1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

The Eradication of Religion

 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
 
Avatar
 
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
Total Posts:  6
Joined  08-12-2013
 
 
 
08 December 2013 09:53
 

Science is sometimes called in to prove or disprove an act that may or may not have transpired. It’s usually up to science to provide evidence on how someone will make a decision. I think that it’s time that we take Religion to court and let it, not only explain, but show genuine proof that the invisible god that it talks about, actually exist.

Any suggestion as to how we can get this idea off the ground? How can we take the main heads of each Religion to court and let them, in front of all the world to see, prove that their deity exists. I’m sure that they will all fail. If these heads of each religion fails to show proofs of an invisible god, then we will know for sure what we’ve been stating all along, god does not exist.

I’m hoping that Sam Harris gives us some direction as to how we can make this happen. Imagine, we bring all the heads of each religion and have them prove, in a court of law, that their invisible god exists.

Looking forward to hearing others like minded individuals with ideas as to how we can make this happen. How do we contact each head of each religion and how do we make them come to court?

 
Feather
 
Avatar
 
 
Feather
Total Posts:  185
Joined  18-03-2013
 
 
 
11 December 2013 08:57
 

Science can tell us “how much”  by taking observations of how quantities change in relationship to the results, math can be done to solve a “how much” problem.  For example, it can tell us how much gas you need in your car to make it across your state. It can tell you how long the wings of a plane need to be for it to fly. It can tell you how much mass is needed to warp space a certain amount.
-
It does not tell you so much, HOW, anything happens. For example, It doesn’t tell you HOW mass warps space. HOW is closely related to WHY. Science doesn’t even do a good job of telling us WHAT something is.
-
Can you tell me what Energy IS. Or what Electromagnatism IS. Or what Matter “IS”. Matter is defined as real and taking up space and having mass. Yet is it derived from something that doesn’t take up space, and doesn’t have mass and changes depending on its speed and interation and if data is being collected of it (observed).
-
See its all just our way of describing “How much” in words. energy is just a word we make up to quantify how much something can cause something else to change. BUT science doesn’t know WHAT, WHY, or HOW. This should alarm you.
-
What is more shocking is science can’t “PROVE” anything. Nothing can be proven. If I asked for you to prove your age, you could:
-show your birthcertificate…But now you have to prove that that isn’t fake
-show me your mother….But now you have to prove in blood test its your mother
-Show me a blood test….Now you have to prove the test is accurate
-Show me the results from the test calibration…Now you have to prove to me the printer didn’t print the wrong numbers
***
Nothing you could show me if you had a million years could prove how old you are.
***
Science operates off of evidence. Not proof. Good evidence allows us to do something usefull with it. That is how we judge or weigh how truthfull it is.
-
The problem is…People can give evidence for anything they want. I could give a ton of stupid evidence that aliens built the pyrimids. What could you do usefull with that information? nothing. THE second nothing usefull can be engieenered out of the evidence…It becomes politics.
-
Atheist and Theist debate is politics…Nothing usefull comes out of it except dogma on both sides.
*******
That was me thinking to my self out loud. in the tone of voice I think in.
-
I get what you are saying. When their claims violate stuff science can show works other wise…We should tatoo crazy on peoples heads. I think its a good Idea. We get a leader from all ideologies in one room and everthing gets hashed out by a computer telling us the reliablity on the evidence presented. The more claims that voilate known high reliablity…Crazy tattoos should be given out in various sizes.
-
I do feel like theist would have the biggest tatoo on their head…But I think atheist would be suprised to find a little ink on their head.
-
What I think is also a good idea. And I am foreal on this one. Is when a human is born we have them do a test and that pyche test gives them a delusional rating. ALL humans, Will have some Delusional Potential. Being a product of how much they lust for an identity (feel meaningfull and important) and self interest…Bascially an EGO test.
-
And by LAW you have to were that DP rating on your head. As the person grows or shrinks his ego, the DP rating may be regulary updated.
-
My thinking is….Athiesm and Theism is just two different options or environments for a High DP rated person to lust for an identiy and gain false meaning and importance. So child with a HIGH DP, will choose one of the option or the other that allows them to be the most delusional.
-
A LOW DP rated person, I suspect, when asked if he is a Atheist or Theist will be like…“What the fuck are you talking about”  then put his feet back up and tip back a beer.

