Religions favourite argument

[groves200]

Along with many of their arguments and what they believe is proof, my all time favorite is how they look for gaps in science and think AH SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN X IT HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS!

Another one I like is "science can't prove there's no god" this obviously works both ways, but the big difference is that science attempts to provide solid proof whereas religion relies solely on faith and very little proof.

What's your favorite argument?

 

[savagewind]

Along with many of their arguments and what they believe is proof, my all time favorite is how they look for gaps in science and think AH SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN X IT HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS!

Another one I like is "science can't prove there's no god" this obviously works both ways, but the big difference is that science attempts to provide solid proof whereas religion relies solely on faith and very little proof.

What's your favorite argument?

Something is much more likely than nothing. So someone is much more likely than no one.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Along with many of their arguments and what they believe is proof, my all time favorite is how they look for gaps in science and think AH SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN X IT HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS!

Another one I like is "science can't prove there's no god" this obviously works both ways, but the big difference is that science attempts to provide solid proof whereas religion relies solely on faith and very little proof.

What's your favorite argument?

You, as a person who believes logic should be the king, should know that whatever your philosophical affiliation might be, as long as it is valid it is possible to be the reality.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on all.
The Source is same: There has to be harmony between true religion and true science.

"Any divide between revelation and rationality, religion and logic has to be irrational. If religion and rationality cannot proceed hand in hand, there has to be something deeply wrong with either of the two."
Source:https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html

 

[viole]

Along with many of their arguments and what they believe is proof, my all time favorite is how they look for gaps in science and think AH SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN X IT HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS!

Another one I like is "science can't prove there's no god" this obviously works both ways, but the big difference is that science attempts to provide solid proof whereas religion relies solely on faith and very little proof.

What's your favorite argument?

If I were one of my ancestors I would say that lighnings are clear evidence of Thor.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Along with many of their arguments and what they believe is proof, my all time favorite is how they look for gaps in science and think AH SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN X IT HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS!

Odd. It is quite rare that I see such an argument presented by "religious people," and I can't say I have ever seen it presented in that particular fashion. I do see this strawperson touted about by the anti-religious, though.

Another one I like is "science can't prove there's no god" this obviously works both ways, but the big difference is that science attempts to provide solid proof whereas religion relies solely on faith and very little proof.

It's a common misconception that religions rely solely on faith, or that religions are primarily a matter of belief. While this misconception is understandable - the religions most Westerners are familiar with like to tout themselves as being faith-based or belief-based - even these self-declared faith-based religions are grounded in things like community or social functions as well as practices or rituals. Religions also encompass a far broader domain of affairs than matters that can be relegated to notions of "proof" (whatever standard one wishes to arbitrarily apply for that beast). Furthermore, depending on what god-concept we're looking at, it is entirely possible to study and evidence the gods with the sciences. What the sciences can't do is confirm or deny the process of deification, as deification is a value judgement made by individuals and cultures.

What's your favorite argument?

Probably not the sort of senseless, religion-bashing rubbish you're looking for.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

If I were one of my ancestors I would say that lighnings are clear evidence of Thor.

Ciao

- viole

Why dont you believe that lightning arent caused by Thor anymore?

 

[viole]

Why dont you believe that lightning arent caused by Thor anymore?

What do you mean with "anymore"? i never believed that Thor generates lighnings.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

What do you mean with "anymore"? i never believed that Thor generates lighnings.

Ciao

- viole

But you would believe it if you were born before naturalism was conceived of?

 

[viole]

But you would believe it if you were born before naturalism was conceived of?

Probably. If I believed in Jesus when I was younger, i would have probably believed in Thor as well.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Probably. If I believed in Jesus when I was younger, i would have probably believed in Thor as well.

Ciao

- viole

Now thats strange. If you were to believe in Jesus you would never accept Thor since Thor or any other pagan deity is considered to be 'nothing', as Paul says, in the eyes of a follower of the Christian faith. But i kinda get the drive youre giiving. Yeah anything could be possible, right? But these ideas arent as nonsensical as you might think. they all are as valid as believing that nothing is causing lightning.

 

[viole]

Now thats strange. If you were to believe in Jesus you would never accept Thor since Thor or any other pagan deity is considered to be 'nothing', as Paul says, in the eyes of a follower of the Christian faith. But i kinda get the drive youre giiving. Yeah anything could be possible, right? But these ideas arent as nonsensical as you might think. they all are as valid as believing that nothing is causing lightning.

i am not saying that they are nonsensical. Where did you get that?

Many things make sense. Santa bringing presents before Christmas made a lot of sense. When I was five.

And probably Thor creating lighnings made sense, when humanity was five.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

i am not saying that they are nonsensical. Where did you get that?

Many things make sense. Santa bringing presents before Christmas made a lot of sense. When I was five.

And probably Thor creating lighnings made sense.,when humanity was five.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah but santa cant do it (logically) because hes not allpowerful. This is what its all about.

 

[viole]

Yeah but santa cant do it (logically) because hes not allpowerful. This is what its all about.

How do you know he is not all powerful?

Or that he does not have enough power to perform those stunts?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

How do you know he is not all powerful?

Or that he does not have enough power to perform those stunts?

Ciao

- viole

because the original santa is based on st.nicholas of turkey and that guy definately wasnt allpowerful. and if he was allpowerful he would have better business than giving presents to people.

 

[viole]

because the original santa is based on st.nicholas of turkey and that guy definately wasnt allpowerful. and if he was allpowerful he would have better business than giving presents to people.

Do you think that the attributes of power possessed by a certain entity is reliably assessed by what humans knew about him?

I think you are making a baseless assumption by thinking what santa should or should not do. He works in mysterious ways. And our intellect is simply to limited to completely comprehend him.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Along with many of their arguments and what they believe is proof, my all time favorite is how they look for gaps in science and think AH SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN X IT HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS!

Another one I like is "science can't prove there's no god" this obviously works both ways, but the big difference is that science attempts to provide solid proof whereas religion relies solely on faith and very little proof.

What's your favorite argument?

There are enough dumb theist and atheist arguments to go around in my view.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Do you think that the attributes of power possessed by a certain entity is reliably assessed by what humans knew about him?

I think you are making a baseless assumption by thinking what santa should or should not do. He works in mysterious ways. And our intellect is simply to limited to completely comprehend him.

Ciao

- viole

So are you saying that anything is possible once we give ONE individual the attribute of omnipotence?

 

[viole]

So are you saying that anything is possible once we give ONE individual the attribute of omnipotence?

Nope. i am saying that it is possible to deliver presents to all children in the world, once we give one individual the powers to do exacly that.

You do not need omnipotence to do Santa work. Maybe he can deliver presents all over the world, but he cannot shave. Who knows?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Nope. i am saying that it is possible to deliver presents to all children in the world, once we give one individual the powers to do exacly that.

You do not need omnipotence to do Santa work. Maybe he can deliver presents all over the world, but he cannot shave. Who knows?

Ciao

- viole

Yeah i get that. But one has to distinguish between the wishes of people and actual reality. people might wish for rain and the weather god wont send any rain. does that mean the weather god doesnt exist? nope. people might conceive of a present-bringer as a wish but does that mean that a present-bringer actually exists? no.