5 ms·

What religious accounts can you prove are not true?

tempestn 6y ago
The onus is on the person making the initial claim; you can't make an assertion without evidence and then expect people who disagree to prove the negative. Could say the same thing about claims of rigged elections.
- camhart 6y ago
  See my response to arcticbull.
arcticbull 6y ago
The default state of a human is an agnostic. If you are born and nobody tells you the Good Word, you live your entire life without religion. If someone comes to you one day and tells you a man lives in the clouds with a deep-seated interest in your sex life, the onus is then on you to convince the agnostic. The burden of proof is on you. If I told you the story of our lord and savior Sauron, could you prove to me it's not true? Could you prove to me any of the Lord of the Rings didn't happen? We don't generally require proving a negative.
- camhart 6y ago
  Look at the context of this discussion. The claim was made that all religion is based on misinformation. I argued that that claim is wrong. Someone responded saying, "find one true account that religion is based on". I responded asking whether they could find an account that is proven false. The context here is important--I'm not arguing my belief in religion, or that you must believe in religion. I'm arguing that not all religion is based on misinformation. I brought up my question to point out that his question is irrelevant, and he can't prove anything to be false, therefore he can't prove that it's all misinformation. If I see a bird fly over my head, then claim to you, "a bird flew over my head", I can't prove it. Neither can you disprove it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that my claim isn't real, or that my claim is misinformation. ~2000 years ago people witnessed Christ die and some claim they saw Him come back to life. They wrote about it. Those letters still exist today. I agree that this information alone is not enough to justify someone changing their life to believe the letters--merely existing doesn't "prove" that what's in them is true. But pretend for a second it really did happen. What evidence/proof do you think you'd find that could prove it? This is honestly getting watered down a lot though, with people jumping in without reading everything. I don't blame them--I do the same on HN. If someone wishes to discuss why I personally believe, and what I believe in, that's a different thing altogether that I'm happy to discuss but not here on HN.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    You are making the case that if I cannot disprove any religious text, then by default, it's information and not misinformation even though it flies in the face of observable reality. That isn't really how we look at things. Everything is misinformation until proven otherwise. The bigger and grander the claim, the higher the burden of proof. With a bird, the claim ain't exactly grand, and I'm willing to take you at your word. On the other hand if you told me a bird flew over your head, turned into a plane and wrote "I'm Your Lord and Savior" in skywriting, well, I'm gonna need more than just your word on it.
    - camhart 6y ago
      See my response to tempestn.
  - tempestn 6y ago
    I'd argue that the problem with this analogy is that a bird flying overhead is something we know is possible and indeed common. According to all scientific knowledge and evidence, resurrection is not possible. So absent significant evidence, it's not logical to believe that this happened. We also know that religion has historically provided numerous benefits to societies, allowing for trust, cooperation, and trade in societies that predate effective government. So it is logical to assume that such belief systems would develop, and that societies that developed them would prevail over those that didn't, even in the absence of supernatural evidence. Given that religion contradicts what we know about the physical world, and that its existence is explained without reliance on the supernatural, it's not logical to believe its supernatural claims.
    - camhart 6y ago
      So if something cannot be observed by you, within your 15-100 years of life (assuming you fit within that range), that simply means it's impossible for it to have occurred? And that any claims otherwise are misinformation? No one claims that someone is resurrected every day. The claims of Christianity are that it occurred once, and that it was a miracle. The thought that it's impossible for something to have occurred unless it's commonly overserved isn't sound. There is no such requirement. There are plenty of rare events that occur, with and without scientific explanation. Update: Perhaps here's what we're missing. There is information, misinformation, and then there's claims that cannot be proven or disproved. I do not believe that all things are false until proven true. I believe that Christianity, and many other religions, can be neither proven or disproven using modern science. It is neither misinformation or information. It is a belief.
- ksk 6y ago
  >The default state of a human is an agnostic. If you are born and nobody tells you the Good Word, you live your entire life without religion. There are some interesting arguments that we evolved to become hard-wired for religion. Fear during early evolution was probably the driver for this, all the earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, death by germs etc. We invented religion as a means to explain stuff - the solar cycle, disease, etc, etc. Turns out those explanations were wrong, but our biology is still the same ..
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I'm with you there, I believe humans did evolve a capacity for religiosity. I'm pretty sure that a child that grows up on an island however isn't going to spontaneously regenerate the new testament haha.
    - cercatrova 6y ago
      No but they will believe some form of religion. Christianity and others survived because they were just able to compete against other religions in that area and time period.