[ Edited: 11 December 2013 09:18 by Feather]
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
 
Avatar
 
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
Total Posts:  6
Joined  08-12-2013
 
 
 
12 December 2013 07:58
 

Hi Feather,

Thank you for joining this forum. However, I do believe that you’re venting about science has fallen on deaf ears. What I am proposing with my topic is the overthrow of religion. I’m looking for people to help me put a coalition of religious overthrowers together. What can we do to maximixe our efforts. How do we go about getting the heads of each religion to appear in a court of law and have them proove to us that their invisible god really does exist.


i’m not looking for people that are raging against science. I’m looking for people that are not fond of the little black book(bible) and of the fairy tales written in them.

I do thank you for your comments regarding science. You are very insightful. You are more than welcome to continue your bash on science any time that you feel the need to. You’re not going to find much opposition here. The ones, like me, that understand reason and logic and have knowledge will simply dismiss your rantings because we understand that you do not possess reason and logic and we cannot be reasonable or logical with you because you don’t understand those languages. Fortunately for us there are not many like you and as time passes by there will be less and less of people that think like you. Thirty years down road when new generations of beings have become aware, through the ideas passed on by people like us, that it’s ok not to believe in fairy tales, then religion will have become abosolete and a moot point of discussion and relegated to the abyss of mythology.  The new dawn coming in 30 years will be one of excellent progress for all. It will be the new beginning of The Age of Reason!.

 
llathander
 
Avatar
 
 
llathander
Total Posts:  42
Joined  11-12-2013
 
 
 
12 December 2013 14:35
 

What dogma is it that atheism represents?

 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
 
Avatar
 
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
Total Posts:  6
Joined  08-12-2013
 
 
 
13 December 2013 07:21
 

Hi llathander,

I want to extend a warm welcome to you to this forum where the topic is “The Eradication of Religion”.

I assumed that all that read this topic already have an idea of what is is to be a person with logic and reason and comprehend why I would argue for the eradication of religion.

I’m hoping that I start getting some ideas as to how we can bring the heads of all major religions to courts of law where they will need to prove that their invisible god(s) exist.

I know that we are going to have to hire lawyers and people like them to represent us in court. How do we get lawyers to help us for free?

I hope that you read what I’ve posted,  llathander. If you believe, by way of science or logic and reason, that we need to wipe out religion just like we wiped out polio, then you need to stop asking questions about what dogma does atheist follow. Join the cause or get out of the way.

 

 
Feather
 
Avatar
 
 
Feather
Total Posts:  185
Joined  18-03-2013
 
 
 
