Debunking religion

[Elithium]

First, I'd like to say "Hello" as I am new to the forum. If I do or say anything against the norms, please inform me and I'll attempt to modify my behavior.

I am making this post for a particular reason. That reason is people seem to have the wrong approach to the debate on religion. Whether god exists or not is not relevant. The existence of god does not prove that any particular religion is anything more than a fable.

Also, I have seen a lot of religious people attempt to push the burden of proof on to the denier. This is not a correct position. Since I am most familiar with Christianity, I will address that religion first. The logic applies to all other religions though.

A Christian advocate is in the position that of claiming something that defies science is true. I could pick any book in the bible and point out an impossibility but for my purposes I'll simply pick one. Resurrection. According to all research done, a person can not simply be brought back to life after their brain has been deprived of oxygen for a short period of time. The longer the individuals brain goes with out oxygen, the more damage received. Complete brain failure would occur in a matter of minutes.

The idea that a man came back to life after being dead for a prolonged period of time is physically impossible. To explain this physical impossibility requires a religious person to fall back on "god did it". However, this is not an explanation with out first showing 1. That god exists. 2. That god was capable of doing it. 3. That god actually did do it.

I hope this helps to illustrate the problem with the religious debate in many of these threads.

If you wish to prove that your religion is right, the burden of proof is on you, not on the denier.

[arX]

Hello.

If I do or say anything against the norms, please inform me and I'll attempt to modify my behavior.

Please don't; norms are bloody boring.

[dab11999]

I have seen a lot of non religious people try to push the burden of proof onto the denier of godlessness, but that is not the correct position. Non religious people can neither prove nor disprove their beliefs and expect religious people to bear the burden of prove for the accusations of non religious people.
They obviously believe in guilty until proven innocent. They feel that science has reached it's zenith and has nothing more to add and therefore they have complete knowledge of all that is possible. Not unlike those who said the world was flat.

[Elithium]

Dab11999, I actually did disprove Christianity in my post, or at least put the burden of proof on to the Christian advocate. I believe you failed to understand the logic of my argument. If you are not a Christian but follow another faith, let me know which and I will do the same for your faith.

Your second paragraph does not relate to any point or statement I made.

Your "rebuttal" seems to be naught but a trivial statement with no actual logic and failed to address any point I made.

[Elithium]

No retorts? None of the religious people on here have a logical argument in support of their faith?

Ah, that's right, ignore what you can't address.

[IronCladLady]

If you don't believe it, why do you give a hoot that others do?

[Elithium]

I find ignorance annoying.

[el ايمان]

If you don't believe it, why do you give a hoot that others do?

Because, as is evidenced by history AND the present, people quite readily use religion to force others into submission.

[el ايمان]

I find ignorance annoying.

This too. This was much simpler than my answer, and got the point across just as clearly.

[SoylentGreen]

If you don't believe it, why do you give a hoot that others do?

Because others, like you, will take your religion and make poor decissions with it. ie. Vote against homosexuality based on the ridiculous idea that god is against homosexuality.
Your religious beliefs are of no concern to anyone. But when your religion impacts on the welfare of others then it is of concern to everyone.

[Esmira]

I don't really have any desire to convince others that God exists. I'm very comfortable with different faiths and a complete lack of faith. I can't worry about other people's salvation. I have, among my loved ones, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews and Atheists. I know they are wonderful individuals and... I have faith that God will reward that too, in the end.

Religion is supposed to be internal with only absolutely necessary outward expressions. If your entire faith is the equivalent of driving a beautiful, new car around your neighborhood all day so the neighbors can see, you're doing it wrong.

In fact, I'm suspicious of converts. I always doubt their intentions, always wonder what expression of my faith they've been exposed to, what seduced them. It's very unlikely they ever saw it for what I believe it is and should be. But sometimes it's OK. There was a famous American Jewish writer who visited the Balkans and converted to Islam. He was attracted by things that I also believe - not by... some sort of foreign impression that sees Islam, at best, as the new Goth.

For me, these debates are more about prompting responses from others to learn how they think, what their beliefs are. I find that very interesting.

So far it has reaffirmed my belief that literalist fundamentalism is silly, it's ritual over substance.

[Angry Citizen]

That's strange. I was always disdainful of people who inherited their religion from their parents. Have they ever had an independent thought in their entire life? At least the converts had the high-mindedness to withhold their preconceptions about an idea and try it on for size.