Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[IndigoChild5559]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form.
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.
3. There is no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain.
4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.
5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.
6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.
8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.
9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

You are way mistaken if you think a person can't be religious and still believe in your set of points.

 

[Watchmen]

You are way mistaken if you think a person can't be religious and still believe in your set of points.

My radical assumption is that the OP is directed at the religious who do NOT believe in the points.

 

[firedragon]

Primarily, yes, the OP presents facts that will especially bother Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

The OP presents no facts. They are assertions. Unsubstantiated and mostly against science. And some of the historical claims are shallow.

None of them are facts. To consider them facts, the poster is being ignorant of science and other historical inquiry.

 

[exchemist]

In that case "mainstream Christianity" accepts that there is no life after death, no creator-God, no miraculous healings, and no Bible they can depend upon for truth. It may be just a bizarre coincidence, but almost all the Christians I know deny almost everything on my list.

By the way, I need to start a thread about that sophisticated Christianity that accepts evolution I keep hearing about but that I never see. I'm hoping that somebody can tell me where to find it.

Where do these assertions feature in your original list?

 

[Sheldon]

Why not? Past life memories are evidence for consciousness surviving brain death.

Are they? Nothing on any news channel.

Calling them past life memories is a begging the question fallacy here if ever there was one.

I realise people are eager to leap to conclusions, especially where they perceive those assumption support beliefs they are emotionally invested in, but the hyperbole of implying these conclusions are supported by peer reviewed scientific evidence is simply untrue.

 

[Sheldon]

I have been cured by blessing for third nerve palsy (double vision) more than once. I had to believe in Jesus Christ.

Is there peer reviewed scientific evidence to support this cure? Also how are you going from correlation here, to causation? This might be nothing than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, it certainly is just an unevidenced anecdotal claim, the way you present it here. No offence intended, but what you believe happened, and what you can support by demonstrating sufficient objective evidence, are not the same thing at all.

Bear in mind that not being able to explain something, is not objective evidence there is no natural explanation, this is how miracles are defined unfortunately, and this is another fallacy in informal logic called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Sheldon]

Taking religion figuratively doesn't help much. Doing so is just a way of covering up all the errors that are way too obvious if the religion is taken literally. At least conservative religion is more logically consistent than liberal religion not to say more honest.

I agree, but this is especially true where the claims or narratives are asserted as having omniscient origins. When a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message and limitless power to communicate it, does little better than humans of that era could have done, there is a rational inference that's pretty hard to avoid. When the narrative is demonstrably wrong, even more so.

 

[Sheldon]

Theory needs it's only theory of evolution as theories in general are constantly being re-theorized.

Oh dear god, you do know that a scientific theory is wildly different to a theory in common parlance right? This level of bombast from simple ignorance of a most basic fact about science never fails to amaze me.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."

Anyone who doesn't know that much, and is too biased to bother finding out, should never comment publicly on science and its methods.

100 years from now how old will the universe be? How old with the earth be? You don't know the future, so don't go there. To invalidate that which you refuse to understand is arrogance.

I'm guessing the irony of that assertion is lost on you.

Atheists must prove they are right at all costs. Nothing else seems to matter to them. They are not unlike school yard bullies attempting to impose their will on everyone else.

This is public debate forum, if your beliefs are too fragile for critical scrutiny, then participation is not mandatory. The site has many more forums for religious discussion where you can voice them in an echo chamber. Though it's worth pointing out that unlike theists, atheists generally don't care what anyone else believes, just what those beliefs may prompt some believers to do.

Oh, I'm a scientist! Big deal. Anyone can become a scientist & anyone can get a doctorate.

What a spectacularly stupid claim.

It doesn't mean they have any common sense. They live in a bubble, their own universe

Again the irony is palpable, I'm starting to think I've fallen for craftily penned sarcastic wheeze.

the thing about theories is they leave out empirical proof. Oh; Well theories prove other theories, or themselves.

Science doesn't prove things, it evidences them, and it only deals in empirical evidence, and an established scientific theory is the pinnacle of scientific thought.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."

 

[Sheldon]

As for Genesis, I think that book is so obviously intended as allegory, it’s difficult to imagine that anyone would ever have taken it literally.

Even though some still do? You know that over 45% of adult Americans deny species evolution, there are some in this thread. Don't get me wrong I find it hard to imagine as well, but many certainly do. Do we imagine that number was higher or lower, as we go back in time through the history of those religions?

 

[Sheldon]

Because I know of well documented miraculous cures.

I don't believe your bare unevidenced claim sorry. Harry Potter is well documented, that doesn't make it true.

Everybody should understand to expect the natural workings of karma.

There are few ideas more repugnant than this myth. The idea that people who are suffering have somehow brought it on themselves in any way is appalling to me. Luckily it's completely unevidenced hokum.

Medical care is always the correct course.

On this we can agree,

 

[danieldemol]

Daniel. Where is the scientific proof for the existence of anything beyond the physical sciences? While you believe in extra physical "something", in what world are you asking others for scientific evidences for their beliefs?

