do not grow up with stories of santa claus or the tooth fairy. These are cultural delusions fed to kids of the culture we belong to. There is no scientific evidence that filling kids heads with delusions stunts the creativity or imagination of a developing child.

So unless you have some evidence that suggests otherwise, I will respectfully reject your implications that I have harmed my children by not lying to them.

And as far as I am concerned, there is no further discussion needed between us on the issue.

Actually there is something that needs clarification.

I was not suggesting in the least that you harmed your children by your decision.

That clarified.

I'm done.

How would you go about proving that we are not living in a simulation?

Originally Posted by agingjb

How would you go about proving that we are not living in a simulation?

Interesting concept....however, rather abstract!

Originally Posted by agingjb

How would you go about proving that we are not living in a simulation?

I wouldn't. I would go about demonstrating that which we can observe and test, allowing absurd notions to fall to the wayside where they belong.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by HB3l1

If.. but usually there are many fundamentalist that are capable of doing extreme things for higher ''good''.

Although, there are also non-religious extremists who will do the same. I believe Pol Pot is the canonical example.

Sorry Strange Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. A religious extremist would be to put it mildly. He once wrote in one of his early writings approvingly that the "democratic regime will bring back the Buddhist moralism because our great leader Buddha was the first to have taught [democracy]." what happened then is similar to Burma(Myanmar) now. And we know what's happening there don't we.
From here Buddhist Nationalism in Burma ~ Zarni's Blog

"Over the course of the past few years an extremely potent and dangerous strain of racism has emerged among Burma’s Theravada Buddhists, who have participated in the destruction and expulsion of the entire population of Rohingya Muslims. The atrocities occurring in the name of Buddhist nationalism in Burma are impossible to reconcile with the ideal of metta. Buddhist Rakhine throw young Rohingya children into the flames of their own homes before the eyes of family members. On June 3, 10 out-of-province Muslim pilgrims were pulled off a bus in the Rakhine town of Taunggoke, about 200 miles west of the former capital, Rangoon, and beaten to death by a mob of more than 100 Buddhist men. The crime occurred in broad daylight and in full view of both the public and local law enforcement officials."

It's how it started with Pol Pot.

Originally Posted by agingjb

How would you go about proving that we are not living in a simulation?

A little extreme I know. But someone could kill you, that would prove it wasn't a simulation, by unfortunately you wouldn't get to see it. On a lighter note you could put your arm in a lions mouth and see what happens. That might convince you a little, me thinks.

Originally Posted by pavlos

A little extreme I know. But someone could kill you, that would prove it wasn't a simulation, by unfortunately you wouldn't get to see it.

Either it wouldn't prove it (see final sentence) OR you (the killed one) would find out - since, being "dead" in the simulation you'd be ejected from it.

On a lighter note you could put your arm in a lions mouth and see what happens. That might convince you a little, me thinks.

Unless the physics engine of the simulation is convincing enough.
After all in computer games that we construct we do collision detection and programme for the consequences.

It's possible "god" is their own personal ego, which explains why "god" conveniantly agrees with whatever the believer thinks, whether it's healing the sick or committing genocide. By telling them their god doesn't exist, they also feel threatened in the way they subconsciously feel their existence is being questioned.

in defense of religion
let me say that it was a local religious group who started, staffed and runs the food pantry where poor people can get free food.
They also run clothing drives, and help with the women's and children's shelter.

Would they do as much good without the community of their religion?
Perhaps?
Perhaps, they do good to be seen as doing good within their community?

Originally Posted by sculptor

in defense of religion
let me say that it was a local religious group who started, staffed and runs the food pantry where poor people can get free food.
They also run clothing drives, and help with the women's and children's shelter.

Would they do as much good without the community of their religion?
Perhaps?
Perhaps, they do good to be seen as doing good within their community?

However everything they do comes with conditions! Sometimes to the detriment of the needy.

Whereas secular charities, help without conditions.

Originally Posted by sculptor

in defense of religion
let me say that it was a local religious group who started, staffed and runs the food pantry where poor people can get free food.
They also run clothing drives, and help with the women's and children's shelter.

Would they do as much good without the community of their religion?
Perhaps?
Perhaps, they do good to be seen as doing good within their community?

To me, this is just proof that even good people can be religious. It says nothing to the religion.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by pavlos

A little extreme I know. But someone could kill you, that would prove it wasn't a simulation, by unfortunately you wouldn't get to see it.

Either it wouldn't prove it (see final sentence) OR you (the killed one) would find out - since, being "dead" in the simulation you'd be ejected from it.

On a lighter note you could put your arm in a lions mouth and see what happens. That might convince you a little, me thinks.

Unless the physics engine of the simulation is convincing enough.
After all in computer games that we construct we do collision detection and programme for the consequences.

Agreed, and agreed, hence the " a little " statement.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

It's possible "god" is their own personal ego, which explains why "god" conveniantly agrees with whatever the believer thinks, whether it's healing the sick or committing genocide. By telling them their god doesn't exist, they also feel threatened in the way they subconsciously feel their existence is being questioned.