13 December 2013 10:01
 

I am an applied scientist (engineer). Man I am just telling you what science is. My venting would be more appropriately accused to be toward, peoples beliefs about science.
-
I earn a living by science, I am not attacking science, its bad ass.
-
To me it seems like you have beliefs about science, and these beliefs dictate your behavior in the world (gives you a world view). It seems, like you are dogmatic about science (meaning: nobody or nothing could ever ever change what you think about it). To not be dogmatic (religious) people have to be open minded (willing to learn something new) and humble (willing to admit they don’t already know everything) and skeptical (demand evidence and take the honest time to investigate) All opinions and world views have to be “temporary” and be given a probablity of correctness (willing to be updated if more usefull data comes).
-
I don’t think that applies to atheist…The reason is because that applies to almost no one.
-
Nobody is exempt from delusion (not aware of their beliefs). Delusion is a product of normal human functioning by processing their thoughts (ego). Everybody needs to be aware they are delusional in various aspects. The people who doesn’t understand this, and think being delusional only can come from the bad guys are probably the most delusional. Just being aware you could be delusional, at least gets you on the down hill slope of crazy.
-
ego is the process of searching for thoughts, logic, events, outcomes…that are satisfying. The normal person does this almost 100,000 thousand times a day. The ego, and intellect are not searching for truth it searches for solace. To some people, god like fantisies are satisfying (they feel it gives thier life meaning, purpose, gives identity) and is all they can understand due to ignorance. It is a product of ego that hides and mask their fears (outcomes, events, that are unsatisfying). To others, us being accedental biological machines is the only thing that satisfies thier inadiquecies and is all they can understand due to their ignorance. Both are worshiped the exact same. Both are the exact same fundemental proccess of becoming delusional. Worship is overly investing that something is correct or meaningful to their existence.
-
The best example of this: is Alchemy debate back in the 1600 hundereds.
-
*One group, felt they could use magic process to turn matter into different matter (copper to gold for example)
*The other group, felt that was the stupidest thing they ever heard and that it was impossible.
-
You can see, the second group doesn’t think they have any beliefs, they know for a fact, magic can not change the composition of matter because their is no evidence of it.
...
The first group, maybe have had one experience where they had left something in the sun and said a spell and the matter changed after some time.
-
What happens is, the second group, gets really pist off at the first group, they have prejudice and blame all the bad shit in the world on whooho wierdo’s trying to do alchemy. They build world views to fight the first group. The world views (ideology) they create was from agenda based logic to justfiy why the first group is so dam wrong. They develop, the beliefs and dogma that “matter” is all there is…It can not just become’ different.
-
The first group, out of ingnorance didn’t understand the true nature of what their experiements showed. They could only understand due to their ignorance, that magic did it.
-
The second group, will demand proof, and the first group will show them, but the second group, will think really hard then A HA.. you could have tricked us, or swapped the material…that doesn’t “prove” anything, after all yall achlemist are crazy assholes who can’t be trusted.
-
The second group and first group fight and they both become scared of being tricked, or brainwarshed and decide they must irradicate and destroy all crazy other group before they infect everyone.
>>>>
>>>
>
IN THE END: Matter can Turn into Other Matter!!! Silver can turn to Lead. BOTH groups out of ignorance of how the world works created world views to fight each other over self interest. They both did not understand, electrons and how radiation can emit electrons and then alter the compositon of the element into a new element.
-
Both groups, fighting created dogma. Both groups, were unwilling to admit their ignorance. The second group scientist, (This actually happened) opposed and tried for 30 years around the 1900’s to refute any evidence of radioactivity. It got so bad that one of the biggest scientist of the era (forgot his name currently) some 50 years latter on his death bed…after radioactivity was used in the world wars in atom bombs…Still denied Rutherford’s radioactivity and that elements could change to different elements.
-
IN hind sight both groups were “equally ignorant”. They both created beliefs to fight each other. It took decades and world changing explosions for peoples beliefs to change. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era.
*******
Long story short that is why Atheist have dogma and in that sense are a religion. Because Everybody worships and lust for something, that is what most of the almost 100,000 thousands of thoughts we have a day are.
*******
-
I understand this is not the conversation you were looking for. I agree that religious people should be challenged. At least a little to be aware of what they don’t want to be aware of.
-
And I am not attacking you, all my friends (the kind of people I enjoy being around) are like minded to you, and are big time atheist or anti-theist…and in a soft sense so am I…
-
I agree with you for the most part, but with a slight twist.

[ Edited: 13 December 2013 10:04 by Feather]
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
 
Avatar
 
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
Total Posts:  6
Joined  08-12-2013
 
 
 
14 December 2013 08:13
 

Hi Feather,
Thank you for sharing some of your personal information. I applaud your achievements in the field of science, whichever they may be.

I thought that you were just ranting and all over the field in your previous post.

