What evidence out there crushes religious faith?

[MonkeyFire]

Nope, do not decide what i would do, it is very ignorant. It is obvious that you have no comprehension of what atheism is but deliberately inject it with misunderstanding and hatred. Its sad attitudes like yours that causes friction.

Follow closely, faith is hope, if you dis-believe in God it's like you want to kill him

If there were evidence of a gods existence (which there isn't) i would review that evidence and take it at whatever value it gives and weigh it against the horrors and suffering attributed to your god. If that evidence was strong enough I would have no choice but to accept the evidence.

As, i guess, most atheists would.

So you would know without believing, and you would be damned and we know why. Because faith is sanct and you reject it.

So tell me, why would an omni everything god need to hide? Not sure you were able to think that one out before putting your mouth in gear

Your the one who's hiding, I'm just fallen.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Stick to objective facts, and inferences!

I see there is no such evidence available.

One can have a change of reference, but that may not crush Faith, it may just change it from erroneous Faith, to a more Positive Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[osgart]

Follow closely, faith is hope, if you dis-believe in God it's like you want to kill him



So you would know without believing, and you would be damned and we know why. Because faith is sanct and you reject it.



Your the one who's hiding, I'm just fallen.

Atheist honesty draws an extreme reaction from you! I'm no murderer! I require explanations for actions that on the surface are extremely unreasonable.

 

[ChristineM]

Follow closely, faith is hope, if you dis-believe in God it's like you want to kill him

Bull. Show evidence and i will consider it. Misrepresent and talk nonsense only disrespects yourself

So you would know without believing, and you would be damned and we know why. Because faith is sanct and you reject it.

Bull again if there is evidence then faith is not required. Faith is gullibility and you accept it

Your the one who's hiding, I'm just fallen

You made the claim that god is hiding then you appear to know gods mind. Interesting how it matches your mind precisely

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If that evidence was strong enough I would have no choice but to accept the evidence.

I wish you always well and happy ChristineM. I think the evidence is the life lived by those like Jesus and the Bab, who tell us of God and how only Love for each other and service to each other, will build a world where all can live in peace and prosper.

The rest is from our own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[osgart]

I see there is no such evidence available.

One can have a change of reference, but that may not crush Faith, it may just change it from erroneous Faith, to a more Positive Faith.

Regards Tony

I myself am not trying to crush legitimate Faith's, or Faith's that do no universal harm.

I feel that on RF we have claims to truth on here that non believers like to defend themselves against.

I wanted to know if there are those who can confidently say that all faith is erroneous. To see how far they push the religious envelope.

Also I see no crime in being a non believer. I don't feel non believers should be backed in a corner.

I personally would have a pleasant shock if there was a truly benevolent God. Whether we are non believers or believers, I would like to see virtues prevail in society.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Bull. Show evidence and i will consider it. Misrepresent and talk nonsense only disrespects yourself



Bull again if there is evidence then faith is not required. Faith is gullibility and you accept it



You made the claim that god is hiding then you appear to know gods mind. Interesting how it matches your mind precisely

It's like doing the math backwards to check you work. If FAITH says one thing, and SCIENCE another thing, then KNOWLEDGE would have a hell of a headache.

 

[ChristineM]

I wish you always well and happy ChristineM. I think the evidence is the life lived by those like Jesus and the Bab, who tell us of God and how only Love for each other and service to each other, will build a world where all can live in peace and prosper.

The rest is from our own selves.

Regards Tony

The evidence of life and love are evidence of life and love.

 

[ChristineM]

It's like doing the math backwards to check you work. If FAITH says one thing, and SCIENCE another thing, then KNOWLEDGE would have a hell of a headache.

Strawman

Science is evidenced.

Faith isn't, if it were then it would not be faith

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Strawman

Science is evidenced.

Faith isn't, if it were then it would not be faith

Science despite its processes requires faith to be accepted as true. It doesn't just force itself into people's minds.

 

[ChristineM]

Science despite its processes requires faith to be accepted as true. It doesn't just force itself into people's minds.

Science requires confidence in verified evidence to be accepted.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Science requires confidence in verified evidence to be accepted.

Okay. But do you have the absolute confidence to absolutely know verified evidence from incorrect theories, to know the verified evidence is verified evidence?

 

[ChristineM]

Okay. But do you have the absolute confidence to absolutely know verified evidence from incorrect theories, to know the verified evidence is verified evidence?

You say that while using quantum mechanics and particle physics to post?

The fact that it is verified using the scientific method makes it as correct as possible.

Of course new information may cause change. That does not mean the original theory was incorrect.

 

[osgart]

Science despite its processes requires faith to be accepted as true. It doesn't just force itself into people's minds.

A lot of people have the benefit of field observation. The average everyday laymen either accepts science on faith, or leaves those issues open ended.

Science needs to be brought to the public level to gain more support.

There's a lot that I have to leave off on, that scientists are fully immersed in for many, many years.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You say that while using quantum mechanics and particle physics to post?

I don't blindly accept that there are no other possible theories in any physics theory.

Of course new information may cause change. That does not mean the original theory was incorrect.

It kind of does.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't blindly accept that there are no other possible theories in any physics theory.



It kind of does.

Genuine evidenced theories i have no problem with no matter what the source. Ideas with no evidence to back them up and the ignorance and misrepresentation, and yes even murder that goes into promoting the ideas, i do have a problem with


it kind of means it was correct at the time to the best of available knowledge.

Are you saying for example that in the days of copper cable and dial up modems that internet speeds of 14k per second were wrong?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Are you saying for example that in the days of copper cable and dial up modems that internet speeds of 14k per second were wrong?

Kind of. A lot of people thought it was kilobytes, but it was kilobits, if I remember correctly. Also, that was pretty much max theoretical speed, not sustained. It did take about 3 and a half hours or more to download a 50 megabyte file.

 

[ChristineM]

Kind of. A lot of people thought it was kilobytes, but it was kilobits, if I remember correctly. Also, that was pretty much max theoretical speed, not sustained. It did take about 3 and a half hours or more to download a 50 megabyte file.

What people thought is not the problem. Given the available scientific knowledge and technology was it wrong?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What people thought is not the problem. Given the available scientific knowledge and technology was it wrong?

No. Optimistic, but in no way incorrect at all.

I think I see where you are going with this....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And the objections to those evidences?

Soul, spirit, God in the general sense, and underlying conscious reality in the general sense.

Just curious!

I'm not after a specific religion. So nothing about specific religions.

Proofs will suffice too!

Stick to objective facts, and inferences!

There aren't any. In fact, there's questions that physicalism can't provide answers to that tend to support my belief in an immaterial consciousness ("soul"). The biggest one is why am I "me" and not someone else? It's hard to explain, but I don't see brain-consciousness theories having satisfactory answers. Then there's issues of qualia and even how to define consciousness.