The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

[Asian-American]

This is an article that I like:

The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

By John "Birdman" Bryant

Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false.

The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. This I have attempted to do in my book The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.

[ . . . ]

Complete article at http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Reli...g-Atheist.html

[MerlinsByte]

by Asian A... Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false. [ . . . ]

Merlin writes...Science is true only in the day that you live.We "know" today that much of the science 200 years ago was utterly false. If you believed the the 200-year-old science facts (true facts are true forever) today you would be branded a fool. The brighter side? in your day you would at least thought you were right.

If history is any indication the science of 200 years from now will be perceived as false today. Examples ? wait 200 years I'll show you!

The science of today will be false 200 years from now. Sound redundant? It is! THINK about it. A true paradox, in a paradox.

Now this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to learn everything about the universe we find ourselves perplexed by. This is what God or intelligent designer (I use GID for brevity) desires for us.

The point is this. Do not discard any theory or idea out of hand. You have no basis of thinking the best science of the day is true. It might be or it might not. As history has shown many times its false. Imagination is the gift of god for us to use as tools. We have only been using our speed wrench (sledge hammer) or (tired old theories) as tools for too long. Its time to use ALL the tools that god give us.

mb

Religion like science changes too...go figgur' Why? their methods in the end are similar, as are thier defenders.

[Asian-American]

Quote by: MerlinsByte . . .

Science uses evidence to claim reality, while superstition requires no evidence whatsoever to claim reality. I prefer the science way of doing things.

Regards.

[tinybear]

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."
-Robert A. Heinlein

[MerlinsByte]

There "is superstition in science ..."
"THERE is superstition in science quite as much as there is superstition in theology, and it is all the more dangerous because those suffering from it are profoundly convinced that they are freeing themselves from all superstition. No grotesque repulsiveness of mediæval superstition, even as it survived into nineteenth-century Spain and Naples, could be much more intolerant, much more destructive of all that is fine in morality, in the spiritual sense, and indeed in civilization itself, than that hard dogmatic materialism of to-day which often not merely calls itself scientific but arrogates to itself the sole right to use the term. If these pretensions affected only scientific men themselves, it would be a matter of small moment, but unfortunately they tend gradually to affect the whole people, and to establish a very dangerous standard of private and public conduct in the public mind. This tendency is dangerous everywhere, but nowhere more dangerous than among the nations in which the movement toward an unshackled materialism is helped by the reaction against the deadly thraldom of political and clerical absolutism."

(Roosevelt, Theodore [former President of the USA

Indeed!

[tinybear]

I don't understand Teddy's last sentence. Can anyone explain?

[MerlinsByte]

Merlin writes…I understand and respect your belief system Tiny. I however cannot accept a scientific world view or paradigm that refuses to entertain all theories ideas and hypothesis. If science had not been shown by history its predisposition for gross inaccuracy I might be more predisposed to accept it on faith alone.

To be sure we need a sort of scientific methodology for discovery. That is obvious. However our addictive dependency on old theory and doctrine (Darwinism for example) and the reluctance to accept all other petitioners is tantamount to intellectual sacrilege.


MB

[tinybear]

Actually, I'm keeping an open mind. But there seems to be a lot of truth in what Heinlein said. What human beings perceive about God isn't necessarily true. Indeed it appears not to make any sense.

[JamesMcBride]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin writes…I understand and respect your belief system Tiny. I however cannot accept a scientific world view or paradigm that refuses to entertain all theories ideas and hypothesis. If science had not been shown by history its predisposition for gross inaccuracy I might be more predisposed to accept it on faith alone. To be sure we need a sort of scientific methodology for discovery. That is obvious. However our addictive dependency on old theory and doctrine (Darwinism for example) and the reluctance to accept all other petitioners is tantamount to intellectual sacrilege. MB

I'm not so sure, maybe I'm just reading you wrong, but you observe science as being an addictive dependancy to old theory but science, if not so proven on an evidential level, certainly can pertain to the idea that it "follows the truth, wherever it may lead" (Socrates).