I get it now,  where you’re coming from, but I would like to correct your analyzes about me.  My beliefs are actually all summed up this way:
What is invisible to me is visible to somebody else.
They, the ones that god is visible to, use faith as a form of lens to see their god.
We, the ones that god is invisible to, use Knowledge, Logic and Reason (KLR), therefore we are unable to see this invisible god. With faith you can see just about anything. We Knowledge, Logic and Reason you can only see what’s real, visible!

I don’t need science to show me that what I can see is visible and what I can’t see is invisible
I’m only interested with what is visible. If none of the religious heads can prove with absolute truth that their god exist, then, at that point, we can start dismantling religion and eradicating it for good.

You quoted, “Long story short that is why Atheist have dogma”,
I think that I would have like the short story better. You seem to enjoy talking(texting) and that’s a good thing, but you clearly sound to me as if you are looking for someone to debate you about what your dying to tell us and I’m afraid that you are not going to find that debate here.

I’m happy to read that you understand that this is not the conversation that I’m looking for and, also, happy to read that agree that these religious heads should be challenged to prove the existence of their god.

I’m also extremely happy to hear that you were at no way attacking me – I never felt that you were in any way attacking me – and that you have people that are friends of yours that are likeminded to me.

I understand that in some “soft sense” you too are a person that does not believe in invisible beings and that’s a good thing.

Thanks for agreeing with me “for the most part”.

Now, help me find ways to get those religious heads to appear in a court of law and show proof of the existence of their god. If we can, at least, get one, that we will be start of the fall of religion.

 
llathander
 
Avatar
 
 
llathander
Total Posts:  42
Joined  11-12-2013
 
 
 
18 December 2013 11:25
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic - 13 December 2013 07:21 AM

Hi llathander,

I want to extend a warm welcome to you to this forum where the topic is “The Eradication of Religion”.

I assumed that all that read this topic already have an idea of what is is to be a person with logic and reason and comprehend why I would argue for the eradication of religion.

I’m hoping that I start getting some ideas as to how we can bring the heads of all major religions to courts of law where they will need to prove that their invisible god(s) exist.

I know that we are going to have to hire lawyers and people like them to represent us in court. How do we get lawyers to help us for free?

I hope that you read what I’ve posted,  llathander. If you believe, by way of science or logic and reason, that we need to wipe out religion just like we wiped out polio, then you need to stop asking questions about what dogma does atheist follow. Join the cause or get out of the way.

 

The question was directed at feather, no need for hostility.

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14792
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
19 December 2013 04:20
 
llathander - 18 December 2013 11:25 AM

The question was directed at feather, no need for hostility.


Hostility ... where?

 
 
Sean9
 
Avatar
 
 
Sean9
Total Posts:  2
Joined  16-12-2013
 
 
 
19 December 2013 08:11
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic - 08 December 2013 09:53 AM

How can we take the main heads of each Religion to court and let them, in front of all the world to see, prove that their deity exists. I’m sure that they will all fail. If these heads of each religion fails to show proofs of an invisible god, then we will know for sure what we’ve been stating all along, god does not exist.

Proving the negative isn’t necessary, or possible. What we have to do is promote the benefits of reasonable certainty and uncertainty. Most often we speak in terms of 100% or 0%, night or day, black or white, when we would be much better off speaking in terms of gradient scales, 97% or 94%, 6% or 2.1%, early evening or late afternoon, darker or lighter.

Philosophically, the difference between 0% and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% is extraordinarily meaningful. It is the difference between no hope and hope. As a former Christian, I am not interested in convincing the people I love that they should not hope for an afterlife. What I am interested in is convincing them that it is not in our best interest to make decisions as if what we hope is true is necessarily true.

I hope my home will never catch fire and that it will always be a safe place to be. That hope does not prevent me from installing functional smoke detectors, however. In the same sense, our hope for an afterlife cannot prevent us from pursuing activities like stem cell research. The truth is our hope for an afterlife is really a hope for a longer existence. When people really understand that, they will see that science doesn’t diminish that hope. Instead, it breathes life into that hope by increasing the possibility that it comes true.

