Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No offense but the kind of thinking you are doing is exactly what can make religion so dangerous.
is this a typo?
I don't think it is possible to absolutely disprove religion, but it is possible to present evidence that it is not a good idea to hold religious beliefs if you want your beliefs to be true.
Evidence that it's not a "good idea"? Good idea based on what. Want your beliefs to be true? Are you kidding? Their beliefs. You BELIEVE them. If they could be proven they wouldn't be beliefs, they would be facts.
Quote:
There is some evidence against certain religious beliefs, but most atheist arguments consist not of showing that religion is wrong, but that religion has not shown itself to be true, and so does not deserve belief.
Are you kidding? I don't think you understand the concept of religion. Does not "deserve" belief? Their BELIEFS. People believe them. Just because you don't thinks some religion "deserve" beliefs doesn't mean they cannot choose to believe them. It's their choice. Unlike you not everyone needs facts to believe in something. One can have beliefs and still be capable of critical thinking and achieve great things.
Quote:
If the evidence against religious belief is substantial, then religious beliefs are shown to be just beliefs, not based in facts.
That's the point. Their beliefs. There is also evidence FOR religious beliefs. The difference is you CHOOSE to believe it is not substantial enough.
Quote:
If religious people will hold beliefs not based on facts, then their beliefs are irrational, because their beliefs are no better than guesses. If they admit that their beliefs are just guesses not based in facts, and admit the possibility that they could easily be wrong, then they are being rational. However if they pretend as their factless guesses are absolute certainties, then they are being irrational.
Yet again I don't think you understand the concept of "beliefs". Yes some people claim their beliefs are absolute facts, but not everyone who is religious thinks this way. Just like some atheists are narcissistic and practically worship themselves, but not everyone.
Quote:
So how is this dangerous? What if this irrational belief held with absolute certainty happens to be "God want me to kill Caananite babies"? Then they will slaughter for God even if they hate to kill because they think they were commanded to.
A more rational person might have questioned whether God exists, asked for evidence that he made that commandment, and also questioned whether an omni-benevolent God would order such a thing.
Irrational belief isn't only seen in religion. It is also seen in many political ideologies. For example many communist countries don't allow their citizens to question their communist beliefs. When many communists arrest political dissenters, they don't even question whether their cause is right or their actions are right. They just believe without many facts.
You're assuming people who believe in religion are irrational. I know plenty of irrational people who don't believe in any religion. The point is religion doesn't make them irrational. PEOPLE are capable of acting irrational. A rational religious person would still question slaughtering babies. Unfortunately in certain times, being rational would get you killed by those in power. But now with more freedoms being irrational all depends on what kind of person you are, not what you choose to believe or not believe.
Quote:
First, it would be very unreasonable to believe things with 100% proof. Almost nothing has 100% proof and so you wouldn't be believing in anything really. It is reasonable to believe in things with high levels of evidence, rather than only 100% evidence. Of course it is still irrational to believe things with 0% or low levels of evidence.
Also, science has a very strict level of evidence because it makes claims about complex natural phenomena that are very easy to misinterpret and scientists want to be super sure they are right.
However non-scientific areas, e.g. philosophy, politics, and every-day decisions often don't require so much evidence, and it is almost impossible to form beliefs in these areas if you required rigid scientific evidence. So a more lax level of evidence is more appropriate as long as it is still sufficient to be mostly sure you are right.
Scientists want to be super sure they are right? Are you aware that a large portion of scientific data is based on non proven theories? These theories are based on how these scientists interpret what they have found at the time. Over time theories change because we discover more evidence, proving we were wrong before. So how do we know what is "super right"? There's too much in this world to experience and not enough time in one lifetime to "Prove" it all. That's where beliefs come in.
Quote:
People 1000 years ago tried to make claims about the natural world without enough evidence: e.g. everything is made out of earth, water and fire, the Gods control the forces of nature, demons and sins cause disease, cleaning yourself removes defenses from disease, magic can cure a person, etc. They sure had a lot of beliefs (which you seem to like) about the natural world. The problem was that most of their beliefs were wrong.
The scientific method started when people did what you don't like. They started having fewer beliefs about the natural world because they realized that many of their beliefs were wrong. Aware of their ignorance, they began to conduct experiments and gather data and tried to form scientific beliefs backed by strong evidence. Because of this we started forming more and more beliefs about the natural world, and these beliefs were actually true.
Back then they had beliefs to explain what they could not understand otherwise. Would they have been off if they sat there and attacked every belief until someone could "prove" it all? The scientific "beliefs" you claim were created from the data they gathered are called scientific theories. Which we still have today. The scientific theories or beliefs (which ever you choose to call them) may be proven wrong anytime in the future.
Quote:
I bet if you were transplanted to 1000 years ago you would believe very little of the nonsense people thought back them. And that is not a bad thing. It is a good thing.
If I was transported to 1000 years, my modern knowledge would of course be different from the rest of the people around me. I don't see where you're going with this. If myself or even you were born then, any thing you believe or didn't believe would be proven wrong.
Quote:
Wait...absolute facts are unquestionably true by definition. I think you made another typo.
In a thousand years we will probably see many of our former beliefs as not true. So how can we fix this problem?
Can we fix it by believing in extraordinary claims without any evidence? No! That is only going to make things worse!
