why all religions are fake

[jay_a2j]

Disprove...
1. Judaism
2. Islam
3. Buddhism
4. Hinduism
5. Christianity


The first four should be easy, but the last one cannot be disproven. Good luck!

mm-hmm, i still don't get what christianity does that is different from any other religion.

They recognize Jesus as God. And believe that Jesus is the only way to God.

But that doesn't make it any less provable!

In pure historical terms, Islam should be hardest to disprove because it is the youngest!

I was just answering the question, what in Christianity makes it different from any other religion?


To address the other point brought up...Jesus is the Son of God and is God. This is were we get into the trinity and the questions like: "Is God schizophrenic?" (Talking to Himself on the cross)

The question was why it should be harder to disprove. Your answer didn't have anything to do with the question...

It did taking the post responded to at face value.

[got tonkaed]

Although i might be like 9 pages late on this one....does anyone want to prove the first 4 religions false for me....id just be curious as to how such a thing could be done. If someone successfully proves the first 4 false...ill come up with a way to prove the 5th one false for everyone....

[b.k. barunt]

The first step in proving/disproving a religion would be to examine the life of the originator thereof. Case in point, Jesus vs. Mohammed (Pay Per View would clean up on that one). Jesus was a lowly carpenter who did violence to no man (except for the temple incident), advocated no violence, healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, etc. Mohammed raided caravans for personal gain (this involved killing and rape), consolidated his power by violating a truce on a holy day (but Allah told him to do it), and married his son's wife (or was it his son in law?). Which one would you listen to?

[Guiscard]

The first step in proving/disproving a religion would be to examine the life of the originator thereof. Case in point, Jesus vs. Mohammed (Pay Per View would clean up on that one). Jesus was a lowly carpenter who did violence to no man (except for the temple incident), advocated no violence, healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, etc. Mohammed raided caravans for personal gain (this involved killing and rape), consolidated his power by violating a truce on a holy day (but Allah told him to do it), and married his son's wife (or was it his son in law?). Which one would you listen to?

What has violence to do with whether or not God exists? Is there any particular rule which states that a violent God is less likely than a peaceful one?

And I think if you re-read a bit of Old Testement you'll find the Christian God, who is (as Jay said earlier) essentially Christ himself, or part thereof, casting rocks down upon the enemies of Israel, destroying whole cities etc. etc.

[b.k. barunt]

Guiscard, you want to either jump ahead, citing the catholics, or backwards, citing the Old Testament. We can do that, but for now, like i said, let's examine the lives of the two in question. Ok, for you, it wouldn't make any difference if one preached violence or peace - how about the treachery?

[got tonkaed]

The first step in proving/disproving a religion would be to examine the life of the originator thereof. Case in point, Jesus vs. Mohammed (Pay Per View would clean up on that one). Jesus was a lowly carpenter who did violence to no man (except for the temple incident), advocated no violence, healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, etc. Mohammed raided caravans for personal gain (this involved killing and rape), consolidated his power by violating a truce on a holy day (but Allah told him to do it), and married his son's wife (or was it his son in law?). Which one would you listen to?

im not sure that id actually agree with you about proving a religion false, or any idea for that matter simply by dealing with the person in question. The joke of the claim was that your not really going to be able to prove a religion false, since its not something we really can objectively test. And really your discussion just poses that one would be better suited to follow the teachings of Jesus than Mohammed....which is not the same thing as saying that the religion of one is true and that the other is untrue.

[Guiscard]

Guiscard, you want to either jump ahead, citing the catholics, or backwards, citing the Old Testament. We can do that, but for now, like i said, let's examine the lives of the two in question. Ok, for you, it wouldn't make any difference if one preached violence or peace - how about the treachery?

What I'm saying is that qualities of a certain god / prophet have absolutely nothing to do with proving / disproving anything! Why should a peaceful God be any harder to disprove than a warlike one? A treacherous God is no more or less provable than a loyal one... What is your logic hear? Why do the qualities and attributes make any difference?

Frodo Bagins is a good, and Sauron is bad... yet neither are any more real because of that!