 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
 
Avatar
 
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic
Total Posts:  6
Joined  08-12-2013
 
 
 
20 December 2013 06:50
 

Hi Sean9,
I want to thank you for your opinion on this matter.

I want to reiterate my position with regards to suing each head of each major religion. If it is possible, I want to be able to bring to a court of law: The Pope, The Dalai Lama, Whomever is the head of Islam,  Whomever is the head of the Jehovah Witnesses, Whomever is the head of the Mormons… I want them to prove to us, in a court of law, that their god really does exist. I want to make them prove to us, either by law or by dare, that their entity is real.

We would leave the proving or disproving to each head of each religion. Proving a negative will not be a task that we would undertake. However, having each head of each religion give positive proof that their god exists is necessary and if their god exist, then it’s also possible for them to prove it. I believe that we can settle this whole matter by having these people show proof that their god does exist.

Once the world sees that these fakers are not able to provide any sound proof of their deity, then we would have done our job of promoting the end of religion and the beginning of The Age of Knowledge, Logic and Reason.

I am very interested in convincing the people, not just the ones I love, that these promoters of god are just people like you and me, they have no powers whatsoever and they don’t speak to anyone else outside of this realm. These promoters of gods are just heads of large corporations that have become wealthy through the contributions of people that did not know better.

I’m interested in exposing these men of god and exposing their spiritual machinations and their influence over people that are scared of what happens after one dies.

The only way to promote the benefits of reasonable certainty and uncertainty is by exposing these men and their flawed religions in a court of law. Everyone will see the benefits to their lives right away. They won’t have to get up early on Sunday to go to mass; they can save money by not giving the church any money, they won’t have to go to church every night as some people do. We can go on and on about the benefits of certainty that we gain once we have these charlatans in a court of law trying to prove that their invisible friend exist.

With regards to Stem Cell research and Afterlife,
I’m not a politician so I will not be able to make a ruling with regards to funding Stem Cell research. Unfortunately some of the politicos that are thwarting the progress of Stem Cell research are people that are not like us. These people believe in their imaginary friend and take literally what their little black book(bible)says about life and when is a person actually a person. If I were making funding decisions, this project would be one of the first that I would fund.

I’m not interested in an Afterlife nor an I’m interested in an existence longer than 1 million years. In time everything will disappear, the sun will explode, the Galaxies will collide and the only things left will just be little dust particles. I’m not wishing to live longer than my body will let me. I understand that I will die soon and my body will again become dust particles and will later combine with the rest of the dust particles that we will all become. I’m interested in this life and how I can show that the heads of these religions are a bunch of no good charlatans intent on fleecing everyone that believes in them and their product.

When people really understand that their so called :”Gods Representatives” cannot produce a positive proof that their god exists, they will then realize that they no longer need to be oppressed by a dogma that carries no weight whatsoever.

I want to thank you for your comments. I would like to hear more of how we can get these religious heads to a court of law and have them prove to us, the world, that their so called “god” really exist.

Is there a way that we can sue each religions head for false advertising?

Keep those comments coming.

 
Feather
 
Avatar
 
 
Feather
Total Posts:  185
Joined  18-03-2013
 
 
 
