how do religious people prove religion

[SpiritWriter]

Religion is practiced and people see, learn and apply its usefulness. People have Their Own religious practices they dont need to Proove to anyone. God is fully capable of prooving himself to those who believe, and through religion people eyes and spirit may be opened up to God and the functionality of living a faith based life.. religion is the application and concretness, the physical getting up and putting your feet on the ground, the spiritual is the inner working that is the Proof for the Individual. We All are made of the same substances though they may be in different consentrated forms. There is a spirit alive in each of us, which ready to be born and be transformed when that happens for a person and they succumb ti the discipline of applying physical works to thier faith.. they have found religion. They are convinced for themselves... an acception would be if a person has not broken from the sheeplike mentality it is possible they are just trying to fit into the group...

Edited May 11, 2013 by SpiritWriter

[SpiritWriter]

Whoever thinks christians need to prove god need to get over themselves. If you want God to prove himself, ask him to.. it is not a Christians responsibility to Prove God to anyone but to keep on walking in faith. If you dont like that .. hey in my opinion YOU have a problem.

Edited May 11, 2013 by SpiritWriter

[SpiritWriter]

Whoever thinks christians need to prove god need to get over themselves. If you want God to prove himself, ask him to.. it is not a Christians responsibility to Prove God to anyone but to keep on walking in faith. If you dont like that .. hey in my opinion YOU have a problem.

Ok sorry for saying that.. I can see why people desire evidence. I hope you can also see how the question of proof is up to an individual. Ask your self what you truly believe and go from there.. if you do believe in god, develop a prayer life and see what happens..

[danielost]

Yes, God does seem a human invention; I doubt though that He is a tree.

No god is not a tree. But, the trees and all life forms in the universe are his children. They all hbave a soul. Even the life forms we don't know are alive.

[Doug1029]

What if I claimed to be an atheist, but believed in gods. Would not another atheist have the Right to tell me that I'm not an atheist?

The question, to me, is how does an outsider tell who is a Christian and who isn't? What is the criteria? Are they sufficiently defined to allow a distinction to be made, and if not, can we really exclude anybody?

And who is it that determines the criteria? What is an important point to one is not to another.

So I put it to you, PA: what, other than the name, distinguishes a Christian from a non-Christian?

Would, at least most, other Christians agree with whatever answer you propose?

Can that definition/description serve to show an outsider who is/is not a Christian?

Why is it, then, that only Christianity these days gets put in that category where all one needs do is claim to be Christian, and no one has a Right to say otherwise, regardless of what they actually preach or believe?

Apply those questions to any group you like. But I suspect the reason that this gets applied to Christians is that it points up the hypocrisy in their constant harassment to get others to sit in their churches on Sunday mornings.

I think a test like this may have been done (I recall reading about it). The results were as expected, with no group coming up better or worse.

All that Integris Baptist test did is suggest that there is something more there to study. It's a long way from there to a statement about god, if one is ever possible.

Let's suppose that some test like the one above showed that there really was a god. What would that do to your beliefs/disbeliefs? You just said that such tests aren't valid. Would that one also be invalid?

Doug

[Doug1029]

Whoever thinks christians need to prove god need to get over themselves. If you want God to prove himself, ask him to.. it is not a Christians responsibility to Prove God to anyone but to keep on walking in faith. If you dont like that .. hey in my opinion YOU have a problem.

What Christians believe is their own affair, until they start trying to recruit others. Then those others have a right to demand some evidence.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Yes, God does seem a human invention; I doubt though that He is a tree.

God is not a tree. But might god manifest as a tree?

I'm sort of a Druid, anyway, so I have no problem with someone who wants to see the divine in a tree.

Doug

[SpiritWriter]

What Christians believe is their own affair, until they start trying to recruit others. Then those others have a right to demand some evidence.

Doug

Everyone has the right to do what they feel is best. If you are the one Demanding evidence you might want to relax. God reveals himself... it is intricate to you and what is alive in you. Christians that are spreading the word are led by the spirit of God to offer the gift of salvation. A Christian principle is also that if someone rejects the word that they are to shake the dust from thier feet and keep it moving. You can Demand what you wish.. but the proof is something that happens internally.. if you seek proof you need to go to the source.. not a bible thumping Christian..

[+Paranoid Android]

The question, to me, is how does an outsider tell who is a Christian and who isn't? What is the criteria? Are they sufficiently defined to allow a distinction to be made, and if not, can we really exclude anybody?