[Bertros Bertros]

I challenge you! Disprove my religion:

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/promos ... s-god.html

Not omnibenevolent, in that it allows us to commit immoral acts which we would not have been able to commit without it... i.e. searching for pornography.

What exactly is immoral about pornography, let alone searching for it? Ok I appreciate that is a thread in its own right really but I'm genuinely surprised you wrote that, Guiscard.

However...

» PROOF #5

Google is infinite. The Internet can theoretically grow forever, and Google will forever index its infinite growth.

Allocation of IPv4 addresses is currently at 78% and although IPv6 is designated as the successor to this protocol, and should be relatively painless in transition, ultimately there is still a finite address space which means Google is indeed finite. One could argue that another protocol could succeed IPv6 but that would mean Google is only potentially infinite, not actually infinite, which are two very different things.

[Guiscard]

I challenge you! Disprove my religion:

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/promos ... s-god.html

Not omnibenevolent, in that it allows us to commit immoral acts which we would not have been able to commit without it... i.e. searching for pornography.

What exactly is immoral about pornography, let alone searching for it? Ok I appreciate that is a thread in its own right really but I'm genuinely surprised you wrote that, Guiscard.

I was thinking more in a biblical sense (I doubt God approves of chickswithdicks.com)

[MR. Nate]

What I'm saying is that qualities of a certain god / prophet have absolutely nothing to do with proving / disproving anything! Why should a peaceful God be any harder to disprove than a warlike one? A treacherous God is no more or less provable than a loyal one... What is your logic hear? Why do the qualities and attributes make any difference?

I believe that b.k. barunt is engaging in perfect being theology, which does not specifically deal with proving the existence of God. Rather, he's discussing the differences between the claims to perfection made by the founders of Christianity and Islam. If we can establish which one is better, than we can (theoretically) make a claim that it has a better chance of being true. It less a hard proof in favor of the existence of God, and more an argument for deciding which system of worship is best.

Try not to bring your scientific preconceptions to a religious discussion.

[Guiscard]

What I'm saying is that qualities of a certain god / prophet have absolutely nothing to do with proving / disproving anything! Why should a peaceful God be any harder to disprove than a warlike one? A treacherous God is no more or less provable than a loyal one... What is your logic hear? Why do the qualities and attributes make any difference?

I believe that b.k. barunt is engaging in perfect being theology, which does not specifically deal with proving the existence of God. Rather, he's discussing the differences between the claims to perfection made by the founders of Christianity and Islam. If we can establish which one is better, than we can (theoretically) make a claim that it has a better chance of being true. It less a hard proof in favor of the existence of God, and more an argument for deciding which system of worship is best.

Try not to bring your scientific preconceptions to a religious discussion.

Why not? This is a scientific discussion, not a theological one! We weren't discussing which religion is better, nor which has the most perfect God, but which, if any, can be disproved using logic, reason and fact. That might be a pointless task, but it was the discussion non-the-less. I know perfectly well how to debate theology, and have done many times (see Why Is God Mysterious? for example), and have studied philosophy and theology... But this was not that kind of discussion. If we are talking hard proof - witnessed miracles, first hand accounts ad suchlike, then the moral qualities of a religion has no bearing. Indeed, it is probably more likely that bad religion be recorded when we consider the whole 'the best news is bad news' thing!

[unriggable]

Well obviously in biological terms, you can't be your own father, therefore christianity is false. Prett easy.

Except God is not "biological". God is Spirit. God came to Earth in the form of "His Son" to do what no man could possibly do.... die for the world's sins.

Exactly. If he was Him, he wouldn't be His son. So Jesus is not the son of God but rather a manifestation of God Himself? That directly contradicts the Bible.

[Avron]

u said any religion so disprove these u fascist nimcanpoop!!!!!!1

Lolol at the cultist

[b.k. barunt]

I didn't realize you guys were trying to use science to prove or disprove God. "Witnessed miracles"? "Firsthand accounts"? Then i would check the credibility of the witness. Isn't that what i attempted to do? In any court of law, this would be a primary point. You cannot prove or disprove God or religion by using science, because science, as we approach it, has no way of assessing or testing spiritual data. The concept of eternity itself cannot be proven or disproven using empirical tools of any kind, so i'm missing something, insofar as the direction of the thread.

