Zone1 How Would You React if your Religion were Proven False?

[rightwinger]

40% of all science is invalid
100% of any religious belief is valid

82.6 percent of statistics on the internet are made up on the spot

 

[Quantrill]

@DGS49

I don't know that science could ever disprove my faith, Christianity. Science is so biased against religion I don't know that I would believe what they said.

And if they had some sort of proof to offer, they could not gurantee that that won't later change when they learn something else knew.

So, why would I trust anything science said concerning my faith?

Quantrill

 

[Hafar1014]

@DGS49

I don't know that science could ever disprove my faith, Christianity. Science is so biased against religion I don't know that I would believe what they said.

And if they had some sort of proof to offer, they could not gurantee that that won't later change when they learn something else knew.

So, why would I trust anything science said concerning my faith?

Quantrill

Science is not biased against faith some people will use science to oppose faith but their attempts are laughable. Science in many cases tells us how things happen faith tells us if its good or bad

 

[rightwinger]

Science is so biased against religion I don't know that I would believe what they said.

Facts are like that

 

[Quantrill]

Facts are like that

I'm still waiting for them.

Quantrill

 

[Votto]

What is the science behind a virgin birth or a resurrection?

Science may not be able to reduplicate a virgin birth or a resurrection, but it also cannot create the atom or bring lifeless atoms to life, hence the dilemma.

There be miracles.

 

[Foxfyre]

For several months now, I have been watching videos published by an Islamic scholar named Jay Smith. His credentials are both unique and impressive, and he has made a lifetime campaign of challenging Islamic history, beliefs, and theology, often in direct debates with Islamic scholars.



In recent years it has come to light that the Mecca of the Quran simply did not exist; it came along much later, long after Mo-hammed had assumed room temperature. Not only is there no archaeological evidence to support its existence in the relevant time period (the Saudi government prohibits non-approved archaeologists snooping around Mecca), but no contemporaneous documents or evidence even mention its existence at the time of Mo-hammed. Further, the first biography of Mo-hammed himself doesn't appear until about 200 years after his traditional date of death, so it is sourced from exactly nobody who ever knew that personage, assuming that he actually did exist. Also, none of the early Islamic mosques is "pointed at" Mecca, as all later mosques are required to be, indicating that the first Muslims had no particular reverence for that city or location.

And as Smith always says, Islam is founded on a person, place, and time, and if any one of them falls apart, the whole thing falls apart (theologically).

In the U.S. we have a similar situation with the people who are commonly called the "Mormons." Their founder, Joe Smith, has been proven to be a self-aggrandizing fraud, who made up the Book of Mormon, filling it with a history that is proven false by both archaeology and DNA evidence. Many books have been written documenting the false and often preposterous teachings of Smith and his immediate successor, Brigham Young.

Judaism and Christianity are both largely based on FAITH, which by definition is unprovable, but they both have a lot of archaeological support, contemporaneous mentions in third party literature, and are mostly based on eye-witness accounts. Christianity and the basics of Judaism will never be disproven by science, unlike Islam and Mormonism.

So what do you do when your religion - the religion that you were brought up to believe - is disproven by science?

Can one say that few educated and intelligent Muslims and Mormons actually believe the shit that they hear in their religious services? Or would that be too cynical?

I have studied all the great religions over a very long lifetime now and have my opinions about all of them. But they are my opinions and I see no value in trying to destroy another person's faith or belief. It is interesting studying and learning about origins and how various faith systems develop, but we should always be sensitive to our fellow man and do that in settings where all understand the purpose of the discussion.

I allow others their beliefs, their faith in what they believe. I probably disagree with every Christian and Jew on this forum on one or more perceptions/interpretations of Biblical content, but that makes their faith or my faith no less real or valid. And I don't see how it harms me or anybody else what any other peaceful person believes re their religion.

I will continue to push back on/oppose all who would use their religious beliefs to accuse or denigrate others or do violence or harm to others. Many of the the nonbelievers on this forum are the worst offenders but I can't approve of the very few Christians or any others who use their religious credentials to attack or try to destroy another person's faith either.