And who is it that determines the criteria? What is an important point to one is not to another.

I'd suggest reading the Bible to be a pretty good start. There's plenty of information there about what a Christian is - Love God, Love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemies, Jesus is Lord and saviour, by grace you are saved through faith, faith without works is dead, religion that God accepts is to bring comfort to the poor in society, live righteous lives free from sin. All of these have scriptural references, you need only ask and I can provide them.

So I put it to you, PA: what, other than the name, distinguishes a Christian from a non-Christian?

Would, at least most, other Christians agree with whatever answer you propose?

Can that definition/description serve to show an outsider who is/is not a Christian?

I believe it can. The name "Christian" in recent times has, in my opinion, been abused to the point where it no longer means what it should mean. It is not a vague and confusing term, it is specific and clear in its intentions. Unfortunately it has been turned into something vague and confusing for no good reason.

Apply those questions to any group you like. But I suspect the reason that this gets applied to Christians is that it points up the hypocrisy in their constant harassment to get others to sit in their churches on Sunday mornings.

All that Integris Baptist test did is suggest that there is something more there to study. It's a long way from there to a statement about god, if one is ever possible.

Let's suppose that some test like the one above showed that there really was a god. What would that do to your beliefs/disbeliefs? You just said that such tests aren't valid. Would that one also be invalid?

Doug

It would be interesting if such a test ever did prove there was a creator. I cannot foresee any such test where prayer is going to help a person being prayed for more often than someone not being prayed for, or that a person not being prayed for in the test might not be being prayed for anonymously by someone else, so I find it hard to answer your question. If another type of test were devised to prove or disprove God that doesn't involve something such as prayer, then that test would have to be judged by its merits also.

[Mr Walker]

The question is ill defined.

Many posters have given an answer. I particularly like the one that we prove our religion by living it and letting others observe the effects of religion on our life, on ourselves and on others.

There has also been debate about whether religion is based on evidence or faith. I would say that varies My wife is religious based entirely on faith. I am not "religious" (in a sense because religion grows from faith) but I know god, who offers the same evidences of his existence to me that everything in the real world does.

So some people BELIEVE in god. Others KNOW god. So religions spring from both belief and knowledge. But one cant "prove religion." It is like proving love. If you expereince it you know it exists and wah tit is like But for every pereon the expereince is differnt Religions are just formal ways in which humans organise and group individual humans beliefs and experiences. It is like chosing a football team to follow.

One can prove tha treligion works for individuals and for groups using demographic statistics One canprove that some religions work better tha others for human beings Again using demographic statistics And after all that is what religion is all about; using a faith belief or knowledge to improve outcomes for individuals and for societies. It is why religons began and why they have proven so hardy and perrrenial. It is also why religions evolve change and adapt to suit people's changing needs.

Finally there is no need to prove religion or to prove god because inherenty faith, belief, and religion are not about proof. None is needed required or even helpful. For consistently about 90% of human beings, a spiritual element, usually morphing into some religious form, seems to be an essential prerequisite for a complete and happy life. And so, even today, across the world statistics show that less than 10% (often only about 5%) of human beings declare themselves as atheists.

In a way that is the best statistical proof for the success, and essential integration of religions and human spirituality, available. Some sources show a even lower percentage.

According to The World Factbook atheists were an estimated 2.01% of the world population in 2010.^[10

A 2004 survey by the CIA in the World Factbook estimates about 12.5% of the world's population are non-religious, and about 2.4% are atheists.^[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

There is a considerable difference between non religious and atheist. For example, I am non religious, but a theist and one who knows a powerful real and personal god..

Edited May 12, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Frank Merton]

Why would God "manifest" as anything other than what He is? It might be said for our ability to comprehend, but since that will be impossible anyway, He may as well remain the burning bush.

[Frank Merton]

If you self-define as a theist, then you cannot be non-religious. You may not be a particular religion, but you are religious.

[Doug1029]

if you seek proof you need to go to the source.. not a bible thumping Christian..

Touche'!

Actually, I am not seeking "proof." The title of this thread is "how do religious people prove religion." I conclude from what has been presented, so far, that they don't.

J. K. has studied his beliefs and has answered this question for himself. I respect that. He knows the limits of knowledge, but believes anyway. His is truly a faith-based belief. And that is what religion should be. It should not depend on believing things that are physically impossible, or on pseudo-science. Genuine science can't help with this question, so there is really no point in bringing science into it. The best guide to truth is to let science handle the physical and religion handle the metaphysical. And asking how religious people prove religion misunderstands both religion and proof.

