Saturday, January 17, 2015

Why Religion Is Harshly Inferior To Science!

Let's start at the beginning!


Religion states that god built the world in 7 days only 6,000 years ago. There is no evidence for this other than a really old book that just says so.

Science states that the earth is about 4 billion years old. There are mountains of evidence and studies to support this. 

Life on Earth:

Religion teaches that god created each creature on the Earth separately. This is taught in the Bible but it provides is no supporting evidence. It is simply a story.

Science teaches that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.  This is universally accepted in the scientific community as fact. However, this is not just because everyone believes it, so it must be true. Instead, it is because almost every branch of science validates it separately.

Origin of Man:

Religion teaches that the first man, Adam, was formed out of clay by god and he came alive after god blew on it.  Even religious people know this is not how men are formed.  Woman was formed when god took a rib out of Adam and turned it into a woman.  Even religious people know this is not how women are formed.

Science teaches that human beings evolved from other life forms over a period of millions of years. Again, this is not just a popular belief, but the culmination of thousands of studies that all arrive at exactly the same conclusion. 

Origin of God:

Religion teaches that god has always existed and created everything.  Religion claims that the true test of human's worthiness to go to heaven is, in fact, all based on blind faith. If you believe in something you cannot see or prove, this is considered a virtue.

Science has no comment on the origin of god since science does not deal with the supernatural.  Science only studies what can be observed and tested.  If god could be observed, science would study him.  Those people who identify themselves as "free-thinkers" believe that god and religion first came about by early humans asking the questions of why we are here and making up stories to answer those questions.  Modern science now has much more informed and accurate answers to these questions.


There are thousands of different religions that all disagree with each other on who god is, what his doctrine is, and what the conditions are for being saved.  Even people within the same faith often disagree among themselves.  It seems that no one really has a clue.  Old teachings and doctrines are recycled from one generation to the next and generally do not change.

Scientists almost universally agree across every branch of science.  Each branch validates the others.  Studies done by different scientists yield the same results.  Each new scientific claim is tested to be repeatable.  If enough different people get the same independent results, then it is accepted.  As newer discoveries are made, older ideas are put aside.


Religion really has no benefits other than giving people a sense of superiority and false hope.  In fact, religion has been one of the main driving forces behind most of the wars and violence in human history.

Science provides countless benefits.  To name a few: corrective eye wear and surgery, automobiles, airplanes, computers, internet, e-mail, cell phones, heat and light, medicine, vaccines, information storage and retrieval, and much, much more.


Religious teachings are all expected to be taken on faith, even when there is no supporting evidence.

Science is firmly built upon reason, studies, and evidence.

Religion whines that creationism isn't taught in schools.

Science couldn't care less if evolution isn't taught in churches.

Religion teaches that faith can move mountains.

This has never been observed in the natural world.

Religion teaches that natural disasters are the result of god's wrath.

Science understands and can explain the causes of these disasters.

Religion teaches that animals can talk.

This has never been observed in the natural world.

Religion teaches that all evil came from a fruit tree.

This has never been observed in the natural world.

Religion teaches that it is possible for a virgin to be pregnant.

This has never been observed in the natural world.

Religion teaches that dead things can come back to life.

This has never been observed in the natural world.

Religion uses science to promote itself (microphones, televisions, recording devices, printing, and claims that science "proves" god).

Science has never once used religion or faith to promote itself.  Anyone claiming that science has proved god is LYING!

Religion is threatened by science.

Science is completely independent of religion.

Religion is based on feelings, faith, the impossible, the invisible, and the incomprehensible.

Science is based upon what can be seen observed and tested.

Religion determines the conclusions, then searches for evidence to fit.

Science looks at the evidence to determine what is most likely correct.

The Bottom Line:

Religion claims to be the ultimate source of unchanging truth and yet those involved in it often disagree on basic concepts.  Religion claims to be infallible and the power of god is said to be able to do anything.  Even the religious will admit that there is no evidence for this, and they take every day happenstance as evidence that their beliefs are correct.  Religion provides people with the idea that they alone are right and therefore superior.

