Infallible proof of god

Or as some call it, scientism.

 

In Christianity there is no such thing as proof of God. It has to based on faith.

 

Physical proof would have been left behind from many biblical stories. Is there anything like this around for any religion?

 

I hate to use the word "proof", because I don't believe it is possible to "prove" religion. Fundamentalists are majorly into archaelogogical evidence of biblical truths, but just because we have evidence that these sites existed doesn't mean that this proves the miracles claimed in the Bible, any more than the discovery that Troy existed is proof of the accuracy of Homer's Odyssey and Illiad. What proof would you expect? Did Exodus happen? If so, why is there not much record of such a large-scale migration--over 600,000 people? Possibly, because it wasn't as large or sudden as the Bible makes it out to have been. Prof. Malamot of Hebrew Univesity thinks "600,000" was used simply to convey a large number of people, probably more like 20,000. I view the Bible from an historical-metaphorical perspective, so I expect a certain amount of exaggeration. If you watch the "Naked Archaeologist", Simcha Jacobovici on TV, however, you can see some evidence that the event occurred. I'm not bowled over by the evidence, and I don't consider the guy a reliable source. Were the Israelites guided by a pillar of fire at night and a pillar of cloud by day? I'm skeptical about that, and we don't have corroborating evidence. There is no reliable evidence of a global flood, although there are certainly lots of flood legends in a variety of cultures (It's not an uncommon phenomenon). To my knowledge, other religions are in the same boat.

 

Yes.
In fact Archaeologists have found the Bible remarkably helpful in finding new discoveries in the Middle East. Which is some what amazing, seeing as most people think of the Bible as just a book of fairytales.

 

Thanx Okiefreak, I was about to call him on Sir Isaac Newton's Law of Gravity also but I think you did a better job than I would have.

 

Even "backward" Christians believe that mankind has been around for at least 5000 years and 2000 years ago was the middle of the Roman Empire, hardly smart apes at the dawn of a new civilization. These seem to be holes to me.

 

No, not "yes or no". I'm trying to explain the mentality, I'm not saying that I agree with this, so why should I be pushed to give a "yes/no" answer?

Obviously they thought they were doing right at the time. But be aware, we judge it as being wrong by the consequences. If someone does something good in the name of God, we're happy enough to go along with that, right?

 

Well, yeah, but part of every decision in life we as humans make is using our minds to do some critical thinking.

For example, if we, we as a group would like to embark on a mission/crusade to retake a city occupied and populated by hardcore, fanatical Muslims such as Jerusalem, wouldn't it be common sense to expect that there would certainly be some resistance, ensuring a bloodbath?

If we persists on our mission/crusade to retake Jerusalem inspite of the anticipated bloodbath, it would be logical to justify our actions as doing "the Lords work".

Therefore, for Christians who participated in the Crusades, the killing of thousands of Muslims was doing "the Lord's work" never mind the fact their christian god tells them "Thou Shalt Not Kill". A blatant contradiction.

Unless of course, christians view other humans, the non-believers as being sub-human, worthy of being put to death ...

 

Yeah, I'll level with you though; I doubt the Crusades really play on many Christians' minds these days. Not because they're acquiescent to that kind of thing, but simply because they know that they would never do anything like that.

Realistically, I think you've hit on more than you realise. While many wars are fought in the name of religion, I don't believe religion starts wars. Wars revolve around money, land, property, whatever. Religion is just a handy tool to unite people when you need to. Of course the war of America on so many Islamic countries isn't a holy war, but if people see it as such, well, more power to them. Even the most tolerant of us consider the possibility that other religions - or any "other" - could be a threat to us and our way of life. It's very easy for anyone who really wants to to persuade us that that's the case to gain our complicity.

So yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head, in a way. These wars are fought in God's name. But they would've been fought without it.

 

Perhaps, we can also say, that religion is indeed a handy tool, a crutch that can be used to manipulate, control or even be used as a form of self-delusion, similar to a drug.

 

I kinda assumed I just had. It's very important to you to slate religion, isn't it? You don't seem to be able to rise above the "OMG RELIGION EATS MY BABIES!!!" level of this argument. Relentlessly focused on the bad stuff. But you know, people like to be united. People in the UK are always complaining about how they can't go out at night and don't ever get to know their neighbours. Can't help but think religion, or at least its framework, provided some sense of common virtues and beliefs. It's not all choirboys getting sodomised and Westboro gayhate, and neither is it the case that religion can only appeal to those who OMG DON'T WANT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. I think you do people a disservice if you imply as much.

 

There's nothing more informative than people arguing about arguing.

 

Something like the role scientism plays for atheists?

 

Not really, no. How would science or "scientism" even do that? Placating the public with a lot of difficult non-answers?

 

lol. OK. Now we see where Okiefreak is coming from.

It seems like Okiefreak is the kind of person who would rather pray than go to a doctor, take a medicine pill or go to the dentist for a toothache, having faith that they will just simply go away.

Sorry, Okiefreak, no offense, just putting into practical use the illogical reasoning you have provided for us.

 

I think he's pushing the "science requires faith in science, religion requires faith in religion, thus both are the same/similar/comparable" line. It's true that both require faith. The difference is that science requires the faith that two identical experiments will always yield the same results (e.g. if I lean on table A once and it supports me weight, it's unlikely that I will pass through it as though it were a gas the second or third or nine-hundred and ninety-ninth time), whereas religion requires the faith that a few guys were somehow told how the world was created so that they could write books about it.

 

Very good SelfControl.

Thanks.

 

Very true.

That's why I have trouble accepting the christians dogmas.

They say the world was created in 6 days.

Why should I believe it?

I wasn't there.

 

Well no, that's not what I meant really. By the same logic you shouldn't accept that anything happened just because it's in a book. That's the argument that's being made, anyway, and to some extent it's correct: you shouldn't believe whatever just because. But that doesn't mean that you have to accept everything as an equal possibility simply because you can't be 100% certain.

My argument against the 6-day creation thing is not merely that I wasn't there, but that no-one was. Ultimately, we only have God's word for it, and he could be lying...