 

[SweetSue92]

Facts are like that

Hey remember when the CDC tried to tell us the "facts" about Covid? Like surgical masks were protective? Like 6 feet was protective? You fell for all of that huh

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you have faith in science?

LOL. This one thing always amazes me.

Very few people are scientists. Probably no person on this forum has done the research, experiments, investigations that have produced published scientific content but he/she blindly believes/trusts what he/she is told of scientific conclusions so long as those conclusions fit what he/she wants to believe. Any scientific conclusions that challenge what he/she believes are rejected. But because the person has never actually done the research etc., it is all taken on faith.

How is that any different from religious faith?

 

[rightwinger]

Hey remember when the CDC tried to tell us the "facts" about Covid? Like surgical masks were protective? Like 6 feet was protective? You fell for all of that huh

You mean like it would kill millions of people and you compared it to a cold?

 

[Foxfyre]

@DGS49

I don't know that science could ever disprove my faith, Christianity. Science is so biased against religion I don't know that I would believe what they said.

And if they had some sort of proof to offer, they could not gurantee that that won't later change when they learn something else knew.

So, why would I trust anything science said concerning my faith?

Quantrill

Actually all science isn't biased against religion. There are many Christian and Jewish scientists who are very religious or at least spiritual.

It is just that there are so many who put their faith in science, i.e. what others tell them science teaches--that too requires faith to believe what the science is--and who confuse that with somehow being against a God/Creator who Christians and Jews believe to be the creator of science as well as everything else. They can call their propaganda 'science' to make it sound intelligent, but it is propaganda just the same.

And some are so spiritually empty and twisted that they would ridicule, denigrate, try to destroy the faith of those who believe in God as being delusional or unrealistic when they do not question anything that is labeled 'science' so long as the science does not interfere with what they want to believe.

True science is based on truth or as close to truth as the scientist can get. It would no more try to prove the non existence of God than it would try to prove there is nothing beyond the universe that our telescopes can currently see.

 

[Meriweather]

@DGS49

I don't know that science could ever disprove my faith, Christianity. Science is so biased against religion I don't know that I would believe what they said.

And if they had some sort of proof to offer, they could not gurantee that that won't later change when they learn something else knew.

So, why would I trust anything science said concerning my faith?

Quantrill

Faith/religion is a philosophy, not a science. All that concerns science is what is physical and measurable in some way. For this very reason, science is not known for arguing against Plato, Socrates, Locke, etc. It's worth asking, Is it science arguing against philosophy/faith/religion or is it philosophy/faith/religion arguing against science? Science should be only arguing against other physical/scientific, matters--and by the same token, faith, religion, philosophy should only be arguing spiritual/philosophical matters. Otherwise, all we have are useless discussions about apples and orange.

 

[Quantrill]

Faith/religion is a philosophy, not a science. All that concerns science is what is physical and measurable in some way. For this very reason, science is not known for arguing against Plato, Socrates, Locke, etc. It's worth asking, Is it science arguing against philosophy/faith/religion or is it philosophy/faith/religion arguing against science? Science should be only arguing against other physical/scientific, matters--and by the same token, faith, religion, philosophy should only be arguing spiritual/philosophical matters. Otherwise, all we have are useless discussions about apples and orange.

I believe it is that science is the child of philosophy. I agree science cannot argue for or against the supernatural as it only deals with the natural.

Quantrill

 

[Meriweather]

I believe it is that science is the child of philosophy.

Quantrill

Science deals with the physical and what is measurable. Philosophy deals in thought, or that which is spiritual.

 

[Quantrill]

Science deals with the physical and what is measurable. Philosophy deals in thought, or that which is spiritual.

But science is the product of philosophy, correct?

Quantrill

 

[Meriweather]

But science is the product of philosophy, correct?

I do not see it that way, but perhaps a product of mathematics?

 

[Quantrill]

I do not see it that way, but perhaps a product of mathematics?