The onus is on the person making the initial claim; you can't make an assertion without evidence and then expect people who disagree to prove the negative. Could say the same thing about claims of rigged elections.

camhart 6y ago
See my response to arcticbull.

arcticbull 6y ago

The default state of a human is an agnostic. If you are born and nobody tells you the Good Word, you live your entire life without religion. If someone comes to you one day and tells you a man lives in the clouds with a deep-seated interest in your sex life, the onus is then on you to convince the agnostic. The burden of proof is on you. If I told you the story of our lord and savior Sauron, could you prove to me it's not true? Could you prove to me any of the Lord of the Rings didn't happen? We don't generally require proving a negative.

camhart 6y ago
Look at the context of this discussion. The claim was made that all religion is based on misinformation. I argued that that claim is wrong. Someone responded saying, "find one true account that religion is based on". I responded asking whether they could find an account that is proven false. The context here is important--I'm not arguing my belief in religion, or that you must believe in religion. I'm arguing that not all religion is based on misinformation. I brought up my question to point out that his question is irrelevant, and he can't prove anything to be false, therefore he can't prove that it's all misinformation. If I see a bird fly over my head, then claim to you, "a bird flew over my head", I can't prove it. Neither can you disprove it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that my claim isn't real, or that my claim is misinformation. ~2000 years ago people witnessed Christ die and some claim they saw Him come back to life. They wrote about it. Those letters still exist today. I agree that this information alone is not enough to justify someone changing their life to believe the letters--merely existing doesn't "prove" that what's in them is true. But pretend for a second it really did happen. What evidence/proof do you think you'd find that could prove it? This is honestly getting watered down a lot though, with people jumping in without reading everything. I don't blame them--I do the same on HN. If someone wishes to discuss why I personally believe, and what I believe in, that's a different thing altogether that I'm happy to discuss but not here on HN.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  You are making the case that if I cannot disprove any religious text, then by default, it's information and not misinformation even though it flies in the face of observable reality. That isn't really how we look at things. Everything is misinformation until proven otherwise. The bigger and grander the claim, the higher the burden of proof. With a bird, the claim ain't exactly grand, and I'm willing to take you at your word. On the other hand if you told me a bird flew over your head, turned into a plane and wrote "I'm Your Lord and Savior" in skywriting, well, I'm gonna need more than just your word on it.
  - camhart 6y ago
    See my response to tempestn.
- tempestn 6y ago
  I'd argue that the problem with this analogy is that a bird flying overhead is something we know is possible and indeed common. According to all scientific knowledge and evidence, resurrection is not possible. So absent significant evidence, it's not logical to believe that this happened. We also know that religion has historically provided numerous benefits to societies, allowing for trust, cooperation, and trade in societies that predate effective government. So it is logical to assume that such belief systems would develop, and that societies that developed them would prevail over those that didn't, even in the absence of supernatural evidence. Given that religion contradicts what we know about the physical world, and that its existence is explained without reliance on the supernatural, it's not logical to believe its supernatural claims.
  - camhart 6y ago
    So if something cannot be observed by you, within your 15-100 years of life (assuming you fit within that range), that simply means it's impossible for it to have occurred? And that any claims otherwise are misinformation? No one claims that someone is resurrected every day. The claims of Christianity are that it occurred once, and that it was a miracle. The thought that it's impossible for something to have occurred unless it's commonly overserved isn't sound. There is no such requirement. There are plenty of rare events that occur, with and without scientific explanation. Update: Perhaps here's what we're missing. There is information, misinformation, and then there's claims that cannot be proven or disproved. I do not believe that all things are false until proven true. I believe that Christianity, and many other religions, can be neither proven or disproven using modern science. It is neither misinformation or information. It is a belief.
ksk 6y ago
>The default state of a human is an agnostic. If you are born and nobody tells you the Good Word, you live your entire life without religion. There are some interesting arguments that we evolved to become hard-wired for religion. Fear during early evolution was probably the driver for this, all the earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, death by germs etc. We invented religion as a means to explain stuff - the solar cycle, disease, etc, etc. Turns out those explanations were wrong, but our biology is still the same ..
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I'm with you there, I believe humans did evolve a capacity for religiosity. I'm pretty sure that a child that grows up on an island however isn't going to spontaneously regenerate the new testament haha.
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    No but they will believe some form of religion. Christianity and others survived because they were just able to compete against other religions in that area and time period.