Doug

[Doug1029]

I'd suggest reading the Bible to be a pretty good start. There's plenty of information there about what a Christian is - Love God, Love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemies, Jesus is Lord and saviour, by grace you are saved through faith, faith without works is dead, religion that God accepts is to bring comfort to the poor in society, live righteous lives free from sin. All of these have scriptural references, you need only ask and I can provide them.

There are plenty of worthy ideas presented in the Bible. But Peter carried a sword and cut off a man's ear, if we are to believe the story. Were the Apostles Christians?

I believe it can. The name "Christian" in recent times has, in my opinion, been abused to the point where it no longer means what it should mean. It is not a vague and confusing term, it is specific and clear in its intentions. Unfortunately it has been turned into something vague and confusing for no good reason.

It would be interesting to see a list of characteristics of Christians drawn from the Bible. I'm sure this has been done, but I don't have a reference.

One example: I occasionally see groups of people "praying" on a street corner as a demonstration of some "Christian" viewpoint - sort of a "Christian" protest. But didn't Jesus say something about keeping your prayer private? Doing it in a closet? The people I'm thinking of wear the Christian uniform: suits, ties, their Sunday-school best. They think they're Christian, but there they are, making a big deal of how "sanctified" they are. I don't see sanctity; I see hypocrisy.

It would be interesting if such a test ever did prove there was a creator. I cannot foresee any such test where prayer is going to help a person being prayed for more often than someone not being prayed for, or that a person not being prayed for in the test might not be being prayed for anonymously by someone else, so I find it hard to answer your question. If another type of test were devised to prove or disprove God that doesn't involve something such as prayer, then that test would have to be judged by its merits also.

I suspect you're right about such a test. Somebody occasionally comes up with a test that shows that probability was soundly beaten. They may have impressed themselves, but they forget that random chance will produce "significant" results a certain percentage of the time. When these tests are repeated, the significance disappears. And that's why people who understand the math aren't impressed by these tests. A serious study would require hundreds, perhaps thousands of repetitions and nobody wants to put in that much work.

Imagine the howls of protest if some serious investigator applied for a grant to study the question.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Many posters have given an answer. I particularly like the one that we prove our religion by living it and letting others observe the effects of religion on our life, on ourselves and on others.

That's a good definition, but it makes no distinction between theists and atheists. Of course, atheism is a sort of religion. It takes the assumption of Nothing and makes it a fact. Logic can't do that because it can't operate on Nothing. So atheism is reduced to the status of a religion.

So some people BELIEVE in god. Others KNOW god.

Interesting distinction. It probably makes sense within certain groups. But among groups, it still leaves the outside observer unable to distinguish between them.

According to The World Factbook atheists were an estimated 2.01% of the world population in 2010.^[10

A 2004 survey by the CIA in the World Factbook estimates about 12.5% of the world's population are non-religious, and about 2.4% are atheists.^[21]

http://en.wikipedia....hics_of_atheism

I have noticed that if you add up all the percentages claimed by various religious groups (including atheists), you get a total well over 300%. And do the actual percentages actually matter?

Doug

[Frank Merton]

Yea that 2 percent atheists made my eyebrows go up.

[Doug1029]

Why would God "manifest" as anything other than what He is? It might be said for our ability to comprehend, but since that will be impossible anyway, He may as well remain the burning bush.

Then why did "He" manifest as a burning bush? And your assumption that god has gender suggests that god has manifested to you in a particular manner.

I've heard it said that god is too big to fit in anybody's church.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Yea that 2 percent atheists made my eyebrows go up.

I suspect there's more than a little cross-counting in those numbers. Religion, especially among those who don't attend church, is a very difficult thing to nail down in a survey. Change the survey a little and you get different numbers.

Doug

[Frank Merton]

Then why did "He" manifest as a burning bush? And your assumption that god has gender suggests that god has manifested to you in a particular manner.

I've heard it said that god is too big to fit in anybody's church.

Doug

That's kinda what I was saying. Would you prefer I refer to God as "It?" The English grammar I was taught was to use the masculine pronoun when the object is personified but the sex is unknown, except ships which get the feminine pronoun.

[Doug1029]

That's kinda what I was saying. Would you prefer I refer to God as "It?" The English grammar I was taught was to use the masculine pronoun when the object is personified but the sex is unknown, except ships which get the feminine pronoun.

