PROVE ME WRONG... All religions are fake.

[Jim]

This looks dishonest to me now, baiting people into a discussion with you, on false pretenses:

I want to learn new things, that is what I meant by convince me, so that the person involved will try their best to make me learn new things. I was a christian once, then I stopped believing, then back to christian and now stopped believing again, so who knows, they might actually convince me.

 

[Jim]

Insert arguments below
Name your religion and convince me that it is true

To all those saying why? Because this is a forum for religious debates, and I for one like controversial debates such as these. I can learn new stuff and maybe others can learn from me aswell, I love these hot topics and I am sorry if it annoys you, if you want you can not read at all.

I did not say I did not want to learn anything. The point of this topic is because I like discussing controversial topics and I want to learn new things, that is what I meant by convince me, so that the person involved will try their best to make me learn new things. I was a christian once, then I stopped believing, then back to christian and now stopped believing again, so who knows, they might actually convince me.

I don't think now that you are trying to learn anything in this discussion. It looks to me like you are committed to not learning anything in this discussion. That leaves the possibility of other people learning something from it. Can you think of any examples of what other people might learn from this discussion, that might benefit them, or the world around them?

As I understand it now, what you're challenging people to do is to try to convince you that the god in some religion is the god that you believe in, which you are defining in a way that makes all religions fake by definition. Can you think of any examples of what other people might learn from that exercise in futility, that might benefit them, or the world around them?

ETA:

Have you considered the possibility that if there really is a creator of life, it might not do everything the way you would like it to?

 

[shunyadragon]

You seem to just keep ignoring me. Have a good day.

I am not ignoring you . . .

. . . just waiting for the objective verifiable evidence, which you are avoiding the most important weakness in your case.

 

[Jim]

Name your religion and convince me that it is true

Here's how it looks to me now:

One of your premises from the very start is that the god that you believe in would not create any religion, or use any religion in any way that would benefit us. That premise is not open to question in your mind. You're challenging people to try to convince you that the god of some religion is the god that you believe in, without you ever questioning any premise of yours that makes that impossible. Am I misunderstanding you?

However that may be, can you think of any examples of how anyone besides you might possibly benefit from people discussing this with you?

ETA:

What if someone who didn't already know that all religions are fake, learns from this discussion that they are. How do you think that might benefit them, or the world around them?

 

[Jim]

Insert arguments below
Name your religion and convince me that it is true

I’ve thought about this some more, and what I think now is that your only interest in this thread is to promote your view that all religions are fake, whatever that means to you, which is still not clear to me. If you mean that all their claims to be the one true religion of God are false, I agree with that.

 

[Jumi]

My intention of this topic is to discuss with religions which worship the creator like Christianity and Islam. I thought that was the only definition of a religion anyway, learning new things everyday.

Yes, they are quite a special case among religions in many ways. For example it's perfectly fine to be atheist and say Hindu or Buddhist (taking example of active members of this forum) ...

But to your previous point, it should not take me long to find something silly in a book written by uneducated men thousands of years ago about magic and how the world was made.

So your criticism is more about literal interpretations creation myths than religions you don't know about, since you assume they all must have this kind of focus.

 

[Jim]

For me a true religion is a religion that has a true god which created life.The point of this topic was to discuss the creator of life rather than the fruit of life.

I'll try again. The one true religion of the true creator of life is people learning to love, trust and follow Him, in the ways that He has provided for us within His creation. One way for you to be convinced of that might be to open your mind and heart to it, and try it. If you really honestly thought you might learn something from this discussion, then consider the possibility that what I'm telling you might be something good for you to learn about.

Now I'll respond to some questions you asked me.

Why not live a more fruitful and beneficial life without religion? Why do you need religion? Is it because it makes you scared when you do a bad thing because then you think you will go to hell? Is it because it makes you want to do good things only for the purpose to having a perfect and eternal afterlife? Perhaps religion has been beneficial for interactions between local people throughout the years. But how many wars did religion cause? Uncountable probably. Why do you not want to live a fruitful and beneficial life just because you want to, just because you want to be a good person?

