/threadSecretTacoNinja said:Because it's silly to believe in something just because someone told you it was true.
/threadSecretTacoNinja said:Because it's silly to believe in something just because someone told you it was true.
Arsen said:I am not trying to spark a religious discussion.
Don't say "This will not end well...".
I am just simply requesting reasons as to why people would demand something along a scientific, provable, guidlines for personal self-reliance.
yeah this, I don't get why people think you don't need proof (i.e. reverse of the argument presented by the OP).teutonicman said:If I say that I can fly, most people would reply "ok, prove it".
God was also responsible for crusades spanning a hundred years in which a large number of innocent people were killed. Witch-hunts, modern and ancient prejudices, the medieval period in which society in Europe stopped. Wars and crimes in modern Ireland. God can't even decide how he wants to be worshipped their are that many versions of Christianity arguing with each other. God is responsible for fakes and phonys tricking ignorant people out their money through the promise of healing or benefits. God is responsible for segregation, fear and terror.Datalord said:According to Quincy theory, it is technically impossible to change someone's beliefs, i could get God to come down from heaven and start performing miracles all over the place, and the hardcore atheists wouldn't believe its God,
So the question isn't really, can we prove God exists, or do we need to prove God exists, The question is, does the concept of a God, benefit society.
Personally i believe that the concept of a God, whether or not he exists, benefits society, without the catholic church, we never would have had the Renaissance, because the scientific/artistic movement started when the church (albeit through arguably corrupt means) brought enough wealth to Italy to allow for real scientific research. Also, the concept of a God, has shown to strengthen moral beliefs, (this is in general, don't quote me and complain about the suicide bombers, or the Kool-aid, or the mormon compound in Texas)
"Peter you are the rock on which i shall build my church upon. What ever you loose in this kingdom will be loosed in my kingdom, what ever you gain in this kingdom will be gained in my kingdom"Nmil-ek said:Science progresses and evolves however, new methods of testing are developed, new evidence is brought forward and old evidence is removed. Religion meanwhile always remains static, always says the same things and only adapts when science says no sorry thats absolutley provably wrong. How long did the church try and hold back gravity or the fact that the earth was quite obviously round?Duskwaith said:Science isnt always proveable, science and religion are almost a ying-yang type realationship.TheDuckbunny said:Because there are two 'truths' in this world. Religion and Science. Science is provable, so everyone that believes in science comments about religion not being provable and thus being the lesser truth.
Wow, just came up with that on the spot.
Like we know that everything is basicly atoms but we dont know why they are there and if someone created them or put them there.
What science dosnt know is religion. What religion dosnt know is science.
Or that fact that they keep changing their minds yet continuously prattle on about being infalable like the roman church suddenly deciding limbo does not exist you cant change your mind one day and still claim to have all the answers does not work like that.
There are pretty much only two answers to this thread. This is mine.comadorcrack said:God dosn't need to be Provable. Thats why Its called a "Faith".
Faith that something is real, while others show proof that it is not, that would be called ignorance. If you need help putting those together Faith = Ignorancecomadorcrack said:God dosn't need to be Provable. Thats why Its called a "Faith".
Psychic powers operate outside of natural laws, and we found them to be complete hokum. Psychics don't exist.eels05 said:I cant see how God,which ever one were talking about,can be proven.How can something which apparently operates outside of natural laws ever be understood.
Believers should just be content to have faith and ignore the percieved antagonism.
Akai Shizuku said:I don't feel like arguing with people at the moment, although I probably will later...so I'm just going to answer the thread question.
When a rabbit jumps through the snow, it leaves a footprint. Think about that for a moment. Cause and effect. This is elementary logic. Nothing happens without some sort of reason. I have a chart, and it's going to offend people, but I don't care.
[http://tinypic.com]
'Nuff said.
Except that you're wrong, it is logically impossible to disprove anything. All science has proven is that under all circumstances they are able to observe, with all available metrics they have, it doesn't work. Remember, people used to SCIENTIFICALLY believe that the universe orbited the earth. They believed this based on information available at the time, in time it was proven that the earth orbits the sun. So things go, as our knowledge grows, our ability to expand our knowledge grows, to think that we have all the answers, and that we can do the logically impossible is the height of hubris.Cliff_m85 said:Psychic powers operate outside of natural laws, and we found them to be complete hokum. Psychics don't exist.
Magic operates outside of natural laws, and we found that to be complete nonsense. Magic is done through purely natural laws.
Telekenesis operates outside of natural laws, once again we found it to be bullshit. It doesn't exist.
See where I'm going?
I don't think myself better than it. I don't see why you would live half a life worrying about what will happen to you when you die, you've got a life to live yet, worry about that first, you can worry about death well when you're dead.Space Spoons said:To most of the people who really care about religion, God's existence doesn't have to be provable. That's the definition of faith; you don't always have to see to believe.
It's the people who adamantly persist that God doesn't exist that demand his existence be proven. I'm not usually given to making sweeping generalizations, but it seems that this is usually because adamant and vocal nonbelievers seem to think themselves better and/or smarter than the pious. This believe drives them to try and prove to a vastly religious society that their way, the athiest way, is better, by challenging the faithful to prove what essentially cannot be proven.