Every religious person SPAG's (Self Projection As God). It's the norm.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Self_projection_as_god

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by sculptor

in defense of religion
let me say that it was a local religious group who started, staffed and runs the food pantry where poor people can get free food.
They also run clothing drives, and help with the women's and children's shelter.

Would they do as much good without the community of their religion?
Perhaps?
Perhaps, they do good to be seen as doing good within their community?

To me, this is just proof that even good people can be religious. It says nothing to the religion.

Koran:
وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَارْكَعُوا مَعَ الرَّاكِعِينَAnd be steadfast : practice regular charity; and bow down your heads with those who bow down.

I really don't give a flying forgotten fiddle who is leading.
If they're going in the right direction, no matter how they found it, then bully for them.

I have come to believe that many people are happier following(whatever)

Preconceived notions of indoctrinated belief structures are often offered as religiously held positions of power.
Only education and knowledge can push the ignorance back. Question, test and question some more.
Always challenging to find truths as understood must prevail as better than blind acceptance.
Both of my parents were victims of the Poll Pot driven slaughter of the educated.
I have a problem with being objective regarding this period of history. Mine.
Becoming aware of the writings of Hitchens, Dawkins, Sagan, and others has led my to a enlightenment I can not put aside.
but has not helped my spelling ~ I have found that most people are reluctant to change.
Move out of the comfort zone of preconceived doctrines.. It's not easy..
* Why is it hard to change peoples belief structure. ?* Complacency.
I found Education is the answer I sought. As both my Mother and Father were educators and it cost them their lives..
Has not made me cast it aside.. It seems to be the only answer. I am driven by a want to know...

Originally Posted by astromark

Preconceived notions of indoctrinated belief structures are often offered as religiously held positions of power.
Only education and knowledge can push the ignorance back. Question, test and question some more.
Always challenging to find truths as understood must prevail as better than blind acceptance.
Both of my parents were victims of the Poll Pot driven slaughter of the educated.
I have a problem with being objective regarding this period of history. Mine.
Becoming aware of the writings of Hitchens, Dawkins, Sagan, and others has led my to a enlightenment I can not put aside.
but has not helped my spelling ~ I have found that most people are reluctant to change.
Move out of the comfort zone of preconceived doctrines.. It's not easy..
* Why is it hard to change peoples belief structure. ?* Complacency.
I found Education is the answer I sought. As both my Mother and Father were educators and it cost them their lives..
Has not made me cast it aside.. It seems to be the only answer. I am driven by a want to know...

I write, as I study a script....therefore not in normal form.....but in thought process.

No one can change anyone's opinion or belief form. I really don't think you can if you have 800 PROVEN facts to present.

What people believe is what they believe, and that should be respected, even if not agreed with!

HOWEVER!!

Learning can many times change beliefs.

Sometimes, however it is how it is presented, so it can be understood.

Originally Posted by HB3l1

Hello everyone, I believe that we live in a scientific era where all myths and lies can be easily explained and disproved.
Why that isn't the situation with religion, I know that religion has a deep roots into our existence and like that it is not easy to be removed from our world nor I believe it would be completely removed in close future. But my question is why there is not a comprehend explanation of religion absurdity and it's falsehood? Why there is no one competent enough to do a thorough research and to post basic evidences?

I am speaking about Abraham religions because they got the biggest impact on our society. I am not saying that religions are root of all evil, neither that they are utter bad, people are bad. But believing in something irrational and teaching your children to believe in it is not a good thing. We are all aware of how great impact religion had through the history in BAD and good ways, why there are not enough strong researches that will explain to people that religions are man-made?


The other question would be, for what reasons are Abraham religions created? I have several thoughts but I can't be satisfied with neither one, is it because of massive manipulation and control? Is it to create a guider on how to behave and live, book of moral system? Or are there some deeper reasons for it's existence?

Because science is merely a collection of theories, gravity for instance is a theory people need certain proof. Unfortunately for some their family telling them about a big man in the sky was enough to give 10% of their income to a orginization that really helps no one, and use a good hour of their sunday that could be better used arguing on scienceforum

What people believe is what they believe, and that should be respected, even if not agreed with!

Depends, really.

I feel no obligation to respect someone's belief that indigenous people are inherently unintelligent (or lazy or irresponsible or whatever). In fact I feel an obligation to contest such statements of belief - it's only Miss Manners whispering in my ear that holds me back sometimes.

Originally Posted by adelady

What people believe is what they believe, and that should be respected, even if not agreed with!

Depends, really.

I feel no obligation to respect someone's belief that indigenous people are inherently unintelligent (or lazy or irresponsible or whatever). In fact I feel an obligation to contest such statements of belief - it's only Miss Manners whispering in my ear that holds me back sometimes.

Well of COURSE NOT! That wasn't my point!

Originally Posted by jakesyl

Because science is merely a collection of theories

Anyone that uses the word "merely" in such a sentence is clearly unaware of what "theory" means and entails.

gravity for instance is a theory

No.
Gravity is a fact.
But we have theories about it.

It isn't hard. It's hard to convince religious people, they don't want to hear.

Its all scifi until its proven not to be.

People who believe in nonsensical things are too nonsensical to realize it, that's why I quit arguing with religious people a long time ago. There's already a thread on the Dunning-Kruger effect.