Will Science Eventually Drown Religion?

"Will Science Eventually Drown Religion? "


No!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

then please go ahead and enlighten us.
a few local links please.

then please go ahead and enlighten me.
a few links would help, ones that show it was an atheist philosophy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

audible

you haven't located any threads innvolving atheists arguing amongst themselves?

you mean you never wondered why gulags didn't catalyze a religious renaisance in communist russia and china

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hope all religious organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.

 

*************
M*W: Religion is drowning in its own lies.

 

What evidence do you have for that? I would say that you are very wrong in stating that.

 

its not uncommon for theists to also express the same concern

I hope all atheistic organizations and peoples realize the obsurdity of their beliefs and eventually abandon the silly child-like, mindlessness of them.[/

 

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

 

to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of your claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. Your dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-defeating proposition.

 

Correct.

Correct.

Unsubstantiated, and inconclusive.

And I made no dogmatic claim. I merely pointed out that it's much more reasonable to not beleive in the invisible.

 

Except that ahteists don't try to prove the non-existance of God, they simply don't believe in him, it or whatever.
Theists like to believe in the God of the gaps.

 

You don't know much about science, you don't know much about religion. You probably know little about your own religion.

Basically, you're religious because you're ignorant. Belief is no substitute for knowledge.

 

wsionynw

Some atheists may speak like that but in this case it is a very definitive statement by glaucon .....

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...[/I]

its not like he is saying god may or may not exist - he is saying god is imaginary - I was pointing out that making such claims are very difficult for a logical person

 

Again, your logic is unsound.

I make no denial of the possibility of a god, merely that, until substantiated, it is unreasonable to beleive in one.

 

glaucon

the point is that you don't have the means to determine that it is imaginary, so when you make statements like

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...

they are in fact dogmatic

 

so you want to back down from your claim that god is imaginary?

 

The onus is not upon the disbeliever, rather it is upon the believer. I don't need the means to determine whether or not some supposed thing exists or not. Given a complete lack of evidence, the onus is upon that person that believes in the imaginary to provide such. This is why we are not the ones who have to convince the insane that we're sane.

Clearly, the statement is not dogmatic. One is of course free to believe in the imaginary.

 

lol

Not at all.

Imaginary, until proven otherwise.

Like the unicorn.

 

Religion will adapt to emerging science, eventually. There is still plenty of room for inspirational mythology, one modern equivalent of which is Star Trek.

 

In a debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on theists. This, however, is a false assertion. As philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side.

so perhaps you would like to explain how you came to your conclusion

The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...


To be more specific, your view positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?