Why do people hate religion? (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

How can you definitively say that if Einstien didn't research molecular behaviour there would be no A bomb? Einstein wasn't the only scientist researching atoms, nor was the development of the bomb based purely on his findings alone.

As for your last comment, Einstein was 5 when he composed it. You were still digging nuggets from your nappy and eating them at 5.

I can definetly say it - because all othe physicisit at the time felt he was the best, most well known and most influential. otherwise they wouldnt have asked for him to write a letter- and they could have done it themselves but probably would have failed and thus no A-bomb.

Another more famous aspect of Einstein's childhood is the fact that he spoke much later than the average child. Einstein claimed that he did not begin speaking until the age of three and only did so hesitantly, even beyond the age of nine (see 4.2 of this article, "Speculation and controversy"). Because of Einstein's late speech development and his later childhood tendency to ignore any subject in school that bored him — instead focusing intensely only on what interested him — some observers at the time suggested that he might be "retarded," such as one of the Einstein's housekeepers. This latter observation was not the only time in his life that controversial labels and pathology would be applied to Einstein. (See again, "Speculation and controversy".)

he was a retard.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

I can definetly say it - because all othe physicisit at the time felt he was the best, most well known and most influential. otherwise they wouldnt have asked for him to write a letter- and they could have done it themselves but probably would have failed and thus no A-bomb.

he was a retard.

The best and most influential scientist of the time, the one whom, if we accept your premise "created the A-bomb" was also a retard?

Retarded= best scientist of the time?

Whilst I'm sure you an expert physicist, suggesting that he was the only scientist capable of producing an A-bomb is ridiculous. Without Einstein it may have taken a few years longer but irregardless of that we would have that kind of weapon now.

 

[katie_tully]

It's like saying Einstein was and will always be the only brilliant physicist the world has ever seen, and that anything Einstein ever concluded would have never been discovered by somebody else.

Einstein concluded that E=MC2. We know now from other physicists that it does not.

 

[em06]

i think sometimes it is an issue of being closed minded on the issue.
for example, we are so quick to believe the media but immediately dismiss the theories behind certain issues, when both show no "evidence"
the same with christianity. people dont want to believe it because it causes them to change their life and start living Gods way and not their own. however there is no evidence against this belief. (if you think there is please tell me) so is it not safe to say that we should not be so against one view if we have no idea about either!

im a christian and im not easliy offended so write what you like. but i get cut at the stereotypical labels we are under. that we are judgmental, critical of others, self rightious, seclusive, hypocritical and what not.

 

[katie_tully]

Lets look at the number 0.
There is no proof it exists, because it is 0. There is no proof that it doesn't exist though, because when you have 1 and you take 1 away there is nothing.

It's paradoxical. You say there is no proof, then ask for evidence against something that has no proof. They cancel each other out.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i think sometimes it is an issue of being closed minded on the issue.

Sorry to appear to be picking on you, but I'm rather sick of people claiming the problem is that others are close-minded without seeming to have a real idea of what being open-minded means. It is not close-minded to not believe in God if you're still willing to listen to the arguments from others and accept the possibility.

people dont want to believe it because it causes them to change their life and start living Gods way and not their own.

Why would people want to believe when they die, there's nothing?
Why would people want to believe their loved ones no longer exist in any form?
Why would someone not want to believe in heaven?
Why would someone whom leads a moral/good life still 'choose' to not believe in God?

It has nothing to do with having to change their life and everything to do with the lack of evidence in favour of the existance of a God.

however there is no evidence against this belief. (if you think there is please tell me)

What evidence suffices to disprove God? For me the lack of evidence of a God, given what most people claim its nature to be etc is enough for me to consider a God to not exist. You see... there is no evidence that is 100% against belief in Santa Claus, The tooth fairy, Alien Autopsyies, the Boogeyman, the Loch ness monster, Batman, The easter bunny and a super-intelligent cow that controls our minds with his mind-control machine... but I doubt you're very open to the existance of those things in the same way now, are you?

 

[katie_tully]

The main argument used by the God squad is that ...
"Prove God does not exist". It is very hard to disprove evidence for something when there was no evidence to prove it in the first place.

 

[hayhayhay]

Their argument is like "well some of the things the bible sed would happen have actually come true. so if some of it is true why not all of it?"

by that logic, if some of it is wrong, then maybe all of it could be wrong too...
we all know the old belief of the church that everything revolved around earth was proved wrong by galileo (even though he was too scared of the church's power to really hammer in the truth).

the idea that the universe was created in seven days?
hmm... for that to happen we have to think about what they really make of the concept of a day. is it seven earth days? one day being 24 hours? if that is the case, there needs to be a point from which the day is defined. and if the sun had not been 'created' yet, would there still be a reference point from which to measure a day?

i am not saying it is all lies. sure, being faithful to your religion can shape you into a good person with wholesome values. but it's all a grey area for me, i cant see where to draw the line at truth or fiction

 

[ur_inner_child]

however there is no evidence against this belief. (if you think there is please tell me) so is it not safe to say that we should not be so against one view if we have no idea about either!