20 December 2013 08:14
 

Sean 9, ya what you said was so important for people to really understand.
-
What happens is people just are not aware of their internal nature (ego). Ego wants you to be on 0% or 100%. Anywhere in-between that every human in existence in some measure will feel uneasy, worried, bothered, unsatisfied, fearful…a lot like leaving home having a sneaking suspicion that you left the stove on…except worse and it doesn’t go away.
-
The ego and intellect (as a result of evolution) doesn’t want to wait 20 years to learn something, it wants to be 100% NOW and spend the next 20 years searching for the information that can justify it. It wants bad guys and people to blame!! That is all a part of creating delusion. See, if those funny looking guys over there are the bad guys, then the intellect can think up ways to defeat them. That takes the edge off of the uneasy, worried, bothered, unsatisfied, fearful state of existence. 
-
It is one of the hardest things possible to do as a human is to remain in an open state (not 0% and not 100%). And that is the only state that learning is even possible. To learn something new you first have to admit you don’t already know everything. Like you said 99.99999999% is a world’s difference from 100%.
-
Having prejudice (the process of blaming people) means having delusion. They are not independent.
-
The only way to be open minded and not delusional is to eliminate prejudice. My goal every day I am alive is to “be ok with being anybody”.  If upon walking around a Walmart, the amount of horror one would feel if they instantly switched bodies with a random unfortunate person, is a direct measure a person’s susceptibility for delusion. Delusion is all about creating you a specific identity and making it overly important to your existence.
-
To be non-religious is to love, have no prejudice toward anybody and “be ok being” everybody…Ie defeat the ego.
-
**********
What the above illustrates is the importance of defeating our own ego…and if we are trying to help others the best we can do is “enable” them to do so also. (Meaning give them the tools and opportunity to do so themselves).
-
Knowledge, Your view on religion is accurate.
-
To me the flaw in your design of what to do about it…is you are trying to eradicate the symptom not the cause of the sickness.
-
For example, if a boy is sick and sneezing, beating him until he stops sneezing will not cure his sickness. Covering up the symptom is not the best way to cure the child.
-
See stealing all the bibles in the world and burning them, will not cure the need for solace. The solution is not in how can we change and control their environment (although that might second-handly help). Putting a Kindigardner in a Ph-D class will not help.
-
The solution is in passing out the idea…That they have to consciously work hard at “NOT” being delusional. And work Hard at getting rid of the ego (personal identity). And work hard at liking everyone unconditionally.  It is not a materialistic solution, or a quantity. They can’t blow something up, or say a million Hail Mary’s, or watch a million YouTube videos of atheist-religious debates. It is not in the number, size, amount, or environment that can accomplish it.
-
There is nothing that can be done (materialistically, physically, and quantifiably) that gets rid of ego, and delusion, and all the bad shit that comes with that.
-
The motive agency is all internal…It’s what a person “doesn’t do” that gets rid of ego, and delusion. It is hearing a religious person tell their ideas, and “Not” fantasizing and justifying materialistic action, physical action, or quantifiable action. It’s not finding somebody to blame and defeating them.
-
A good example of what I mean. Fighting against racism doesn’t lower racism. The black panthers, Al Sharpton types, etc.  There fighting (which seems justified) creates more prejudice, that in turn creates their prejudice which creates more fighting. In the Riley Cooper incident, what would have had the biggest impact of racial tension would be if Mick Vick walked over in the locker room with all the media there and give Riley a kiss on the cheek and say, “this is my brother there isn’t an issue yall can all go”.
-
But that being said, everything should be challenged in some degree. I guess my whole thing is, if everybody put themselves on trial daily (which is the only way to not be religious)…It would be the most optimal endeavor. 

[ Edited: 20 December 2013 08:19 by Feather]
 
Pattertwig
 
Avatar
 
 
Pattertwig
Total Posts:  121
Joined  23-02-2015
 
 
 
23 February 2015 12:56
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic - 08 December 2013 09:53 AM

Science is sometimes called in to prove or disprove an act that may or may not have transpired. It’s usually up to science to provide evidence on how someone will make a decision. I think that it’s time that we take Religion to court and let it, not only explain, but show genuine proof that the invisible god that it talks about, actually exist.

Any suggestion as to how we can get this idea off the ground? How can we take the main heads of each Religion to court and let them, in front of all the world to see, prove that their deity exists. I’m sure that they will all fail. If these heads of each religion fails to show proofs of an invisible god, then we will know for sure what we’ve been stating all along, god does not exist.

I’m hoping that Sam Harris gives us some direction as to how we can make this happen. Imagine, we bring all the heads of each religion and have them prove, in a court of law, that their invisible god exists.