[Anarchist]

The first step in proving/disproving a religion would be to examine the life of the originator thereof. Case in point, Jesus vs. Mohammed (Pay Per View would clean up on that one). Jesus was a lowly carpenter who did violence to no man (except for the temple incident), advocated no violence, healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, etc. Mohammed raided caravans for personal gain (this involved killing and rape), consolidated his power by violating a truce on a holy day (but Allah told him to do it), and married his son's wife (or was it his son in law?). Which one would you listen to?

Even though declared heresy, there are accounts(gnostic,I think)
Of Jesus learning of his godly powers, Being angry at another child and striking him dead.(which is believable when you look at any six year old)
His first holy deed was when he brought his friend back to life, after being accused for pushing him off a roof. "The child sprang up and said He did not push me" etc...

Personally I enjoy anything that makes Jesus seem more human, It strengthens my faith in his message.

The churches message on the other hand....

No religion can be dissproven, however a church can be prooven evil for the deeds they support.

[vtmarik]

Doesn't the fact that a religion exists preclude the possibility of it being fake?

Christianity is real in the fact that it exists. Are it's claims provable? No. They're all based on opinion and a series of abstract concepts.

You can't prove an abstract, many far more intelligent people than you or I have tried.

[Anarchist]

Very true, ofcourse neither of us have claimed any religion false nor any religion true. While others do everyday...

[b.k. barunt]

So you would respect Scientology as a feasible religion?

[Anarchist]

Ofcourse

granted I would only accept the pieces that cooperate with my personal beliefs.

[Guiscard]

I didn't realize you guys were trying to use science to prove or disprove God. "Witnessed miracles"? "Firsthand accounts"? Then i would check the credibility of the witness. Isn't that what i attempted to do? In any court of law, this would be a primary point. You cannot prove or disprove God or religion by using science, because science, as we approach it, has no way of assessing or testing spiritual data. The concept of eternity itself cannot be proven or disproven using empirical tools of any kind, so i'm missing something, insofar as the direction of the thread.

Yeh. I never argued it was possible to prove/disprove God in the manner we were discussing, but I just took exception to your argument. It didn't make any sense. I'm talking thunderbolts and rocks from the sky proof. Destroying a city or feeding thousands is just as proveable.

[MR. Nate]

Well . . . He did have a book written . . . It's your choice to ignore it.

[Backglass]

Well . . . He did have a book written . . . It's your choice to ignore it.

Well as long as we are talking about superstitions and fables...

Dr. Suess wrote a book. Ignore the Lorax, he speaks for the tree's. Ignore him at your own peril.

You'll see when your dead.

[Guiscard]

Well . . . He did have a book written . . . It's your choice to ignore it.

For fucks sake... Did I make any claims about the validity or existence of any evidence whatsoever?

All I was arguing was that the attributes of a God have no bearing on empirical proof. That was all. End of story.

The whole world isn't always out to get Christianity, you know! The theists on this forum have on almighty communal chip on their big god-bothering shoulder!

[AlgyTaylor]

I was thinking more in a biblical sense (I doubt God approves of chickswithdicks.com)

Look at it this way ... according to the Bible at least, god made us in his own image. We, in his own image, like porn. Therefore god must surely at least tolerate it, if not take more than a passing interest in the viewing/consumption of pornographic materials.

[MR. Nate]

For fucks sake... Did I make any claims about the validity or existence of any evidence whatsoever?

All I was arguing was that the attributes of a God have no bearing on empirical proof. That was all. End of story.

The whole world isn't always out to get Christianity, you know! The theists on this forum have on almighty communal chip on their big god-bothering shoulder!

wow, sorry, it was just an off-the-cuff comment. Should have included a little to let you know I wasn't being THAT serious.
My point is that a lot of people demand proof. We've come to the conclusion numerous times that hard proof isn't something we'll find in this life when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God. That being said, we turn to evidence, and generally, the evidence that Christianity can offer is the Bible.

I do agree with you that attribute don't have a bearing on empirical proof, but as for the chip on our collective shoulder . . . well, yeah, OK, I can't argue with that.

Dr. Suess wrote a book.

And we all accept it as evidence for his existence.