Living a fruitful and beneficial life just because you want to, is part of the one true religion that I'm trying to tell you about, the religion of learning to know, love and follow the one true creator of life, in the ways that He has provided within His creation. The reason we need that religion is because He created us with that need, just like He created us with a need for food, water and air. You don't practice that religion for any reward, or to avoid any punishment. You do it because you want to, because He put that desire into you. I won't say that religion has never caused any wars. I'm not sure it has. I'm not sure it hasn't. If it has, that doesn't prove that it is not the one true religion of the one true creator of life.

 

[Sir Doom]

Re: religion and war

I know this is a side topic, so feel free to ignore this, but I feel clarity is often lacking on this issue.

It is popular to say religion is not only a significant cause of war throughout time but, that it is in fact the top of the ideological food chain in this regard. As it supports a negative view of religion, this erroneous 'statistic' often adopted and propagated at face value by those who already have a negative view of religion. In other words, it is confirmation bias.

The truth is that the unifying ideology of warfare is simply greed. Religion, along with every other ideology that has ever been used to justify widespread murder, follows from that.

The only other reason to go to war is to defend against greed, which is only natural.

In other words, we justify killing each other for two reasons: to take or to keep. Everything after that is deception and is therefore not the reason or cause at all.

It should be said that in recent times the best way to convince the public to go and kill some people is to make them think they are defending themselves.

Religion in this regard is just another card in the illusionist's deck.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I am not ignoring you . . .

. . . just waiting for the objective verifiable evidence, which you are avoiding the most important weakness in your case.

And I am telling you, the undeniable proof is in "Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers by Rael," free and anonymous at www.rael.org . UFOs appearing in the sky is also proof for some.

And I am also telling you, to disprove it simply find two scriptures in two religions that contradict, or find a verse that can be proven false beyond the shadow of a doubt.\

As someone who knows a lot of lawyers it seems I am laying out my case. The balls in your court.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I am telling you, the undeniable proof is in "Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers by Rael," free and anonymous at www.rael.org . UFOs appearing in the sky is also proof for some.

And I am also telling you, to disprove it simply find two scriptures in two religions that contradict, or find a verse that can be proven false beyond the shadow of a doubt.\

As someone who knows a lot of lawyers it seems I am laying out my case. The balls in your court.

Even in a court of law you cannot prove the negative, nor in logical arguments. A case in law cannot supported only by hypothetical subjective evidence.

Still waiting for objective verifiable evidence to support your case, and you have offered nothing.

 

[Sir Doom]

Even in a court of law you cannot prove the negative, nor in logical arguments. A case in law cannot supported only by hypothetical subjective evidence.

Still waiting for objective verifiable evidence to support your case, and you have offered nothing.

Shunyadragon, you should really consider abandoning all notions of rhetoric. You consistently misrepresent reality with such statements.

Of course you can prove a negative. If I say, "I was not at the scene of the crime when the murder occurred." Then by demonstrating the fact that I was in the bar or at home or at a baseball game proves that I was NOT at the scene of the crime. That's a negative that is proven constantly. Usually waaaaaay before trial happens because no DA with half a brain cell would press charges against someone with such an alibi, but we are speaking hypothetically.

The notion that one 'cannot prove a negative' is a misunderstanding of the fact that one cannot disprove the existence of an object that defies objective description, such as God. Disproving the existence of unknown quantities is impossible. As long as anything remains unknown then God can sneak its way into it. That's not the same as saying negatives simply can't be proven. That's just ridiculous. Experiments are designed to eliminate erroneous causes all the time throughout science. Which means science proves negatives all the time as well.

So what's left? Oh right... logic.

What was the law of contradiction again? Oh, right that A=A and A =/= (not A)

So... you know... again... proving negatives is rudimentary, expected and fundamental to logic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon, you should really consider abandoning all notions of rhetoric. You consistently misrepresent reality with such statements.

Of course you can prove a negative. If I say, "I was not at the scene of the crime when the murder occurred." Then by demonstrating the fact that I was in the bar or at home or at a baseball game proves that I was NOT at the scene of the crime. That's a negative that is proven constantly. Usually waaaaaay before trial happens because no DA with half a brain cell would press charges against someone with such an alibi, but we are speaking hypothetically.

The notion that one 'cannot prove a negative' is a misunderstanding of the fact that one cannot disprove the existence of an object that defies objective description, such as God. Disproving the existence of unknown quantities is impossible. As long as anything remains unknown then God can sneak its way into it. That's not the same as saying negatives simply can't be proven. That's just ridiculous. Experiments are designed to eliminate erroneous causes all the time throughout science. Which means science proves negatives all the time as well.