We first have to realize that we cannot possibly be 100% sure we are right. We can only go for a high level of confidence not an absolute level. We can achieve this by testing our beliefs to make sure they are true.
The more they are tested, the less likely it is that they will later be shown to be false. If we test out beliefs a very very large amount, then it is very unlikely that they will be shown to be false in the future. We should also be able to gage how much evidence our beliefs have and become more realistic about the likelihood of truth of our beliefs.
Beliefs that have a lot of evidence today will not likely be shown wrong tomorrow. And if we have beliefs that we only weakly believe because we know have little evidence and admit that they are very likely wrong, we will not be surprised if they are shown to be wrong tomorrow.
What you don't seem to understand is that scientific facts change over time. They will continue to change over time. What we know today may be different in a hundred years. Science is not meant to be absolute. Once someone proves something someone else works on disproving it. They may not be able to dis prove it in their lifetime but someone else will do it eventually. Science is meant to evolve, and it will continue as long as we continue to try to prove something. Beliefs have evolved also, but beliefs come from people. They do not need facts although some beliefs are supported by facts. Absolute facts and blind beliefs are two ends of a spectrum. Meeting somewhere in the middle is an ideal that not everyone is capable of.
Man that took forever. Try posting small, to the point thoughts so people can respond without reading a wall of text.
I spoke to a few atheists and they believed that religion caused much of the evil in the world. Heres my thought.
Some people believe that religion is the cause for most of the evil in this world. But do you really believe a person would not commit evil deeds if they did claim it was for their religion? A man will always be a man and if that person has it in his heart to commit evil deeds, they will commit them regardless. The shape and form may be different but the deed will still be committed. Do you really believe the ruthless Kings and Queens of the past that began their wars, conquests and invasions would have done any less if no one in their kingdom believed in God? If a man chooses not to believe in God that is their choice. But that person in one way or the other is following a religion, whether they are worshipping God or themselves. Narcissism can be a form of religion also if it develops past a certain point. A man will believe in something because that is in our nature. Not everything can be explained by science. What do you call those? Some things cannot be seen, touched or even proven to actually exist. All we know is that someone at some point wrote it in a book based on a theory they came up with and now we are all taught this theory in school. And what will happen later? Someone else will come along and prove him wrong. How is that different from religion? We choose to believe because that is our choice.
Actually scientific facts remain facts and do not change, although theories can be added to, and some aspects of them disproven. This is totally off topic, but all one needs to do is educate oneself on history to realize the evil that religion has caused in the past...Read the news for the evil that is being perpetuated by religion in the present...There is no contesting these facts honestly.
Survivors of deadly religious violence in western India gather to mark 10th anniversary - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/survivors-of-deadly-religious-violence-in-india-pray-to-mark-10th-anniversary/2012/02/27/gIQADJcNdR_story.html - broken link)
Actually scientific facts remain facts and do not change, although theories can be added to, and some aspects of them disproven. This is totally off topic, but all one needs to do is educate oneself on history to realize the evil that religion has caused in the past...Read the news for the evil that is being perpetuated by religion in the present...There is no contesting these facts honestly.
Survivors of deadly religious violence in western India gather to mark 10th anniversary - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/survivors-of-deadly-religious-violence-in-india-pray-to-mark-10th-anniversary/2012/02/27/gIQADJcNdR_story.html - broken link)
If the fact is changed then it is no longer the same fact. It is a variation of that fact. Again with the statement that religion itself caused the evil deeds. Many evil deeds have been committed by people who believed they were following scientific fact. How many atrocities have been committed in the name of science? I don't need to list them. Evil deeds are committed by people. Science and religion are used as tools to commit these deeds.
If the fact is changed then it is no longer the same fact. It is a variation of that fact. Again with the statement that religion itself caused the evil deeds. Many evil deeds have been committed by people who believed they were following scientific fact. How many atrocities have been committed in the name of science? I don't need to list them. Evil deeds are committed by people. Science and religion are used as tools to commit these deeds.
Not one evil deed has been committed in the name of science, as science is nothing more than a tool of discovery. The same cannot be said of religion because it has always influenced humans to commit atrocities, and continues to do so...If you do not believe this read the bible, torah, or the qur'an.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
Bertrand Russell
Last edited by Miss Blue; 03-05-2012 at 06:15 AM..
Reason: deleted your response to an insult
Not one evil deed has been committed in the name of science, as science is nothing more than a tool of discovery. The same cannot be said of religion because it has always influenced humans to commit atrocities, and continues to do so...If you do not believe this read the bible, torah, or the qur'an.
Whoa . . . you really stepped in it this time Sans. It doesn't take but one example . . . the Tuskegee syphilis experiments from 1932 to 1972 by the Public Health Service comes to mind . . . to shoot you and your assertion in the foot.
Whoa . . . you really stepped in it this time Sans. It doesn't take but one example . . . the Tuskegee syphilis experiments from 1932 to 1972 by the Public Health Service comes to mind . . . to shoot you and your assertion in the foot.
Yes there is some bad science, but is is not very common today.
Religion certainly doesn't cause all the evil in the world, but when any group believes that it is favored by a god and better than other groups, it exacerbates evil. Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but religion can cause good people to do bad things (a paraphrase of a quotation whose origin I cannot recall).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