Science does not claim to be the ultimate source of truth. Science is always expanding and adding to existing ideas and information.  Scientists are largely in agreement among themselves and across different branches.  Science provides a greater understanding of our natural world and has provided countless benefits to all humankind. 

Science flies you to the Moon. Religion flies you into Buildings.”


Hakam Adam said...

Do you ever question your way of thinking?

1. 6 Days. The fact that you err on this minor point shows either lack of reading comprehension or carelessness with actually knowing what the position you're criticizing stands for.

In other words, you could be ranting and nothing you're saying addresses "religion" as you conceive of it, at all.

2. Failure to understand the nature of "evidence." Evidence is just stuff that exists. It doesn't matter if you don't think a proper interpretation of the evidence supports the conclusion, it's still evidence. Evidence is epistemically neutral. It's just brute facts, and it doesn't stand on anyone's "side." In order to reach a conclusion about it, it must be interpreted. You do this all the time according to your worldview.

You obfuscate wantonly:
"this is not how men are formed"
"studies that all arrive..."
"blind faith"
"science does not deal with the supernatural"
"disagreement between different religions" (you'd expect something different?)
"scientists almost universally agree" lol
"talking animals have never been observed"
"pregnant virgins have never been observed"

much more.

With all of this blatant misrepresentation, one must wonder how much of it is intentional or if you're really that dumb?

I'm not trying to be insulting. My IQ is somewhere in the range of 125-150 (online tests can be unreliable but that's the max and min). I spot stupidity near-instantaneously. And this article is full of it.

I've pointed out a few--A FEW--of the problematic statements you make here.

Every one of them, to be well addressed, at this state, would be a lengthy discourse each unto itself. There's no quick fix for systemic irrationality. I've mentioned this before.

One reason I'm not bothering to correct every single piece is because I'm gauging your response to see if any further engagement would benefit you at all. I've been around the block a few times. Addressing "evidence" would not help you, because evidence is not the issue. Your way of thinking about it is.

Brad said...

I'm somewhat of a history buff and one thing that is apparent to me is that in almost every turn religions have yielded to scientific discoveries. Things like the age of the Earth, earths rotation around the sun, how people get sick, finding cures and vaccinations through our understanding of microbiology, and on and on. If God created all things on earth, this would include things such as smallpox, and after killing millions if not billions of people on earth, man, in one of their greatest achievements, eliminate it from our planet.

Mormon411 said...

Six days... seven days.. who cares? Again you're getting caught up on all the nit picky stuff when you should be arguing WHY I'm wrong.

I state that "pregnant virgins have never been observed." You state that I am "stupid" for stating that. Then prove me wrong. Show me a pregnant virgin that was brought about by divine means and I'll recant.

If you're just going to resort to name calling, then you will no longer be allowed to comment here.

The bottom line: you believe in magical fruit trees, talking snakes, pregnant virgins. Those things don't exist, and you're defending them as if they do, while STILL providing no evidence and resorting to name calling.

Give me evidence. Then show me how and why that evidence leads to the conclusions. Again, you have arrived at your conclusions and then gathered evidence to fit.

For example: a tree exists. God created the tree. Therefore, god exists. WRONG! That is not evidence of god. Give me real evidence and I will be all ears.

Mormon411 said...


Exactly! God created all these illnesses and man, using science, has created the cure. That is another reason why religion is harshly inferior to science!

Mormon411 said...

Yes, evidence must be interpreted and not even science always gets it right. BUT science uses evidence to arrive at the MOST CORRECT conclusion, whereas religion determines the conclusion then finds evidence to fit. There is no amount of evidence you can provide for the case of god's existence that can't also be used to argue the existence of any deity.

This is why atheists worship the "flying spaghetti monster". Because you can't prove he doesn't exist, can you! You can't prove the rock in my garden didn't create the universe. And it's no different for your deity of choice.

In fact, your deity is an angry, jealous, vengeful murderer! He kills thousands of people in the Old Testament. Your god is pathetic and does not deserve my worship!

Hakam Adam said...

God hardly needs my protection, that's only a prerogative for adherents to man-made beliefs. Your attempts to go out of your way to be what I can only guess is your idea of provocative are simply disappointing in their thoughtlessness. Undoubtedly, you think you've powerfully addressed my beliefs. You're mightily mistaken.