...Burden of Proof

• Shifting the Burden of Proof

In many cases, appeals to ignorance can be made by people on either side of a dispute. For example:
Quote:
There is no evidence that aliens are living amongst us. Therefore, aliens are not living amongst us.

There is no evidence that super-disguised aliens are not living amongst us. Therefore, super-disguised aliens are living amongst us.
Which one of these arguments will win out? That depends on where we think the burden of proof lies. The person who argues for the more surprising, counter-intuitive claim carries the burden of proof. It is up to him/her to show that she has evidence for p being true.

Someone who produces a new medicine similarly bears the burden of proof, i.e. that person is obliged to show that the medicine is effective. It is not the case that we ought to believe that the new medicine is effective unless we have found evidence that it is ineffective.

When the proponent of an argument claims that it is not up to her to prove her conclusion, but up to her opponent to disprove it, the proponent is attempting to shift the burden of proof. Shifting the burden of proof may count as fallacious when the burden clearly cannot be shifted.

e.g. "I believe that I am the King of the world, and, unless you can prove that I am not, you are obliged to obey me!".

e.g. "I believe that you are an alien in very convincing disguise, and I should believe that unless you can prove to me you are not".

The question of where lies the burden of proof is often very difficult. Note that sometimes we explicitly adopt conventions about the burden of proof, e.g. By law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, in cricket we give the batsman the benefit of the doubt. What should we do in everyday life, and in science?

When it is not clear where the burden of proof lies, it might be best to withhold judgment, i.e. refuse to hold the belief that p and refuse to hold the belief that not p. This is probably best with the question of the existence of aliens somewhere else in the universe. In contrast, the burden of proof lies clearly with those who think that there are aliens amongst us, and they haven’t provided that evidence, so we ought not believe that aliens live amongst us.

 

[Serius]

The main argument used by the God squad is that ...
"Prove God does not exist". It is very hard to disprove evidence for something when there was no evidence to prove it in the first place.

The very nature of faith is that you cannot prove or dissprove it. If you could it wouldnt be faith anymore, its basicially built into almost every religion that you cant prove any of it so dont even try.

 

[ur_inner_child]

The very nature of faith is that you cannot prove or dissprove it. If you could it wouldnt be faith anymore, its basicially built into almost every religion that you cant prove any of it so dont even try.

Yes but her assertion was that it is absurd to ask for evidence that God does not exist

 

[P_Dilemma]

Another reason why people would hate religion: people keep shifting the burden of proof.

Reminds me of court battles...

-P_D

 

[KFunk]

Lets look at the number 0.
There is no proof it exists, because it is 0. There is no proof that it doesn't exist though, because when you have 1 and you take 1 away there is nothing.

It's paradoxical. You say there is no proof, then ask for evidence against something that has no proof. They cancel each other out.

Hmm, I'm not sure about the zero example. Its existence isn't really of the kind where proof is required. You could view it as a construction of the human intellect or perhaps some kind of platonic absolute, but either way it doesn't require proof. You could perhaps take your argument into the physical world but even then is it reasonable to suppose that a 'lack of something' really has a physical, as apposed to an abstract, existence?

On the proof paradox thing: I believe you can have that kind of a situation without generating paradox. I'll take string theory as an example (assuming that they still lack proof for it). Many top scientists are committed to string theory, yet it lacks proof. These scientists cannot make a proper claim to the truth of string theory without sufficient proof, nor can opponents reject it without disproof. As with the existence of god (in the absence of proof or disproof), the truth of string theory remains undertermined.

Hence I would argue that believers are justified in requesting disproof of god when atheists assert that god does not exist. However, by the same token, I think that if they make such a request then they should be required to meet the same standards and provide proof of god's existence.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't believe strings can be claimed to exist until experiments have been done to show they do. Scientists whom are committed to this theory are fine to be committed but only as long as they are looking to determine whether the theory holds true or if it does not.

To me it is fair to ask for disproof of God, to a certain extent. I.e. if someone asked me to disprove god, I would ask "What evidence do you require to not believe in other supernatural beings?" For most people I'd say they don't believe in OTHER supernatural beings because there's no proof of them. This makes sense to me, I think for these reasons:

- It is rather hazardous to all our knowledge to imagine all these other, supernatural possibilities.

- When looking to determine whether a creature exists, what we'll do is not accept its existance until there is evidence of it.

Now of course, you can be agnostic and win in every way. Ultimately I accept that Agnosticism is the perfect philisophical position, but I don't think it does anything for us but leads to more confusion.

 

[mr EaZy]

Another reason why people would hate religion: people keep shifting the burden of proof.

Reminds me of court battles...

-P_D

Lol true, but look at how moonlight started that does god exist trhead "im gonna wait till someone posts a comment and ill rebut them..."