Looking forward to hearing others like minded individuals with ideas as to how we can make this happen. How do we contact each head of each religion and how do we make them come to court?

Do you realize that you’re asking for an Atheist inquisition?

I would love to put you on the stand and cross-examine you as to why you feel that your proposal is necessary, useful, reasonable and constitutional.

If the law was even able to contemplate that God (as most Christians imagine him) existed, then every Christian that prayed would need to be put on trial for FCC violations.  {This won't be a problem during the Millennium when Jesus reigns on earth and takes prayers via facebook wink }. Since American law has agreed to proceed on the unverified assumption that God does not exist, it would be unreasonable to make that system the arbiter of theism.

Second, you forget that civil trials in America where contracts are not involved, involve juries.  Good luck getting a non Christian jury in America.

Third, you overestimate the capacity of US courts to address issues of science.  Do you know the term that we use in our law offices to refer to expert witnesses who testify for money?  smile

 

 
 
Shaikh Raisuddin
 
Avatar
 
 
Shaikh Raisuddin
Total Posts:  81
Joined  20-03-2015
 
 
 
21 March 2015 13:24
 

Let us call, “The Cause of All Causes” as God in terms of science.

Science says the Big Bang is the cause of all causes those exist today. Let us go farther and beyond Big Bang for “the cause”.

Things exist as they exist. Things behave as they behave. Our thinking gives judgement about them. And thinking becomes possible only by language either alphabetical or mathematical and both are erroneous. Neither there is any “noun” in the world that is not changing contrary to absolute and static meaning given by the language (Please refer paradox, The Ship of Theseus) nor 1 = 1 as assumed by mathematics because no two things are identical.

Let us learn “Language of Matter” to discover God. 

Let us first get rid of OPINION VIRUS before we are able to understand truth.

[ Edited: 21 March 2015 22:27 by Shaikh Raisuddin]
 
pat2112
 
Avatar
 
 
pat2112
Total Posts:  126
Joined  18-12-2015
 
 
 
13 July 2016 13:04
 
KRL_knowledgereasonlogic - 08 December 2013 09:53 AM

Science is sometimes called in to prove or disprove an act that may or may not have transpired. It’s usually up to science to provide evidence on how someone will make a decision. I think that it’s time that we take Religion to court and let it, not only explain, but show genuine proof that the invisible god that it talks about, actually exist.

Any suggestion as to how we can get this idea off the ground? How can we take the main heads of each Religion to court and let them, in front of all the world to see, prove that their deity exists. I’m sure that they will all fail. If these heads of each religion fails to show proofs of an invisible god, then we will know for sure what we’ve been stating all along, god does not exist.

I’m hoping that Sam Harris gives us some direction as to how we can make this happen. Imagine, we bring all the heads of each religion and have them prove, in a court of law, that their invisible god exists.

Looking forward to hearing others like minded individuals with ideas as to how we can make this happen. How do we contact each head of each religion and how do we make them come to court?

I think this is a wonderful idea, actually. Take us into a public court and allow us to prove the existence of God. Once we have, would you accept the result or deny the facts that are laid out?
Would you be willing to change your mind and let reason hold the day or continue irrational hatred?

The problem is not that theists have not proven their case, it’s that atheist are unwilling to accept the conclusions.
Would you be so willing to make this a public spectacle in the event you lose? You’re chances of victory start at 50% without the first claim being made. They drop exponentially in the light of pure deductive reasoning.

This being the case, I think you are better off to just keep just bashing religious people and religions rather than actually put your vitriol up against rigorous academic scrutiny. You may just find out your case is based on emotion rather than rational thought.

 
pat2112
 
Avatar
 
 
pat2112
Total Posts:  126
Joined  18-12-2015
 
 
 
13 July 2016 13:05
 
llathander - 12 December 2013 02:35 PM

What dogma is it that atheism represents?

That God does not exist.

 
 1 2 3 >