What amazes me is that you give the appearance of not having read or comprehended a single word I said. You promulgated the exact same approach and even doubled down on the irrational argumentation that I had already pointed out to you doesn't work.

The irony here is that you said I'm the one "getting caught up on the nit picky parts." Not so. You are the one making insistent demands to be shown stuff that YOU decided Christians have to prove to you. They don't. The Bible doesn't say they have to. Christianity doesn't say they have to. Simple logic says they don't have to.

You're using fabricated claims about what "religion" needs to prove to you, for you to give any thought to it, as a defense for the fact that your reasoning is unsustainable. Maybe if you shout loudly enough, throw enough non sequiturs out, and scoff self-assuredly enough, no one will be able to throw your flimsy beliefs into jeopardy with a question you can't answer.

The Bible doesn't say "pregnant virgins should be observable." So why do you demand proof of it?

The Bible doesn't say that "women are formed from the side of men." So why do you demand proof of it?

The Bible doesn't say that "fruit trees are magical." So why do you demand proof of it?

The Bible doesn't say "these things exist." So why do you demand contemporary examples as proof of it?

This is why I asked, "can you really be that dumb?" I'd like to hold you to the same standard that I hold myself--expecting you to be reasonable. But how can you justify any of the petulant demands cited above?

The God you don't believe in doesn't exist.

If it's name-calling to point out that you're using wrong reasoning to reach and defend your conclusions about what is metaphysically true, then for me not to be guilty, I'd have to be complicit, an enabler. Isn't one of your big criticisms of 'religious people' that they encourage people not to think for themselves, and discourage questioning your beliefs? It'd sure be ironic if it turned out that that was something you desperately hoped they would do for you: leave you alone to believe what you want.

Hakam Adam said...

Simple question:

When the Bible doesn't say that something should be observable in the world today, why would you demand that those who believe the Bible show you proof to the contrary?

The process of answering that question IS getting at why you're wrong.

Brad said...


Does the Bible say it shouldn't be observable today? If so, could you point to it out.

Hakam Adam said...


recall AP US Government/History, and the lecture on the "enumerated powers" in the Constitution.

Recall that anything that was not enumerated was to be left to the States; the federal government ONLY had the powers that were enumerated.

This means that there is no requirement for there to be an enumerated list of all the things the federal government CAN'T do. It's already understood.

The same is true of any other document that someone might want to refer to to identify what can be expected.

When it comes to the Bible, it needs to be understood that it is a history book as well as a prescriptive revelation on truth and ethics that apply to the modern day.

When the Bible describes an event that occurred, but nowhere suggests that this is a normal occurrence, much less states that it should be readily observable throughout the full sweep of history, then there is no basis for expecting that to be the case.

The fact that Creation, the virgin birth, resurrection etc are seen as miracles indicates that they won't be occurring repeatedly. This follows from the understanding that if something happens all the time, it's not miraculous (it might be the cause of some miracle, i.e. Creation, but its normal operation would theologically be seen as Providence, and not a special act). In other words, if virgin births were common, it wouldn't be miraculous, and the assertion that Jesus was born from a virgin wouldn't be significant. (The reason it's significant, by the way, is to demonstrate His divine origin. If Jesus being born from a virgin means that He's God and not man, then if other people are born from virgins, that would mean that they are God, too, and because this would be ridiculous, obviously we wouldn't expect to see more than one such virgin birth, ever.

Make sense?

Brad said...


Thanks for responding!

Your response jostled my memory of what I felt many years ago when I truly believed in Mormonism. So, I was able to understand where you were coming from. I felt those things were special because that is the only time it happened. The virgin birth, as an example, confirmed the divinity of Jesus.

After I left Mormonism, I pretty much didn't know what I believed. Mormonism was it for me while I was growing up. So, I began my long journey of studying. I was free to study anything I wanted because I was no longer bound by Mormonism. I consider myself still on this path.