I don't have a quote at hand right now but it seems that science and philosophy work together. I did google the question 'does science come from philosophy' and it seems there were many affirmatives.

Quantrill

 

[Foxfyre]

But science is the product of philosophy, correct?

Quantrill

No. Science is not the product of anything unless we consider it a product of God the Creator.

Science does not evolve or change. Science is. Science is what is truth of our world/universe and everything in it. Science is unaffected by what we believe about it or know about it.

Now for sure our understanding of science does evolve. What we believe about the science of our universe can change. That understanding has, generally erroneously, been influenced by philosophy in the past and certainly can be affected by the politics of the present.

I personally believe we have only a teensy understanding of all there is to learn about science. If we are being visited or observed by beings from other places in the universe, those beings are eons ahead of us in scientific knowledge and how to utilize that knowledge.

But those who put all their faith in what certain science is told to them, and often that faith is flawed or inconsistent with the reality, are religionists in their own way. And they will resent being told they are wrong and denigrate any who challenge what they want to believe about the science.

That can all be a vicious circle at times.

 

[Quantrill]

No. Science is not the product of anything unless we consider it a product of God the Creator.

Science does not evolve or change. Science is. Science is what is truth of our world/universe and everything in it. Science is unaffected by what we believe about it or know about it.

Now for sure our understanding of science does evolve. What we believe about the science of our universe can change. That understanding has, generally erroneously, been influenced by philosophy in the past and certainly can be affected by the politics of the present.

I personally believe we have only a teensy understanding of all there is to learn about science. If we are being visited or observed by beings from other places in the universe, those beings are eons ahead of us in scientific knowledge and how to utilize that knowledge.

But those who put all their faith in what certain science is told to them, and often that faith is flawed or inconsistent with the reality, are religionists in their own way. And they will resent being told they are wrong and denigrate any who challenge what they want to believe about the science.

That can all be a vicious circle at times.

Well, when I google 'is science a product of philosophy' I get plenty of affirmatives that science rose out of philosophy.

I know science seeks facts concerning the natural world. But I also know scientist's are just as biased as anyone else. And a scientist who is atheist, as many are, is not looking for facts to support a faith.

As a Christian, my opinion is this: if the world lasted long enough, science would eventually come to the truth of the existence of God and the Creation. But the world won't last that long as God wants entrance into His domain, by faith.

My opinion.

Quantrill

 

[norwegen]

In the Preterist mind, baptism, communion, the charismatic gifts, and indeed all things scriptural, are intricately tied to an ultimate soteriological purpose that manifests in the kingdom, and that purpose is resurrection, both in AD 70 for Old Covenant Israel and then ongoing for New Covenant Israel. I once, however, viewed the first-century resurrection as the end of humankind, and effectively set itself apart from the very premise of Preterism. This school I nearly joined promotes the one significant controversy within the soteriological framework that can also divide eschatologically. To be sure, it divorces itself entirely from Christianity and is not even denominational but rather sectarian. This doctrine assumes that salvation has absolutely no application to post-Parousia Christians. It teaches that nothing biblical continues today. Most disturbing of all about it is that it can seduce and demoralize unwary young Preterists.

This splinter group of former believers posits that atheism is the logical conclusion to the fulfillment of prophecy. Calling itself Israel-Only (I/O), this group teaches Christianity as strictly a first-century religion. The faith crested when Christ came to judge, these people maintain, and then it ceased. The Lord gathered into heaven all the saints who had lain in Abraham’s bosom as well as those who had not yet fallen asleep, or died, at his Parousia, and that is where the kingdom remains forever, beyond the reach of future generations. The Lord gathered to himself all the faithful up to and including the generation remaining on earth in AD 70, and no one else. God has abandoned His lonely blue orb in the Milky Way.

Having a been a Christian for many years, this possibility deflated me, nearly defeated me. I had crossed a Rubicon and couldn't go back to the mainline futuristic nonsense that no one understands, so I stood on the ledge, ready to go full-blown atheist.