Similarly, the Quran claims that its a piece of perfect art, free of doubt, free of contradictions with itself and science, and something no one else can reproduce or match in any way, that it will not be tampered with- and after all that it challenges anyone and everyone to prove it wrongin the above

its a pretty big challenge,

i havent been on bos for a while now, dont think anyone responded to my last thread, if anyone can prove the above wrong, or knows someone who does, lemme know- but after 1400 years, i doubt anyone will. so ill keep on following this religion

if you dont know what im talking about... read the quran and try to find any defects in it, or see if it makes sense to you as someone who is living 1400 years after it was first revealed

instructions:
"This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard " (2:2)
"those who guard" - you have to be in a state of being to appreciate it , i.e dont skim read it or read it in a drunken state! - the phrase means that you know what your doing


http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

enjoy

and farewell for now...

 

[HotShot]

Lol true, but look at how moonlight started that does god exist trhead "im gonna wait till someone posts a comment and ill rebut them..."

Similarly, the Quran claims that its a piece of perfect art, free of doubt, free of contradictions with itself and science, and something no one else can reproduce or match in any way, that it will not be tampered with- and after all that it challenges anyone and everyone to prove it wrongin the above

its a pretty big challenge,

i havent been on bos for a while now, dont think anyone responded to my last thread, if anyone can prove the above wrong, or knows someone who does, lemme know- but after 1400 years, i doubt anyone will. so ill keep on following this religion

if you dont know what im talking about... read the quran and try to find any defects in it, or see if it makes sense to you as someone who is living 1400 years after it was first revealed

instructions:
"This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard " (2:2)
"those who guard" - you have to be in a state of being to appreciate it , i.e dont skim read it or read it in a drunken state! - the phrase means that you know what your doing


http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

enjoy

and farewell for now...

U do realise that other religions is prove enough that the quran is not perfect?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

U do realise that other religions is prove enough that the quran is not perfect?

The existence of other religions cannot disprove a book that was written at least 600 years AFTER they began. I'm not trying to prove the qu'aran is perfect but I fail to see what the presence of other religions has to do with the relative 'perfectness' of this book.

 

[gerhard]

well i think this debate is pretty juvenile, but this website http://www.infolink-islam.de/Main//Quran/Contra/index.html seems to think there are numerous contradictions in the qu'ran. in fact it lists 88.

 

[HotShot]

The existence of other religions cannot disprove a book that was written at least 600 years AFTER they began. I'm not trying to prove the qu'aran is perfect but I fail to see what the presence of other religions has to do with the relative 'perfectness' of this book.

Presence of other religions shows that the quran is not perfect and it also shows the islam is not the ideal or perfect religion.

mr eazy claimed:

free of doubt, free of contradictions with itself and science, and something no one else can reproduce or match in any way, that it will not be tampered with- and after all that it challenges anyone and everyone to prove it wrongin the above

Doubt and contradictions is shown by the existence of other religions. Otherwise we would be all following islam rather christanity or buddhism etc.

think of this way - if islam was the noly religion then we would believe or not. if there were other religions we would have a choice - as decision makers we would make the best choice to satisfy ourselves. if islam or the quran was perfect - then wouldnt we all be muslims?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Presence of other religions shows that the quran is not perfect and it also shows the islam is not the ideal or perfect religion.

No you idiot it doesn't. The presence of other religions proves nothing because Islam began and the qua'ran was written hundreds of years after Christianity began!

Doubt and contradictions is shown by the existence of other religions. Otherwise we would be all following islam rather christanity or buddhism etc.

We are talking about contradictions within the qu'aran, not contradictions with other texts. All religions contradict each other, if they didn't, they would be the same religion! I think the argument that the books contradict themselves is ridiculous anyway, all texts do that. The Bible, the Qu'aran, both do it, its a fact, its not worth arguing about. Besides, the Qu'aran actually mentions the other religions in it, Judaism and Christianity, as brothers of the book (or something along those lines) as well as the various tribal religions so obviously Mohammed was aware of the presence of other religions. So where is the contradiction in that?

think of this way - if islam was the noly religion then we would believe or not. if there were other religions we would have a choice - as decision makers we would make the best choice to satisfy ourselves. if islam or the quran was perfect - then wouldnt we all be muslims?

Yes if Islam was the only religion then we would have a choice between atheism and Islam. However, do human beings always make the best choice for themselves? (Note, I'm not saying I think Islam is the best religion, just that you are attacking it on very weak grounds and I would say the same if we were talking about Christianity)
Do you think taking ice, which leads to brain damage, is the best choice for young people? No? Yet according to the newspaper one in 7 people have tried Ice, and 10% of the 18-25 population are regular users. Do you think the suicide cults in America were the best religions to join? Some people did. They died. What I am saying is that I don't think you can assume that even the 'perfect religion' would have 100% acceptance...