That is the definition of hypocrisy. Unless you could provide scientific evidence for your beliefs that you believe without any evidence.

I'm not asking for evidence, I'm asserting there is no scientific proof of reincarnation.

And I have no problem with people believing things without evidence to the extent they don't harm others, but it is simply untrue to claim there is proof when there is not.

I do not claim my extra-physical beliefs are scientifically proven so there is no hypocrisy on my part.

In my opinion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Even though some still do? You know that over 45% of adult Americans deny species evolution, there are some in this thread. Don't get me wrong I find it hard to imagine as well, but many certainly do. Do we imagine that number was higher or lower, as we go back in time through the history of those religions?

That 45% sounds high, even for America, strange place though it is. I doubt there’s anywhere else in the world where evolution is disputed, including those countries where religious practice is the norm.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not asking for evidence, I'm asserting there is no scientific proof of reincarnation.

And I have no problem with people believing things without evidence to the extent they don't harm others, but it is simply untrue to claim there is proof when there is not.

I do not claim my extra-physical beliefs are scientifically proven so there is no hypocrisy on my part.

In my opinion.

The hypocrisy is Daniel when someone believes things with no evidence, but expects others to provide evidence for their believes with out even declaring their own epistemic stand points or questioning other peoples epistemic stand points.

That is the definition of hypocrisy.

Nevermind. Keep at it.

Cheers.

 

[danieldemol]

The hypocrisy is Daniel when someone believes things with no evidence, but expects others to provide evidence for their believes with out even declaring their own epistemic stand points or questioning other peoples epistemic stand points.

That is the definition of hypocrisy.

Nevermind. Keep at it.

Cheers.

Its not hypocrisy to expect someone who wants skeptics to believe to provide suitable evidence to those skeptics.

As for me I dont want skeptics to share my evidence free beliefs, as a matter of fact I'm quite indifferent to their rejection of my belief.

So there is no hypocrisy, because if I wanted a skeptic to accept my belief I would expect them to demand evidence of me prior to acceptance.

In my opinion

 

[firedragon]

Its not hypocrisy to expect someone who wants skeptics to believe to provide suitable evidence to those skeptics.

Yes. That I agree with.

As for me I dont want skeptics to share my evidence free beliefs, as a matter of fact I'm quite indifferent to their rejection of my belief.

Thats irrelevant. Just because you are indifferent to other peoples rejection or what ever you may come across, that does not mean the other people who get affected have to be different than you. In that case, you are not in a position to demand anything from others. Unless you are seeking an opportunity to do so and that makes you feel good. Its a hypocritical position.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes. That I agree with.



Thats irrelevant. Just because you are indifferent to other peoples rejection or what ever you may come across, that does not mean the other people who get affected have to be different than you. In that case, you are not in a position to demand anything from others. Unless you are seeking an opportunity to do so and that makes you feel good. Its a hypocritical position.

I'm sorry but word salad does not justify your claim of hypocrisy.

From Oxford languages definition of hypocrisy;
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.

I dont claim to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than those who believe without evidence to the extent they do no harm, and since the standard i hold myself to convince skeptics is that I must provide evidence im not holding the bar higher for others to ask them to do the same.

Its ok to admit when you are flat out wrong, it is part of being human to err you know.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I'm sorry but word salad does not justify your claim of hypocrisy.

How do you eat a word salad? Whats the recipe?

Please do look up in the dictionary, the definition of hypocrisy.

Have at it.

 

[KWED]

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 are what we've learned through science. As a believer, I have no issue with those.

3. It is unscientific to say "impossible". Out-of-body experiences: Neuroscience or the paranormal?

7. At least is correct: Paleolithic religion - Wikipedia but so what.

9. Many, I say most, are indeed frauds. And I've seen no studies trying to separate the placebo effect's contributions. But it depends on what kind of healing we're talking about. For example: Deep faith beneficial to health | Stanford News

3 doesn't say "impossible". It says "no evidence for". So the statement is correct.

So given that you agree with all the points, what leads you to believe that there is not only a interventionist supernatural force in the universe, but also that it corresponds the the version of "god" you believe in ?

 

[KWED]

Please, most religious types have already moved past the literalist reading of Genesis, sheesh.

And I believe miraculous healings have occurred.

Is there any part of any holy scripture that should be read literally?

 

[PureX]

Here's another fact. Cosmologists estimate that our current knowledge of the cosmos stands at about 13%. Leaving 87% currently unknown to us. That percentage is so high that what we think we know, now, could easily be completely overturned as we come to know more (if we come to know more).

Here's another fact for you. We currently have no idea where or how life began, or how common it is in the universe. We have some theories, but they conflict, and are completely unproven.

And also this; most of existence is apparently comprised of "dark matter/energy" and we have no idea at all what they are. We don't even know they exist except that we think they must exist, mathmetically, to account for what we think we do know about the universe (that whopping 13%).