One of the things I learned was that the virgin birth of Jesus isn't the only one. The story of the virgin birth had been told for centuries prior to the story of Jesus. Here are just a few examples of deities (gods) that had virgin births or some sort of miraculous birth:

Ra, the Egyptian sun god
Mithras, his birthday was celebrated on Dec. 25th
Genghis Khan
(I highly recommend reading “Hero of a thousand faces” by Joseph Campbell)

Since these gods had virgin births, shouldn't we worship them, too? If not, couldn't your reasoning be applied to Jesus as well?

Also, if the virgin birth of Jesus was so important why didn't Paul write about it? Or the gospel according to Mark? Or the gospel according to John?

Same goes with the story of the creation in the Bible. Most if not all cultures from the beginning of recorded time had their creation stories, who to say those are not as valid as what is told in the Bible, which has two creation stories that contradict each other.

The stories in the Bible are just another version of other stories that have been told over and over for centuries. Through my studies I find it difficult to take the Bible seriously. The Bible oppresses women, helps justify slavery, genocide (which god commanded), wars and all kinds of barbarity. Because of the Bible we have 1000 different judeo/christian sects, you would think that if god had such an important message he could come up with a much better and concise way of doing it.

I hope this helps explain a little of why I find it difficult to look towards the Bible for truth.

Heather said...

Science is finding proof then reproofing and proofing again. Science is all about finding answers and not shutting down curiosity and questions- exxactly the opposite of religion. Religion stops natural curiosity and needs no proof or evidence to make claims.

I went and voted for you Mormon 411 on the Brodie awards page. YAY!!!!!! Congrats to you!

Hakam Adam said...


Please don't mistake this as an exhaustive refutation of all your claims. It is, however, devastating to the Mithra claim. What my point is in showing you this link is that you should consider the question, that if you unquestioningly repeated something so false, what are the chances you could be incorrect about other things you believe? It would be wise to reexamine your beliefs.

Even if you refused to accept the evidence and insisted that these claims are as you believe, it's still irrelevant, proving nothing. Why would a simple claim be a problem? Anyone can make a claim. The only real reason these claims should cause you to question Christianity (not to be confused with mormonism) is if you sincerely believed that they were true. Do you really believe that Genghis Khan and Romulus were born of virgins?

"Also, if the virgin birth of Jesus was so important why didn't Paul write about it? Or the gospel according to Mark? Or the gospel according to John?"

Because it really isn't that hard to believe of a creator God. The Virgin Birth itself is not a proof of Christ's deity because there is no extraBiblical evidence for it. It is an *article* of faith that comes easily when you believe the reliability and truthfulness of the scriptural testimony. That's why challenging it isn't really going to accomplish much except among those prone to submitting to peer pressure.

Twin-Daddy said...

I'm a long time reader of this blog! I've enjoyed it much, thanks for posting on it!

I've looked through Hakam's writings. I believe him to be a presuppositional apologist in the same vein as Matt Slick and Ray Comfort. Mormon411, those people live in their own little world with their own made up logic, they twist around what words even mean to fit their needs. I would never bother responding to any of them again, it's a gigantic waste of your time. They're completely brainwashed.

senigami said...

It's not really a matter of arguing points Hakam. It all comes down to Faith, which is 'Pretending to know something you don't know'. Even religions say that faith is not to have a perfect knowledge. Faith is not the way to believe in something. It is 100% unreliable. Don't believe me? Check out this video I found that does an awesome job and describing why faith is confusing. Then explain to me why you think you can rely on a testimony?

Mormon411 said...

Hi Twin-Daddy,

First of all, glad you like the blog and hope you'll stick around to comment more. I apologize that I haven't been as active at blogging lately.

Yes, there are some people (most actually) who are so convinced of their truth that there is no amount of reasoning that will make a difference. If these people want to live in a mind prison and deny reality, that's their life.

I'm not here to argue with them. I'm here to help the persons who are open minded and truly in the pursuit of truth. I used a quote on my mission: "If you are truly searching for the truth, then you must be prepared to admit that you don't already have it." Deep inside, I knew I would have to someday apply this to myself. When I did, I was set free.


Thanks for sharing that video. It is very informative and eye-opening. I will share this whole series.