Is being wrong proof?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2014, 12:41 AM
Is being wrong proof?
The skill of finding holes in religion is pretty easy to learn. Religion is not logical. Much of it is not historically correct. And even within a single religion one can find plenty of contradictory statements and claims. And that is without even looking at the contradictory claims of differing religions as they compete with each other. But, is proving religion wrong sufficient proof to say that god does not exist?

I realize that some of you may argue that religion is the only place that one can learn about god, but that is not exactly true. Sure, religions are like McDonalds. They are there on a daily basis trying to push their particular brand of what's good for you down your throat. But there are ways to understand mysticism other than through religion.

In order to say that god does not exist because religion is wrong, you have to concede that religion has described god correctly, but that the thing described has no real existence. Are you really prepared to say that the religious description is correct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 01:36 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 12:41 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  The skill of finding holes in religion is pretty easy to learn. Religion is not logical. Much of it is not historically correct. And even within a single religion one can find plenty of contradictory statements and claims. And that is without even looking at the contradictory claims of differing religions as they compete with each other. But, is proving religion wrong sufficient proof to say that god does not exist?

I realize that some of you may argue that religion is the only place that one can learn about god, but that is not exactly true. Sure, religions are like McDonalds. They are there on a daily basis trying to push their particular brand of what's good for you down your throat. But there are ways to understand mysticism other than through religion.

In order to say that god does not exist because religion is wrong, you have to concede that religion has described god correctly, but that the thing described has no real existence. Are you really prepared to say that the religious description is correct?

Not exactly. Firstly, atheism is a lack of belief in god. It doesn't necessarily mean one believes for a fact there isn't one. Second, because one believes religion is wrong through their acts of cutting off foreskins, oppressing woman's rights, and committing suicide bombs on people who don't believe in their religion, and so on, isn't enough to disprove a god. It's a jump in logic. There is, however, a lack of evidence to support any of the religious claims of a God, which is why some take the null hypothesis to their claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
06-12-2014, 01:41 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
So what you are saying Point, is that god may exist but is not capable of communicating its message effectively... or doesn't care to communicate its message effectively? Could you describe your god hypothesis in more detail?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 01:50 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
Relgion has not provided sufficient evidence to convince me of the existence of any god. Therefore, I reject their claims.
As far as learning about god, there are plenty of sources other than religion.
Atheism for one, is an excellent way to learn about gods. Especially the stuff the church doesn't like to talk about. In fact, religion is probably one of the worst places to look if you want to learn about god. They're heavily biased, and have much to lose if you don't buy into it.
Proving religion wrong is simply pointing out the gaping flaws in it's books, scrolls, dogma, indoctrination, silly rituals etc. that believers like to hold up as proof of god. Plus it can be loads of fun.
The thing that you, and countless other religious types don't understand, is that religion is not what atheism is about.
It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. Just like you do with every other god except yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
06-12-2014, 02:38 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
Is being wrong proof god does not exist? No. But it throws out that particular claim of such an entity. Given you can find holes in every religion, we discard all religions and religious descriptions of god.
Then we get back to basics. Since we no longer have any description or account of a 'god' (whatever that is), we would need to start the search for such an entity from scratch. Which then leads to the first question: why are you looking? To try and find something, we need an observation that leads to wondering "how does that work". Watching things fall lead to theories of gravity, watching things heat up lead to theories of thermodynamics. So what is the observation that leads to a search for god? The only one we have right now is 'the universe exists and we don't know why'. Except nothing in that observation in any way implies anything that would constitute a 'god' by any even half-way sensible definition (which has to include intelligence at least, and likely intent). What we are looking for is 'why does the universe exist', and without the baggage of religions dragging you down there's no reason at all to even posit a 'god' as a solution to the problem, not when things like volcanoes and earthquakes have been explained as unthinking. This leaves us with the very unsatisfying answer of 'we don't know', and stops there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like OddGamer's post
06-12-2014, 03:26 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 02:38 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  Is being wrong proof god does not exist? No. But it throws out that particular claim of such an entity. Given you can find holes in every religion, we discard all religions and religious descriptions of god.
Then we get back to basics. Since we no longer have any description or account of a 'god' (whatever that is), we would need to start the search for such an entity from scratch. Which then leads to the first question: why are you looking? To try and find something, we need an observation that leads to wondering "how does that work". Watching things fall lead to theories of gravity, watching things heat up lead to theories of thermodynamics. So what is the observation that leads to a search for god? The only one we have right now is 'the universe exists and we don't know why'. Except nothing in that observation in any way implies anything that would constitute a 'god' by any even half-way sensible definition (which has to include intelligence at least, and likely intent). What we are looking for is 'why does the universe exist', and without the baggage of religions dragging you down there's no reason at all to even posit a 'god' as a solution to the problem, not when things like volcanoes and earthquakes have been explained as unthinking. This leaves us with the very unsatisfying answer of 'we don't know', and stops there.

Exactly.

Plus, a lot of searches for answers are not that rational.

For instance, after 30 years of sharing our lives, my husband died. Without my searching for him at all, he continued to have a strong presence. So, he was dead and gone, yet I could FEEL him here. If I was so inclined, I could have believed that his spirit was watching over me. It would have been an easy explanation, since I could actually feel him here.

Of course, the real reason is that my brain had been conditioned for decades to expect him to be here, and every situation that would normally involve interaction with him, or that had a significant memory attached to it, would conjure him up.

A lot of "spiritual" experiences are based on normal brain functions. And, again we are in a territory where we simply don't know everything - yet. So if you think there is "something", because you can perceive "something", it doesn't really mean it is so. It means your brain has some cause to perceive something. Your brain can be wrong. Input can be wrong (items can be missed or misinterpreted) and interpretation of input can be wrong.

It is entirely conceivable that you "feel" the supernatural. That doesn't mean it is actually there. It means your brain is filling gaps in knowledge - and you have the god of the gaps again. Or mysticism. The word mysticism itself implies that something is a mystery, something for which you don't know an answer.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
06-12-2014, 03:34 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
Define (a) god then we can discuss whether it exists.

Religions provide some nebulous descriptions and when you look at those descriptions closely you find that they are logically inconsistent. Someone else may provide their own versions even if they are part of a religion of one. The same process can be applied.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
06-12-2014, 04:01 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
Proving that religion is wrong is the very definition of proving that god does not exist.

We have already proven all religions on the planet to be wrong. Not one single one of them have evidence of their claims and are contrary to reality and are not based on anything that could even remotely possibly ever happen. Therefor, god does not exist - At least the gods presented to us, and yes, that includes any possibly definition of the Christian god or any other possible definition of a personal god most of all.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 05:31 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2014 05:35 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 12:41 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  In order to say that god does not exist because religion is wrong, you have to concede that religion has described god correctly, but that the thing described has no real existence. Are you really prepared to say that the religious description is correct?

It's doesn't actually exists until there is evidence to support it's existence. Null Hypothesis 101. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 05:42 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
If I make the claim that my house is on fire and I call the fire department to come put out the flames, but when they arrive, they can find no evidence that my house is engulfed in flame and burning to the ground.

Does that lack of evidence prove my house isn't on fire ?

Yes, yes it does.

Religions make a claim. Without any evidence to back up that claim, it becomes empty.
I can make the claim that I ate all the gods for breakfast. There is no evidence if this, but by your standard, does that mean that I really didn't ?

Just because I can't prove that I can run and jump over the grand canyon, does that prove that I can't ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: