the right religion

[1robin]

Argument from authority. Most, if not all, of those figures lived in a time when religion was so pervasive that to not be religious would be tantamount to social, political and professional suicide. It's simply not fair to claim that because a lot of influential and smart people throughout history were theists that theism is therefore intellectually valid, especially when you consider that throughout history people who have openly rejected religious claims that dominate their society have been persecuted, abused, exiled and dismissed by their societies at large. This also fails to take account of the fact that most of those peple lived in a time when understanding of the nature of the Universe and of life is nowhere near what we now understand. Most of those such people believed in God simply because there was no better explanation at the time. It just doesn't seem a coincidence to me that the more we discover about the Universe, the more and more people disbelieve the concept of God.

Is this logical fallacy week? If you will include the context you would realise I was not using authority as proof. I was using it as a counter to a claim that suggested something like science has ruled out faith. People appeal to these logical laws but they do not do so correctly. They mostly only apply when to address a claim to truth not a relative value claim. I disagree with you religion = ignarance claims but I am short on time. Even in modern times many top minds in science are theists. Collins and Wilder are examples.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is this logical fallacy week? If you will include the context you would realise I was not using authority as proof. I was using it as a counter to a claim that suggested something like science has ruled out faith.

Then why did you say "when some of the smartest people on the planet..."? If your point is that science hasn't ruled-out faith then how smart the people you're name-dropping are is completely irrelevant.

Not that your argument would have had any relevance to that point anyway, since whether or not scientists in the past have believed in God has no bearing whatsoever on whether science has "ruled out" faith since.

People appeal to these logical laws but they do not do so correctly. They mostly only apply when to address a claim to truth not a relative value claim. I disagree with you religion = ignarance claims but I am short on time. Even in modern times many top minds in science are theists. Collins and Wilder are examples.

I agree, but you cannot deny that the numbers are decreasing, and that, statistically, scientists are far less likely to be theistic than laymen are. Does this not indicate to you that, as our knowledge of the natural world increases, the need for a supernatural designer to explain nature is dwindling?

 

[1robin]

Then why did you say "when some of the smartest people on the planet..."? If your point is that science hasn't ruled-out faith then how smart the people you're name-dropping are is completely irrelevant.

The point was if science had overturned religion why are a good percentage of the greates scientist in history (including today) theists.

Not that your argument would have had any relevance to that point anyway, since whether or not scientists in the past have believed in God has no bearing whatsoever on whether science has "ruled out" faith since.

First science does not have the capacity to rule out God even if he doesn't exist, as philosophers say God's nonexistance can't ever be proven. Second My statements are very relevant unless you believe I meant them as proof. Third since science is based on faith to great extent it is no more reliable than religous claims. Fourth natural law does not have the ability to comment on suparnatural concepts.

I agree, but you cannot deny that the numbers are decreasing, and that, statistically, scientists are far less likely to be theistic than laymen are. Does this not indicate to you that, as our knowledge of the natural world increases, the need for a supernatural designer to explain nature is dwindling?

I have not heard that they are decreasing. In fact Christianity is growing quite well. I will for the heck of it assume you are correct. I have 190 sem hours in engineering. That does not make me smart but it does mean I have spent enough time in academia to know that it has the highest percentage of pride and arrogance of any group I can think of. Both these are impediments to faith. So the correlary if true is not relevant to the truth of Christianity. Men have made man's intellectualism a God and the bible says.
World English Bible
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge "--
1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,

 

[waitasec]

The point was if science had overturned religion why are a good percentage of the greates scientist in history (including today) theists.

that isn't entirely true. we are seeing a shift.
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1

Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

 

[1robin]

that isn't entirely true. we are seeing a shift.
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1

Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

My statement you posted was not countered but the point you should have countered was where I already said that might be the case and I even gave a very good reason why that has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of religion. Since secularism is growing in our modern hedonistic culture along with moral erosion exponentially increasing, not as a result of religion being known to be any less reliable but because politics is dictating it especially in this country. Also since science is become far more developed in eastern culture and is less dominated by the west then this also contributes.

 

[waitasec]

My statement you posted was not countered but the point you should have countered was where I already said that might be the case and I even gave a very good reason why that has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of religion.

or science for that matter, right?

Since secularism is growing in our modern hedonistic culture along with moral erosion exponentially increasing, not as a result of religion being known to be any less reliable but because politics is dictating it especially in this country.

what is so special about this country? the fact that "we" live in it?
the US is the most religious 1st world country and also facing the most challenges when it comes all sorts of social problems from murder to STD's and this isn't a coincidence. just compare obesity, divorce, murder, teenage pregnancies and STD rates in the bible belt to the rest of the country
for petes sake!!

Also since science is become far more developed in eastern culture and is less dominated by the west then this also contributes.

as a tool, right?

just like religion is a tool.
these are both methods used at the mercy of our hands

 

[JohnLeo]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

There is no one right religion. There is no one right path. All religions are man made. Their theologies, rituals, writings, etc. were all created by human minds. there are no "divinely inspired scriptures'' or texts. You might think of each religion as merely a different path up the mountainside. They all lead to the top. But the idea that one is superior to another, that there is one true religion and all the others are false is completely bogus. Not only is the idea bogus, it is dangerous because it leads to an us versus them mentality. We know the truth an all others are infidels. This kind of thinking has led to more violence and bloodshed throughout history than just about anything else. If you believe in a hereafter and want to get to a good place, living by the golden rule is sufficient. Church attendance is not required, nor is prayer, fasting or adherence to any creed.

 

[1robin]

or science for that matter, right?

That particular statement had no meaningful comment on science it's self i do not think. However I could comment on it in detail if it applies.

what is so special about this country? the fact that "we" live in it?

Well your statistics only covered this country so ask yourself this question. Besides this country is extremely remarkable even though that is fading away currently. The relevant issue was that this country is turning away from it's once strong religous foundation at an ever ioncreasing rate. That is relevant because your statistics applied to this country.

the US is the most religious 1st world country and also facing the most challenges when it comes all sorts of social problems from murder to STD's and this isn't a coincidence. just compare obesity, divorce, murder, teenage pregnancies and STD rates in the bible belt to the rest of the country
for petes sake!!

Who is pete? If you can link these issues with Christianity go ahead. Good luck. They are the natural result from the unprecidented freedom we have here as much as anything. There is no way a book that prohibits murder cause more murder. For peter's sake?

as a tool, right?

Science can be described as a tool as well as other things.

just like religion is a tool.

Religion can be a tool I guess but it is much much more. There is another semantic rabbit hole coming soon isn't there.

these are both methods used at the mercy of our hands

In some ways sure I guess. So what is the point? Since neither are only tools and have many other aspects.

 

[waitasec]

Well your statistics only covered this country so ask yourself this question. Besides this country is extremely remarkable even though that is fading away currently.
The relevant issue was that this country is turning away from it's once strong religous foundation at an ever ioncreasing rate. That is relevant because your statistics applied to this country.

considering this country is 82% theistic....i'm not sure what you point is.

Who is pete? If you can link these issues with Christianity go ahead. Good luck. They are the natural result from the unprecidented freedom we have here as much as anything. There is no way a book that prohibits murder cause more murder. For peter's sake?

hmmmm unless it is "ordained" or "condoned" by god for goodness sake
Worthington faith-healing case goes to jurors | OregonLive.com

Science can be described as a tool as well as other things.

religion isn't immune to being used as a tool for other things either.

Religion can be a tool I guess but it is much much more. There is another semantic rabbit hole coming soon isn't there.

so then religion is nothing special...it isn't set apart from anything else.
considering the amount of christians that live in this country, why all the social problems?

In some ways sure I guess. So what is the point? Since neither are only tools and have many other aspects.

the point is....religion and science are both tools
it is up to the individual to determine how to use them...
but the interesting thing here is the claims of religion are not backed up with empirical evidence to support the idea that religion is exclusively good for mankind since it's hands are dirty...just as science is dirty.
religion is not set apart from anything else. we are all in the same boat...
:camp:



edit:
with all that said and bringing this back to the topic of the thread....
debating over what is the right religion is like debating over what is the right scientific method....

 

[Nakosis]

edit:
with all that said and bringing this back to the topic of the thread....
debating over what is the right religion is like debating over what is the right scientific method....

Still think each individual needs to determine for themselves the best method which works for them to justify their knowledge of things.

And, not worry about others who say you are wrong because they don't live in your shoes.

The only important thing is that you are a decent human being who treats others decently. Or if you don't, don't get mad if others treat you harshly because of your actions, not your beliefs.

 

[waitasec]

Still think each individual needs to determine for themselves the best method which works for them to justify their knowledge of things.

i don't disagree with that at all.

And, not worry about others who say you are wrong because they don't live in your shoes.

will that day ever come?

The only important thing is that you are a decent human being who treats others decently. Or if you don't, don't get mad if others treat you harshly because of your actions, not your beliefs.

or just be open.

 

[1robin]

There is no one right religion. There is no one right path. All religions are man made. Their theologies, rituals, writings, etc. were all created by human minds. there are no "divinely inspired scriptures'' or texts. You might think of each religion as merely a different path up the mountainside. They all lead to the top. But the idea that one is superior to another, that there is one true religion and all the others are false is completely bogus. Not only is the idea bogus, it is dangerous because it leads to an us versus them mentality. We know the truth an all others are infidels. This kind of thinking has led to more violence and bloodshed throughout history than just about anything else. If you believe in a hereafter and want to get to a good place, living by the golden rule is sufficient. Church attendance is not required, nor is prayer, fasting or adherence to any creed.

Bolding and large text does not equal proof. Since many thing in the bible like scientific claims unknown at the time, thousand of fulfilled prophecies (at least 350 for one man), perfect consistency over 1500 years plus and 40 plus authors, etc... eliminate man as the true author of the bible then most of what you said isn't true or applicable. Christianity has it's share of atrocity. Most of it was commited in contradiction to the bible and was not not approved by God and so has no application. To claim a book that says do not murder causes more murders is dilusional. If you really want to see destruction look at the atheistic, Stalins and Pol Pots, or the Hitlers that used evolution to justify racism and kill 20 plus million. Bin Laden, or the crusades aren't even in the ball park. The rest of your claims are completely unkowable by you and therefore need no response.

 

[1robin]

considering this country is 82% theistic....i'm not sure what you point is.

You asked what was so special about this country and I said your the one who gave statistics for only this country so you should answer that. If you can ties the 82% theists to the high crime then ok but if not there is no application. Just like I could list all the world leading benevolent things the US does and you would try to seperate it from our thiesm.

hmmmm unless it is "ordained" or "condoned" by god for goodness sake
Worthington faith-healing case goes to jurors | OregonLive.com

I did not say you could not find some obscure incident that wasn't attributable to religion. I said link your numbers to it. Once again you have pointed out the astonishing conclusion that some Christians in fact all are imperfect. So what?

religion isn't immune to being used as a tool for other things either.

I didn't say it was I even said that it could be I believe.

so then religion is nothing special...it isn't set apart from anything else.
considering the amount of christians that live in this country, why all the social problems?

That is far too complicated to meaningfully address here. Like I said our unique freedom is a great cause. The social problems I think of abortion, liberalism, drug and alchohol abuse, basically moral depravity are all taught against in the bible. In fact if the bible were followed there would be very little of these things going on. Have you ever seen the teen pregnancy statistics and how they correlate with removing God from schools?

the point is....religion and science are both tools
it is up to the individual to determine how to use them...
but the interesting thing here is the claims of religion are not backed up with empirical evidence

Why is empirical evidence your sacred cow? There are many forms of reality just as valid that are not empirical and you have no problem with any of them that I have seen except religion. In fact the most meaningful issues that have concerned man are not accessable by empirtical methods.

to support the idea that religion is exclusively good for mankind since it's hands are dirty...just as science is dirty.
religion is not set apart from anything else. we are all in the same boat...

This statement is so strange I don't know what to say.

:camp:
What is this emotican boot camp?

edit:
with all that said and bringing this back to the topic of the thread....
debating over what is the right religion is like debating over what is the right scientific method....

I started to say no but let me say yes instead. So what does that mean?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The point was if science had overturned religion why are a good percentage of the greates scientist in history (including today) theists.

Like I said, name-dropping scientists from the past tells us nothing about the state of science today. It's kind of like arguing "how can you say feudalism has been overturned when so many countries have been feudalistic in the past?"

First science does not have the capacity to rule out God even if he doesn't exist, as philosophers say God's nonexistance can't ever be proven.

I agree. I never said it did.

Third since science is based on faith to great extent it is no more reliable than religous claims.

Blatantly false. Science is results based.

Fourth natural law does not have the ability to comment on suparnatural concepts.

Again, I agree. I never said anything contrary to that.

I have not heard that they are decreasing. In fact Christianity is growing quite well. I will for the heck of it assume you are correct. I have 190 sem hours in engineering. That does not make me smart but it does mean I have spent enough time in academia to know that it has the highest percentage of pride and arrogance of any group I can think of. Both these are impediments to faith. So the correlary if true is not relevant to the truth of Christianity. Men have made man's intellectualism a God and the bible says.
World English Bible
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge "--
1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,

How is this relevant or comepelling?

 

[JohnLeo]

Bolding and large text does not equal proof. Since many thing in the bible like scientific claims unknown at the time, thousand of fulfilled prophecies (at least 350 for one man), perfect consistency over 1500 years plus and 40 plus authors, etc... eliminate man as the true author of the bible then most of what you said isn't true or applicable. Christianity has it's share of atrocity. Most of it was commited in contradiction to the bible and was not not approved by God and so has no application. To claim a book that says do not murder causes more murders is dilusional. If you really want to see destruction look at the atheistic, Stalins and Pol Pots, or the Hitlers that used evolution to justify racism and kill 20 plus million. Bin Laden, or the crusades aren't even in the ball park. The rest of your claims are completely unkowable by you and therefore need no response.

Sir, when you get you get to be my age, you'll use large type also. Now, to business. The idea that biblical prophecies coming to pass and "scientific claims unknown at the time" prove divine inspiration is false. All this proves is that thousands of years ago, there were people, just like there are people now, who possessed psychic and mediumistic abilities. As for the bible causing murders, I never said that, nor do I believe it. However, speaking about murders, we find quite a lot of it in the old testament and most of it at the hands of followers of the Hebrew God who were ordered by him to slay men, women, children and animals who had offended Him. (It occurs to me that if God has an anger management problem, we're all in big trouble). Perhaps it will be alright though, because in the new testament that angry, vindictive, murderous God is transformed into one who is all-loving and all-forgiving.
As for the mass murderers of history, yes, they were mostly atheists except for Hitler who was a non-practicing Catholic who believed he was on a mission from God to save western civilization.
I'm not sure which claims you are referring to which are unknowable by me. I'm not in the habit of making claims which I cannot back up with evidence.

 

[waitasec]

You asked what was so special about this country and I said your the one who gave statistics for only this country so you should answer that.

you know, i've been trying to get the stats and i know i have seen them but this is the best indicator i could find right now, FWIW. personally i am not happy with it...

In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham appeared on the leading journal Nature ("Leading scientists still reject God"), showing that of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believe in a personal god. Religious believers form about 40 percent of the less eminent scientists in America.
· A study in Britain, undertaken by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat, involved sending a questionnaire to all 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society who possessed an email address, offering several propositions and asking the scientists to rank their beliefs on that point from 1 to 7. About 23 percent responded and preliminary results indicate that, of these, 3.3 percent agreed strongly (chose 7) and 78.8 percent disagreed strongly (chose 1) that a personal god exists. A total of 12 Fellows chose 6 or 7 to indicate that they were believers, while 213 Fellows chose 1 or 2 to indicate that they were nonbelievers.
So, in the United States, 7 percent of eminent scientists believe in God, while 40 percent of less eminent scientists believe in God. In Britain, the survey indicated that just under 5 percent of eminent scientists believe in God. A lesser proportion would believe in creation; it is known that many of the general population who believe in God do not necessarily believe in a literalist version of the Creation story. In fact, Biblical-literalist creationism is considered a fringe belief.
Approximately what percentage of recognized Scientists believes in Creation

of course there were more theists or deists from the beginning...god filled the gaps.
if you enjoy neil degrasse tyson...
[youtube]1te01rfEF0g[/youtube]
Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Perimeter of Ignorance - YouTube

I did not say you could not find some obscure incident that wasn't attributable to religion. I said link your numbers to it. Once again you have pointed out the astonishing conclusion that some Christians in fact all are imperfect. So what?

so what? that is where the rubber meets the road...there is nothing that can set religion apart (in your case, christianity) from anything else....it is a tool used as justification for good or bad behavior..just like science, rage, love, compassion, ignorance, biases, hate, jealousy, empathy or apathy can be used as a tool to justify ones actions....what is so special about religion (in your case, christianity)?

I didn't say it was I even said that it could be I believe.

you omitted "religion" in that statement for some reason
this is the quote i responded to:

Science can be described as a tool as well as other things.

your "other things" meant what exactly?
did you mean to say that science can be described as a tool as well as religion can be described as a tool? or, did you mean science can be described as other things?

That is far too complicated to meaningfully address here.

why? if you can back up an argument that claims the opposite then you've got something...but you don't because it's a tool.

Like I said our unique freedom is a great cause. The social problems I think of abortion, liberalism, drug and alchohol abuse, basically moral depravity are all taught against in the bible. In fact if the bible were followed there would be very little of these things going on. Have you ever seen the teen pregnancy statistics and how they correlate with removing God from schools?

you still need to account for the fact that in the countries where they are least religious you see a moral society not an immoral one

What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common

Why is empirical evidence your sacred cow? There are many forms of reality just as valid that are not empirical and you have no problem with any of them that I have seen except religion. In fact the most meaningful issues that have concerned man are not accessable by empirtical methods.

this statement is so strange i don't know how to respond to it
:areyoucra

This statement is so strange I don't know what to say.

what is so strange about saying religion and science are both tools that have been used for good and bad (relatively speaking of course)

I started to say no but let me say yes instead. So what does that mean?

when dealing with science, is there another method other than the scientific method...
Scientific method - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster

when dealing with religion, is there another method other than the method of faith?
Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Nakosis]

There is no one right religion. There is no one right path. All religions are man made. Their theologies, rituals, writings, etc. were all created by human minds. there are no "divinely inspired scriptures'' or texts. You might think of each religion as merely a different path up the mountainside. They all lead to the top. But the idea that one is superior to another, that there is one true religion and all the others are false is completely bogus. Not only is the idea bogus, it is dangerous because it leads to an us versus them mentality. We know the truth an all others are infidels. This kind of thinking has led to more violence and bloodshed throughout history than just about anything else. If you believe in a hereafter and want to get to a good place, living by the golden rule is sufficient. Church attendance is not required, nor is prayer, fasting or adherence to any creed.

I see religion as a kind of kindergarten for the spiritually lost. You either get stuck in one or pick one without really having a clue as to what a good spiritual education might be. One has to cross their fingers and hope for the best.

I agree all religions are man made. I think there have been a few individuals in the past who have been inspired by something, perhaps a higher consciousness that seemed so profound that people tried to understand and capture the ideology into a religion to preserve it.

However I don't think we are meant to depend forever on the teaching of others. At some point a person has to mature, take responsibility and decide for themselves the proper course they need to take through life. If what you've been taught is helpful, practical, if you find value in it great, but ultimately you are accountable for the choices you make. One cannot use religion as an excuse for their actions.

Unfortunately many religions to survive, so people will continue to value them, try to encourage/promote continued reliance on them for answers to all the questions. They don't necessarily teach people to start thinking on their own. Which IMO should be the goal of any education, to teach people to start thinking on their own. So they are not only dependent on what they are taught but they can also judge, evaluate, weigh the choices they make without having to depend on God or anyone else to tell them the difference between right and wrong.

 

[1robin]

you know, i've been trying to get the stats and i know i have seen them but this is the best indicator i could find right now, FWIW. personally i am not happy with it...

In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham appeared on the leading journal Nature ("Leading scientists still reject God"), showing that of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believe in a personal god. Religious believers form about 40 percent of the less eminent scientists in America.
· A study in Britain, undertaken by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat, involved sending a questionnaire to all 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society who possessed an email address, offering several propositions and asking the scientists to rank their beliefs on that point from 1 to 7. About 23 percent responded and preliminary results indicate that, of these, 3.3 percent agreed strongly (chose 7) and 78.8 percent disagreed strongly (chose 1) that a personal god exists. A total of 12 Fellows chose 6 or 7 to indicate that they were believers, while 213 Fellows chose 1 or 2 to indicate that they were nonbelievers.
So, in the United States, 7 percent of eminent scientists believe in God, while 40 percent of less eminent scientists believe in God. In Britain, the survey indicated that just under 5 percent of eminent scientists believe in God. A lesser proportion would believe in creation; it is known that many of the general population who believe in God do not necessarily believe in a literalist version of the Creation story. In fact, Biblical-literalist creationism is considered a fringe belief.
Approximately what percentage of recognized Scientists believes in Creation

From the title of the link I am guessing the questions centered on creation or evolution. Do you know what the questions were. Statistics can be used to show just about anything. You can get to the bottom of the issue but it requires digging. I have no problem doing so if you want (might be nice to know) because I do not care what the verdict is. First would be what questions were asked and what were the qualifiers for the study group.

of course there were more theists or deists from the beginning...god filled the gaps.
if you enjoy neil degrasse tyson...
[youtube]1te01rfEF0g[/youtube]
Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Perimeter of Ignorance - YouTube

My server does not let videos through which is good because I can't stand Tyson. He is a camera hog and more of a celebrity want to be than a scientist. There are plenty of good scholars without him to reference.

so what? that is where the rubber meets the road...there is nothing that can set religion apart (in your case, christianity) from anything else....it is a tool used as justification for good or bad behavior..just like science, rage, love, compassion, ignorance, biases, hate, jealousy, empathy or apathy can be used as a tool to justify ones actions....what is so special about religion (in your case, christianity)?

I think I finally figured out what it is that you are driving at. Are you saying that if Christianity was true then there should be statistics showing various ways they are better at certain things?

you omitted "religion" in that statement for some reason
this is the quote i responded to:

I think you made two claims one about science which I addressed and of course did not use religion in it or maybe I did, it doesn't matter. The second was about religion. Since it was about religion only I did not see the need to restate it.

your "other things" meant what exactly?
did you mean to say that science can be described as a tool as well as religion can be described as a tool? or, did you mean science can be described as other things?

I am saying that both of them can be tools but religion and maybe science can also be more.

why? if you can back up an argument that claims the opposite then you've got something...but you don't because it's a tool.

I have more problems than a calculus book currently with my test equipment and so have to select only what can be addressed very quickly. some thing are so complex they can't even be meaningfully covered in a forum at all. I can't remeber which this was as I am in a hurry.

you still need to account for the fact that in the countries where they are least religious you see a moral society not an immoral one

I did not see anything that proved this for one. Second you would have to show proof that a countries peacefulness or violence is directly attributable to religion or the absence of it. Then you would have to know with religion how much was caused by Christianity. It is too deep a pool to reach the bottom at least for me right now. It is suffecient to say that a book that says not to murder couldn't cause more murders and that a system that has no way to meaningfully justify the sanctity of life would produce a more moral civilisation. Another factor is the very contentious nature of each faith it's self. Another would be an atheistic society that produced peace on earth and universal suffering in hell isn't desirable either. It is just too complicated. I can't wait to look at a link with this title. Why Alabama?
What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common

this statement is so strange i don't know how to respond to it
:areyoucra

OK

what is so strange about saying religion and science are both tools that have been used for good and bad (relatively speaking of course)

I didn't say it was incorrect. It is just a small portion of what each have been used for so I don't know how meaningful it would be.

when dealing with science, is there another method other than the scientific method...
Scientific method - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster

If can tell me why you are asking maybe I can give a meaningful answer.

when dealing with religion, is there another method other than the method of faith?
Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

There is no universal specific method of faith. Once again in what context was this asked?

 

[waitasec]

I think I finally figured out what it is that you are driving at. Are you saying that if Christianity was true then there should be statistics showing various ways they are better at certain things?

by george he's got it!!!
:woohoo:

I am saying that both of them can be tools but religion and maybe science can also be more.

**sigh**

I did not see anything that proved this for one. Second you would have to show proof that a countries peacefulness or violence is directly attributable to religion or the absence of it. Then you would have to know with religion how much was caused by Christianity. It is too deep a pool to reach the bottom at least for me right now. It is suffecient to say that a book that says not to murder couldn't cause more murders and that a system that has no way to meaningfully justify the sanctity of life would produce a more moral civilisation. Another factor is the very contentious nature of each faith it's self. Another would be an atheistic society that produced peace on earth and universal suffering in hell isn't desirable either. It is just too complicated. I can't wait to look at a link with this title. Why Alabama?
What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common

did you read the link?
i am saying that if christianity was true then there should be empirical evidence showing christianity is the right religion/method

If can tell me why you are asking maybe I can give a meaningful answer.

how many different scientific methods are there?


psssst..
"there can only be one"

There is no universal specific method of faith. Once again in what context was this asked?

i believe there is a common factor with all religions...a level of blind religious faith fed by the wanting for a beliefs to be true...
and that is not a bad thing...everyone hopes

it's like the one getting bad news of being fired, yet the person getting the bad news is still hopeful for something to "save" them from the imminent threat of being jobless

 

[1robin]

Sir, when you get you get to be my age, you'll use large type also.

I would hate to think of the age that would require that font and bolding to read.

Now, to business. The idea that biblical prophecies coming to pass and "scientific claims unknown at the time" prove divine inspiration is false.

That has been the determination of thousands of respected scholars.

All this proves is that thousands of years ago, there were people, just like there are people now, who possessed psychic and mediumistic abilities.

So mediums, psychics (which is only half a source) are fine but God and supernatural beings are out. I have 750,000 thousand words in the most respected and studied book in human history plus billions of people who claim to have had an experience with God that matches the bible. As well as enough respected scholars to hold hands around the equator, as well as many of the smartest people who ever lived like Newton, Pascal, and Faradya. What do you have besides a few crazy con artists on Oprah that can be used as evidence?

As for the bible causing murders, I never said that, nor do I believe it. However, speaking about murders, we find quite a lot of it in the old testament and most of it at the hands of followers of the Hebrew God who were ordered by him to slay men, women, children and animals who had offended Him. (It occurs to me that if God has an anger management problem, we're all in big trouble). Perhaps it will be alright though, because in the new testament that angry, vindictive, murderous God is transformed into one who is all-loving and all-forgiving.

I will explain all this confusion once I decide it won't fall on deaf ears.

As for the mass murderers of history, yes, they were mostly atheists except for Hitler who was a non-practicing Catholic who believed he was on a mission from God to save western civilization.

Hitler's only relationship with the church was a superficial one that he tried to use to gain control of it's influence. When that was rejected he rejected it. He actually said evolution was what justified his race wars. What about the atheist Stalin (15,000,000 killed), Pol Pot, Kim Jong, etc........

I'm not sure which claims you are referring to which are unknowable by me. I'm not in the habit of making claims which I cannot back up with evidence.

It is a fact that you do not know what is responsable for what is in the bible and can't. I can't either but the evidence that exists suggests my claim is far more likely than yours. For one the psychics and mediums are useless with supernatural entities to talk to. The same ones you deny. Strange position.