So what's left? Oh right... logic.

What was the law of contradiction again? Oh, right that A=A and A =/= (not A)

So... you know... again... proving negatives is rudimentary, expected and fundamental to logic.

Does not address my response to the thread. Your weaseling my use of the problem of proving the negative.

 

[Sir Doom]

Does not address my response to the thread. Your weaseling my use of the problem of proving the negative.

Your response is to Robocop. He offers his evidence and you ignore it and focus on his lawyer analogy making a grand (and false) statement of logic and law in Bold underlined italics and somehow I'm meant to feel ashamed for not staying out of it when I notice? Get real.

Here is the 'addressation' of your response to Robocop implied by my 'weaseling' of your completely false statement of made up logical limitations:

You have asked repeatedly for 'objective, verifiable evidence'. I do not dispute that you have every right to expect this and ask for it in debate. Good so far.

Robocop offered both the Bible and this "Creationism-is-science Book" to satisfy that request. Your response has been very obviously to dismiss the Bible as 'not objective or verifiable'. Which is a negative. You completely ignored the other book.

Robocop offered again the "Creationism Book" and then went so far as to detail all it would take to 'disprove' him.

You ignore it again, and instead of simply demonstrating by his own rules how he is wrong, you state some erroneous logical law as if it somehow excuses you from even responding with anything more than arbitrary dismissal.

Now, you do of course realize that you have in essence shot yourself in the foot by making your own statement: the Bible is "not objective or verifiable" unproven and illogical by your own erroneous rule that 'negatives can't be proven'. Of course, that in turn means you get to be wrong no matter which side of the lie you pretend to be on. It makes no difference to your point, of course. If you could actually make that point instead of simply assuming it, you wouldn't get in this situation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your response is to Robocop. He offers his evidence and you ignore it and focus on his lawyer analogy making a grand (and false) statement of logic and law in Bold underlined italics and somehow I'm meant to feel ashamed for not staying out of it when I notice? Get real.

@robocop (actually) offered a literal interpretation of the Bible as evidence. that is not evidence anywhere including a court of law,

 

[robocop (actually)]

Even in a court of law you cannot prove the negative, nor in logical arguments. A case in law cannot supported only by hypothetical subjective evidence.

Still waiting for objective verifiable evidence to support your case, and you have offered nothing.

Look. I cannot present the proof myself because the book is strictly copywritten. You will have to download "Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers by Rael" from www.rael.org , anonymous and free, and see the proof yourself.

The challenge to falsify religion was just icing on the cake, and I note gleefully that you have not done it.

 

[robocop (actually)]

@robocop (actually) offered a literal interpretation of the Bible as evidence. that is not evidence anywhere including a court of law,

No. It was a non-literal interpretation.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. It was a non-literal interpretation.

You previously did not state that it was an interpretation:

Again, my challenge:
Raelism claims to have incontestable proof from the Old Testament and other books that it is true. I have never seen an argument last against it.

Scripture with any interpretation does not represent objective verifiable evidence, and with so many different interpretations your positions is as weak as it possibly gets. An interpretation is not evidence.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Scripture with any interpretation does not represent objective verifiable evidence, and with so many different interpretations your positions is as weak as it possibly gets.

It's text that was written anciently and contains proof because it describes UFOs, Aliens and modern technology. Why don't you just read the book (the Intelligent Design book); you are welcome to it!

 

[robocop (actually)]

Scripture with any interpretation does not represent objective verifiable evidence, and with so many different interpretations your positions is as weak as it possibly gets.

Also, why is the Bible automatically such a weak source of information when it is the most read book of all time?

 

[Sir Doom]

@robocop (actually) offered a literal interpretation of the Bible as evidence. that is not evidence anywhere including a court of law,

And that's a negative. You have two options:

Concede that a negative CAN be proven, in which case you should prove the above.

Or:

Maintain that a negative CANNOT be proven in which case the above can't be proven and is therefore of little value.

I highly encourage you to do the first because its actually true. You CAN prove the above and it IS a negative, meaning you CAN prove a negative. Which means you can also comply with Robocop's request:

"to disprove it simply find two scriptures in two religions that contradict, or find a verse that can be proven false beyond the shadow of a doubt."

Since that is what you say cannot be done on account of negatives being unprovable.