Great religious falsehoods

I believe that of the greatest falsehoods of religion, this belongs at or near the top of the list are:1. Faith is not subject to scienceThe primary reason I believe it is false: Any thing (energy, matter, entity, etc) that causes an effect can be tested. Any action by a supposed god can and should be tested. The result: there is no evidence that there is any god like entity imposing any effect upon this world or universe.I would like to hear what others think of this.Edited by jag, : Simplify, narrow the topic.

Is that what you requested?

Hello Brian and bluegenes,
Part of the problem is that many who have chosen their beliefs, or more likely had then chosen for them by parents, society, and peers, simply will not examine the facts. Saying faith is not subject to science is a dishonest dodge.I have seen shows where Dawkins debates someone rather politely, then a person in the audience accuses Dawkins of being to aggressive and disagreeable. That is just another turn to avoid the real questions at hand.Religion has not yielded to any rational and polite arguments in the last several thousand years. The arguments against religion need to be raised to a higher level in assertiveness and insistence. There is a risk of transitioning into aggressiveness. In general that is bad. But religion has been extraordinarily aggressive over the centuries to say the least.We need to find ways to force an evaluation of the scientific facts, while being wary, but neither frightened or timid, of the emotional response. I’m not good at doing that. When I do it, I come across as playing NIGYYSOB.Have you found any way to state the evidence in such a manner that it cannot be ignored? (I may be hallucinating, but I continue to have hope.)Meanwhile, I am wondering if anyone will weigh in with an opposing statement.

quote:

---

How would you test some'thing' that operates in a way that is unpredictable, unrepeatable, empirically untestable, etc?

---

Simple, examine it and test it under differing circumstances until you understand what causes it to be unpredictabe, etc. Then control those variables and test it such that it is repeatable. A computer program may seem all the above, until you closely examine the code and understand why it operates as it does.However, in practice, we often do not have the knowledge of how to test things. Just because we lack that knowledge, does not mean it is not testable. We test what we can and tease what knowledge we can from our tests.This is so self evident that it does bear stating: Science does not know everything. There are many unknowns and we do the best we can. The unknown areas do not invalidate the known ones.Good comment iano. I hope my reply was equal.

Hello iano,I would like to respond to several points in your post, but I am striving to kept things as simple as I can. Can you provide any substantial evidence in support of a god that exists and is causing any effect upon this world?Let us not get into a debate about the definition of substantial evidence. That is often just a method of dodging the question. Post what you think is substantial.State an effect you have seen and state what you think caused the effect, the originating agent. Then provide your statement of evidence showing that the agent was indeed the cause of the effect.In other words, what did god do, and why do you think he did it?

Hello Alasdair We are in agreement. I think that part of the problem is that due to the very nature of the discussion we very often are dealing with people who are not interested in any nonsense about falsifiable conclusions. One of my current concepts is that we must put the questions in terms they are more likely to listen to and think about.This is something I am not good at. But we only get better at what we practice. I am striving for clear simple posts with as few points as possible. If we keep the battlefield clear of all but one obstruction, we can concentration on that one item at a time.I am certainly open to other’s opinion on this type of conversation.God can be tested. Declare what god can do, and see if we can determine if god really did it. Example: prayer. Very testable. Always fails.

You claim god is outside the realm of science. That is the whole point here. You have absolutely no justiciation to make that claim! None what so ever! If you think you do, show it.Just to pre-empt and argument: The bible is nothing but words on paper. It is not evidence of anything at all. It is evidence only that it was written, and that is has been copied over and over with a huge number of mistakes. Indeed, biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote in his book "Misquoting Jesus" that there are more errors in the various copies of the new testemant than were are words in it.

Do you have any example of documented or verifiable instances where prayer was shown to heal anyone? There have been numerous tests, and all fail. That says that god never decides anyone should be healed.Indeed, if god exists, then god caused us to need healing in the first place. Nice guy. (Just in case, read that with extreme sarcasm.Why did he create us so that we need healing. As he knows everything, that must have been an intentional act on his part.

You failed to provide your justification. How do you justify that statement. You claim it, you prove it.

I don't see any cause to believe that there is any supernatural being that you call god. Much less that he is omnipotent, omsiescent, etc. Now what so ever.You claim it, you show it. I agree with that. You cannot form a testable statement about god that is falsifiable. If you do form one, it will be falsified.

Well, you did fool me. The point about omnipotent is that there is no such thing as anything that is or can be omnipotent. If anyone suspects so, then provide the evidence. First, show that it exists. Then show that it cannot be tested.And yes, it can be tested. All of Christianity (and other religions) believe in prayer. There has never been a successful test of prayer. Indeed, every prayer asking for anything is a test. They all fail.The claim that it cannot be tested due of omnipotent is useless until there can be something shown to be omnipotent. One might say it’s a circular. If so, the claimant must overcome that hurdle. Not the challenger. Its not our problem, it is theirs.Why are we debating? The point of this thread is to present a false position and ask how we can deal with it.

I don’t understand what you are saying with the statement about being that way intentionally. Are you saying that god made it that way intentionally? I did not intend to say that the lack of proof is evidence that he does not exist. I did mean to say that supporters do not have any evidence. So why believe? It is up to the believers to offer the evidence.If you still perceive that false dichotomy, how would you reword my statement?

Yes it is indeed. The fact that science cannot answer all questions is a red herring. It does not matter one iota that science cannot answer all questions. Just because we may not know the right question, or how to phrase it, does not protect it from science.Imagine someone that does not know anything about electronics, computers or any of our modern gadgets. They would have an extremely difficult time posing valid questions about how computers work. That would not mean that computers are not subject to scientific questions. Just that the questioner does not have the knowledge to ask the proper question. (Please don’t quibble over the exact analogy. Stay with the concept.) For example, [and this is just an example, lets not key off on this in this thread] I want to find a way to express our arguments such that the religious sections in congress and state legislatures cannot weasel around the words and pass laws restricting abortion on the concept human life is sacred and a just conceived zygote is a human life. [There are many variations but they boil down to the same results.] The objections to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy [no debates on how early, just some point] are religious in nature. Many deny that is the case, but I believe the denials are outright false. Keep asking “Why?” until you find the core belief. That is easy, I want to see religion taken out of our laws as specified in the constitution. Fascist is not the correct word here. Totalitarian government is. And what is religion if not totalitarian? Christianity has a LONG and SORDID history of torturing and murdering people in the name of their god. When religious people want to create laws to make me live by their beliefs, your damned right I do! And not only do I believe that is justified, I believe that is morally and ethically right. The question is not where do I get the right, the question is where do they get the right to make the law. I don’t want to forcibly intrude on theirs live, they want to intrude on mine. And I want to protect my rights. Lets keep the sides straight.Before posting a rant, note that I have said (or implied) earlier that I recognize that we just cannot rant and rave and get things to change. My brashness just does not work. I recognize that. But that doesn’t mean roll over and accept what they cram down our throats. So what can we find that will work?And there I go violating my own desire to keep posts simple. I'll try to do better next time.

To some degree we can indeed disprove it. What are the characteristics of god?He loves us.[Lets not quibble about love, we know what it means. In particular, we know what it means when we tell young children that god and jesus love you. That is not a point of debate for this thread.]Question: What is your evidence of his love? He created us in a world with far more pain that joy. We murder each other in his name. He does absolutely nothing to stop that behavior. Passages in the bible are downright nasty encouraging armies to kill every living thing including women, children, pigs, goats, etc. Another point, Why did he make this world such that all animals must kill other living things to live? (Plants do want to live.) Given the claimed attributes of god, it is inescapable that this was his desire.So where is the love? This is a characteristic that is claimed and in the sense that we understand love, is provably false.

I don't think I have taken that attitude at all. My position is that the religious zealots have no right to force me to live under religious laws that they create. I want to stop them from doing that. I want to stop them from controlling me. I have said nothing about forcing them to live acording to my beliefs. Just stop forcing me to live by theirs. I think there is a huge difference here. Please reconsider. Do you think I am being dishonest with myself on this point?