Straw man. Science doesn’t try to prove if God is real or fake.
True it just keeps invalidating the garbage piled up around someones faith. They could accept it was false and move on with no hindrance to their belief in god but because they can’t burn someone as a witch because we know why milk goes bad they reject it all.
Also, its literally impossible to prove, that something doesntvexist. You can be very sure about the not existence of something, but you can’t be 100% sure.
Are you 100% sure that such proof doesn’t exist?
If you believe in God and science empirically proved God didn’t exist, would you still believe?
If you don’t believe in God, and science empirically proved God exists, would you start to worship it?
I don’t believe God exists. But if he was proven to exist, I would believe. I would not, however, worship him. Dude’s a prick.
I would hear his explanation first. The story is full of holes.
I mean, if Yahweh exists it’s not that the story is full of holes so much as that he was part of the Canaanite pantheon and the stories were never originally meant to describe the actions of a singular god.
There is likely a whole mythological cycle that we simply do not have because it was destroyed by zealots for disproving their weird monotheistic fan fiction.
It’s like trying to make sense of the Norse sagas if cultists merged all the other gods into Odin, including Loki.
it depends which god we ended up proving the existence of, if it’s prometheus i’d join the movement to free him from his eternal punishment for gifting humanity the fire of innovation.
“Flying spaghetti monsters, did in fact, create all life in the universe.”
blessed be his noodly appendage
ramen
You can have your faith, so long as you stop forcing it down other people’s throats.
and don’t insist that every part of the holy texts are literally 100% undiluted word of god, which generally makes religion way easier to integrate with a scientific worldview.
no, god did not create eve from adam’s rib, that’s just evocative storytelling initially written by people in the middle east 2000 years ago and repeatedly altered and translated since then.
The problem is, the Abrahamic religions will always seed new fundementalists because, regardless of how people with a modern mindset might interpret it as allegory etc. to make it more palletable, the texts were intended to be read and believed literally. They were written by people in the bronze age, based on made up stories that go who knows how far back.
It’s what makes them so toxic, the belief virus of fundementalism is always there in a latent state waiting to be activated by some new context (usually a particularly charismatic leader or radical change in society).
You see a great example with the current pope – people thought from his language of “acceptance” towards lgbt people that the church was becoming more progressive, but then recently you see him using slurs that pretty clearly contradict that sentiment, because he understands the text is unequivocally anti-lgbt. The Abrahamic religions will always betray people in this way.
People take this to mean evangelizing, but still don’t see anything wrong with passing laws about their religion’s morality.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If legal and moral standard of society are dominated by the tenets of one religion, that’s not freedom of religion.
I had a teacher that taught both religion and chemistry. People who learned about that often made comments about it being weird. But he insisted that both topics are not exclusive to each other. It has been a long time since school but I think his reasoning (if that is the correct word) has been that one is philosophical and the other scientific which are separate worlds. You can’t prove stuff in faith scientifically but neither has religion a place in the " real" world. And, to be completely honest, he was by far one of the best teachers I have ever had.
I had a similar experience when I started my first job as a software developer and the owner / lead engineer, probably the most intelligent person I’ve ever met, told me about how is religious.
I just couldn’t compute, particularly as I’d be radicalised against religion online.
We have had many discussions and it become clear that he had thought more about his faith than I ever could and who was I to judge his position if he isn’t hurting people then he can believe what he likes.
As you said, its a philosophical belief and not that he believes in a being per se, but that there is something deeper to the universe.
One of my favourite biochemistry tutors at university was also a reverend. We never spoke about the overlap but I’ve read his books since graduating and it’s interesting to see how his faith augments his science and vice versa.
There are phylosophy of science, sociology and psycology. They aren’t completely disconnected.
It’s not that science and scientists set out to prove god doesn’t exists. It’s that the word of god as written down by men is contradicted directly and often by proven fact, and that belief in God is associated with a strong ignorance of reality.
People didn’t live to 800. Goat blood doesn’t protect you from plagues. The earth is not just 5 millennia old. Humans have not existed since the dawn of time.
But unironically, “having faith” implies that you do not need proof but you are trusting your belief. So they are kind of correct
Yep, bible has a lot of sections about having the faith of a child. Believing without needing proof.
And there are no ongoing studies, clinical trials, etc regarding the existence or non-existence of god. And of course this IS a “shitpost”.
That’s probably because the current Abrahamic incarnation of god and his attributes are carefully designed to be a non-falsifiable claim.