Me too. The unknown is masculine, except ships. But in Russia, ships are masculine: "He is a good ship."

Doug

[J. K.]

The best guide to truth is to let science handle the physical and religion handle the metaphysical. And asking how religious people prove religion misunderstands both religion and proof.

Doug

Hmm. Does science have the capacity to measure love? That's pretty intangible.

To answer the question about Peter and similar incidents: being Christian doesn't guarantee proper behavior all of the time. We still live in a world affected by sin and we still live under its influence.

[Doug1029]

Hmm. Does science have the capacity to measure love? That's pretty intangible.

Science has to stick to the physical. Love falls into a gray area. We always thought it was an intangible, but there is more and more evidence that it is hormonally (chemically) driven. Apparently, concentrations of two chemical "messengers" control it. That would make it two-dimensional in the Euclidean sense. There are probably some other variables in there, like mental/psychological conditioning that determine the expression of love. This is really a new field, so discoveries are coming quite rapidly.

To answer the question about Peter and similar incidents: being Christian doesn't guarantee proper behavior all of the time. We still live in a world affected by sin and we still live under its influence.

I'm basically a statistician. I deal with uncertainty every day. Uncertainty results from exceptions to the rule. Nobody's asking for perfection, just a general rule by which an independent and impartial observer could tell whether a person was a Christian or not. So far, the only one I know is the Nicene Creed and there are plenty of people who call themselves Christian and don't subscribe to all of it. That might be an interesting study, right there.

Doug

[Mr Walker]

Why would God "manifest" as anything other than what He is? It might be said for our ability to comprehend, but since that will be impossible anyway, He may as well remain the burning bush.

God might manifest in a way that a sapient being could comprehend For example the language i hear god speak is english but of course god is not speaking english. ALL sapient beings who wish to communicate with another sapient being use a means which is comprehensible eg sign language or fire/technology (Think voyager space craft)

However i suspect, in a way you are correct. it is our minds which link to the mind of god. It is our minds which perceive the nature of god, and so we do tend to interpret god via those minds.

A third possibility is that god is a quantum creature subject to the observer effect, and that, in a way, we see god as we wish to see him ie we cause him to manifest as we expect him to manifest .

However god demonstrates real physical power on earth especially the abiltiy to manipulate matter and energy. This speaks to the nature of god as much as anything does.

[Mr Walker]

If you self-define as a theist, then you cannot be non-religious. You may not be a particular religion, but you are religious.

Incorrect. A religion is an organised and codified system of belief, even if only a singular person holds to it. I have no such set of beliefs I just live in the presence of god. Thus I am not religious.

This is possible for me because I have never BELIEVED in god and so had to adopt a set of beliefs about god. I went straight from athiest to someone who knew god physically. So i never adoped religious beliefs. I live as a christian for social and other purposes but I could as easliy live as a buddhist or a jew or a pagan or a geaan, as long as i was connected to god.

[Mr Walker]

That's a good definition, but it makes no distinction between theists and atheists. Of course, atheism is a sort of religion. It takes the assumption of Nothing and makes it a fact. Logic can't do that because it can't operate on Nothing. So atheism is reduced to the status of a religion.

Interesting distinction. It probably makes sense within certain groups. But among groups, it still leaves the outside observer unable to distinguish between them.

I have noticed that if you add up all the percentages claimed by various religious groups (including atheists), you get a total well over 300%. And do the actual percentages actually matter?

Doug

No it doesnt make atheism a religion. What i meant was; take twin sisters. One becomes religious at a very young age, one is an atheist. If they live their lives according to their beliefs there should be considerable measurable difference in the nature and outcomes of those lives including relationships, longevity and health. Thus one can observe the proof of religious life in measurable outcomes.

Yes but that wasn't the point of the comment. Some people HAVE proof of god's existence. Many have an equally strong FAITH in his existence. Both groups act similarly on their knowledge/ belief, and so outcomes for them are the same..

Finally the statistics are remarkable uniform in all official statistics. While many people are not "religious", about 90% actively profess a spiitual belief and component to their lives For 40 to 60% in most countries that also transfers to a religious affiliation. Regular results of surveys and compilation of statistics by non religious groups show world wide atheism to be about 5% or less, although in some countries it reaches about 10%

Ps atheism here is the classic definition of a professed disbelief in the existence of any gods or god.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Mr Walker