Personally, I feel that religion is more guilty of attaching itself to dogma - although I'm refraining from saying that this is a bad thing, it just re-iterates my point that as a tool of explanation religion has already established its conclusions and followers of the various faiths have faith enough to believe that their outlook on the meaning of life is already correct.

Science, on the other hand seems to be a differing mechanism - I don't see science as an established theory, but a constantly evolving process, following the truth down whatever avenue (No matter how controversial) and I admire science for this.

However, I guess that lines are drawn everyday - between science and religion - although the dichotamy between the two is only a theoretical one. Professors of Science and Religious Scholars are the quickest to admit that they are fields of theoretical enquiry, not factual analysis.

Good science, is like good religion - that which is merely the most convincing.

[Matt W]

However our addictive dependency on old theory and doctrine (Darwinism for example) and the reluctance to accept all other petitioners is tantamount to intellectual sacrilege.

And how is this different from all those who hold the Bible/Koran/Torah as the inalianable truth? Seriously - science, on the whole, admits its' failings, and constantly searches for further proof, and more accurate ways of measuring the universe. The vast majority of theologians do not look at what is happening in the world around them, or look to the future, but rather seek solace and enlightenment in writings which are anything up to 2000 years old. How is this not blinkered?

[MerlinsByte]

by James Mcbride...However, I guess that lines are drawn everyday - between science and religion - although the dichotamy between the two is only a theoretical one. Professors of Science and Religious Scholars are the quickest to admit that they are fields of theoretical enquiry, not factual analysis. Good science, is like good religion - that which is merely the most convincing.

Good stuff>>>>>"although the dichotamy between the two is only a theoretical one. Professors of Science and Religious Scholars are the quickest to admit that they are fields of theoretical enquiry, not factual analysis." <<<<<<<<

here! here! Ill drink to that ....and I also like your last statment there, Mr Mcbride ,

Good science, is like good religion - that which is merely the most convincing.

sad but true....ahhh can i use that good science thing?....

mb

[JamesMcBride]

Ofcourse you can All royalties on the back of a £10 note to moi!

[Paul]

Is one's religion his/her's way of life, or is one's religion how he/she worships an idol or idols?

Is to love your neighbor as you love yourself a religion?

If a person belongs to 'The Church of Love', what religion does that person belong to?

May the Spirit of Love and Truth be within you and your deeds be accordingly.

Peace be with you, Paul

[Runa216]

I'm with Asian American here.

Runa

[MerlinsByte]

And how is this different from all those who hold the Bible/Koran/Torah as the inalianable truth? Seriously - science, on the whole, admits its' failings, and constantly searches for further proof, and more accurate ways of measuring the universe. The vast majority of theologians do not look at what is happening in the world around them, or look to the future, but rather seek solace and enlightenment in writings which are anything up to 2000 years old. How is this not blinkered?

Merlin writes...Blinkered I like that, anyway. I believe that I agree with you too most points ...dang that's two ten pound notes!

I lash out wrongly, most times as anger is counter productive, when someone is discourteous to religious people. Why? Most of the truly religious people of quality are somewhat meek. I take up for women (suffering physical violence) its basically the same thing.

You say "science, on the whole, admits its' failings, and constantly searches for further proof, and (is a) more accurate ways of measuring the universe."

Yes, Scientific methodology is a great tool and I am in concurrence for keeping it in its full capacity for discovery. It poses no threat to my religion. As far as measuring or describing the universe may I offer this rough analogy?

Science can describe the parts of a clock to me, show me a blueprint of its innards’ , but I may not able to assemble it. If I truly know clock works I could assemble it blindfolded. I think understanding the universe will be similar. And once understood, it will be beautiful.