So the point is actually rendered moot. God is according to the True Believer invisible, intangible, only works in “mysterious ways,” and cannot be observed to have any influence on the universe, nor leaves any evidence of his existence except “faith.” By those metrics, it’s irrelevant whether he exists or not. A hypothetical force that exists but doesn’t affect anything is interchangeable from a functional standpoint from something that doesn’t exist.
See also: Russel’s Teapot.
deleted by creator
The way faith is treated in the First Century doesn’t translate well to modern audiences. Having faith of a child isn’t an analogy to a child being gullible. It’s an analogy to the way a child trusts in and depends on his parents. Trust, arguably, would be a better translation than faith in many instances.
Faith for ancient religious peoples wasn’t about believing without proof. That would be as ridiculous for a First Century Jew as it is for us. Faith is being persuaded to a conclusion by the evidence.
Those are apologetics. There’s no point in time where faith has ever required proof or evidence. Trust is not a better translation. Trust can be broken between two people and requires a mutual exchange of equals. That is not what religion is. It is not two equal parties exchanging trust. It’s one party with all the perceived power telling the other how it’s going to be without being able to change the rules, disagree, doubt, etc. It requires total and complete faith to accept. Not trust. Faith.
So while what you wrote sounds nice, it’s all bullshit.
No, sorry. I try to be deferential when talking about this stuff, but this is pretty cut and dry, and I’m afraid you’re just wrong here. This is Greek–not theology. πίστις is the word we’re talking about. It shares the common root with πείθω–“to persuade” (i.e., that evidence is compelling or trustworthy). πίστις is the same word you would use in describing the veracity of a tribunal’s judgment (for example, “I have πίστις that the jurors in NY got the verdict right/wrong”). The Greeks used the word to personify honesty, trust, and persuasiveness prior to the existence of Christianity (although someone who knows Attic or is better versed in Greek mythology feel free to correct me). The word is inherently tied up with persuasion, confidence, and trust since long before the New Testament. The original audience of the New Testament would have understood the meaning of the word without depending on any prior relation to religion.
Is trust always a better translation? Of course not–and that’s why, you’ll notice, I didn’t say that (and if it were, one would hope that many of the very well educated translators of Bibles would have used it). But I think you can agree that the concept is also difficult for English to handle (since trust in a person, trust in a deity, and trust in a statement are similar but not quite the same thing, and the same goes for belief in a proposition, belief in a person, and belief in an ideal or value, to say nothing of analogous concepts like loyalty and integrity).
The point is that πίστις–faith–absolutely does not mean belief without evidence, and Christianity since its inception has never taught that. English also doesn’t use the word “faith” to imply the absence of evidence, and we don’t need to appeal to another language to understand that. It’s why the phrase “blind faith” exists (and the phrase is generally pejorative in religious circles as well as secular ones).
Now, if you think the evidence that convinces Christians to conclude that Jesus’ followers saw Him after His death is inadequate, that’s perfectly valid and a reasonable criticism of Christianity–and if you want to talk about that, that would be apologetics.
In any event, if you’re going to call something bullshit, you better have a lot of faith in the conclusion you’re drawing. ;)
Everybody knows that one guy that always has to prove they’re right.
No Eric, I do not need to hear why the trump verdict was bullshit, especially when I directly ask what you disagree with about it and just get back they railroaded him and how stormy talked about all this sex shit, although I do not understand why that was admitted, but you have nothing to say about the actual evidence
What have
The Romansscientists ever done for us?Science doesn’t prove anything. It disproves things until only a single theory remains.
It doesn’t really disprove things either, but can be used to eliminate specific claims as not supported by evidence.
… yet.
…single
theoryhypothesis remains.A hypothesis is an observation stated in a falsifiable fashion, which allows it to be tested. Once a hypothesis has been tested thousands of times and always generates the same outcome, then it can become a theory.
Nonetheless, you know whats up, science proving shit only happens when the stars align. But disproving shit is super valuable as it allows researchers to reassess the hypothesis and experimental design in hopes of proving shit sooner rather than later.
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins the movie by telling you how it ends. Well I say there are some things we don’t want to know! Important things!
To be fair, it’s more like that annoying friend who babbles on and on about what they think is going to happen. They’re never quite sure, and are always changing their mind as the movie keeps going.
A motivatonal meme? Shit did i just mess up the timeline?
Faith based and ignorance pilled
Created and shared on devices created by science contribution…
To Finnish college.
You know what, they’re right. All this time I’ve spent praising our study of the universe, development of medicine and vaccines, even harnessing energy and sending information around the planet and I just feel duped.
Science is a liar sometimes.