I feel that it will take both science and religion, which were one and the same in the distant past and will be again, to know the universe , and who or what Intelligence designed it.

mb

[Rave7pt0]

Science and Religion are two different ways of accessing the same truth. Or so we think. I think that science is over the hill at this point, and will, in the next hundred+ years, begin to hit obstacles too large to circumvent -- that's when a newer knowledge paradigm will become mainstream.

In the mean time you'll have people who honestly believe science is the best way to find all truth -- but isn't that the way of paradigms? It's facinating really, to see how intellectualism evolves, and always systematically denies the elements of reality that it cannot explain. Science doesn't have any place in the more abstract part of religion, and so someone indoctrinated into that scientific paradigm will simply deny that those religious concepts have any place in reality... our perspective shapes what we observe in a profound and fundamental way, and that, my dear scientists, because of her particular emphasis on observation, is what will make science obsolete in time.

[Runa216]

here we go on another religious debate (I love these)

the main science vs religion argument is that scientists are willing to admit it when they're wrong, the clergy is not. I trust the scientists more, they are more humble.

Runa

[lsbskins1]

:rolleyes:

Religion suffers from the same problem that alll human endevors suffer from, the involvement of humans. We are imperfect creatures. We make mistakes, we want what we want and are not usually satisfied with what we need. We can have the best intentions and still fall prey to the demands of our egos. Feeling potent is more important than being right. I am not a religious person from the standpoint of believing in the supernatural aspects of any belief system. I believe, as a very smart man once said, in accepting truth where you find it. There is truth in all the major world religions and in them there is also the failings of the humans who, even if they did not "invent" them, still had to report and interpret them. One of the biggest problems with discussing this issue is the ego factor. Most people (myself included) are convinced their worldview is the proper one. And though it is important to have the courage of your convictions, it is equally important to be open to the possibility that your views were shapped by incomplete information. That is where most religion fails. Holy writ is holy writ. It can not be "wrong". The arguement then moves to the "if you were truely in tune with [insert religious figure here], you would see how wrong you are" track. Objective evidence ceases to matter. The "truth" has been revealed and any evidence to the contrary is ignored or rationalized away to deal with the cognitive dissonance experienced by the believer. Now, I do not mean to imply that cetain members of the scientific community can not fall prey to the same type of slavish devotion to theory but, it is less likely to occur in the scientific community because of the difference in basic structure between religion and science.
Religion and science are probably equally "necessary" to mankind. The question is how to apply the "truth where you find it" idea rather than the "truth as I see it" idea. How do we open humans to the possibility that what they have held as sacred may be nothing more than misinterpreted evidence? My mind goes to the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian"...

"Ignore the shoe! Follow the gourd!"

Who among us really knows?

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear I don't understand Teddy's last sentence. Can anyone explain?

Who cares what Teddy has to say about science. It is not as if he was known as a great scientist. It is a basic fallicy to take the abilities of a person in one area such as sports, politics or religion and project it into other areas such as science. It is also a very good indication of just how lame brained MB is since it is obvious that he is unawares of that fallicy. It is also a fallicy to quote any person as if they speak for everyone else. If you claim that an idea is widely held in certain circles such as scientific circles then the way you support that claim is by presenting evidence showing what the people in that group think about that idea. Also an honest person would recognize that such samples even as far back as the turn of the last century show that a majority of scientists thought that supernatural religion was hokum.

Answers in Genesis

But a recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. 72.2 % were overtly atheistic, 20.8 % agnostic, and only 7.0 % believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The unbelief is far higher than the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole population.

Starboy

[James]

Religion isn't just something that people use to take up their extra time or something. Religion, or at least most, is a person's guide of how to live their life and what will happen to them on earth and/or after death. A person's religion is not to be trivialized or overlooked as a hobby or just an opinion. If the person truly is devoted to their religion (again, most) then it is the most important factor in their life, and explains the how's and why's of their existence.

I hope I didn't sound too much like a liberal nutcase, since I am a diehard Conservative.