[creedbratton11 (OP)]

Hey guys. So I've been getting in a few debates recently against religious people. I'm sure you're all very familiar with the common question; 'have you seen the evidence yourself?'.

I'm a huge advocate of the scientific method; how we can use atomic spectroscopy to identify atoms, how we can use triangulation to establish the distance of stars, along with the speed of light, etc.  I understand that all our understanding of science is built upon hypothesis that are confirmed through experimentation by multiple scientists, but unfortunately it so often comes back down to 'have you ever confirmed it yourself though?
I have two questions;

1. What are some of the most accessible scientific proofs that demonstrate the value of the scientific method over religious faith, that one can access and demonstrate on their own without having a PHD level understanding of physics/chemistry/biology and the necessary equipment?
2. What are some other successful responses to this common, frustrating response.

Thanks in advance guys!

[Bored chemist]

if someone says "have you ever confirmed it yourself though?"
you can ask them the same question.
Did they see God create the universe?
Do they know anyone who saw it?

[alancalverd]

Who created your god?
Why?
How?
Why did your god create congenital syphilis?
How does he decide which babies to infect with it?
Whose side is he on in the conflict between (name any two sects of your religion)?

These are all valid points of scientific enquiry, and the sort of questions that any prospective customer should ask of the product being offered.

[Halc]

I understand that all our understanding of science is built upon hypothesis that are confirmed through experimentation by multiple scientists, but unfortunately it so often comes back down to 'have you ever confirmed it yourself though?

Most people have only personally run a limited set of basic experiments, mostly in school. None that go so far as to say verify some of the predictions of relativity or quantum theory. I've not for instance seen the double-slit experiment demonstrated live, only in videos.
So it is with a bit of faith that I accept that these experiments have actually been performed, and technology has been developed based on these theories, without which GPS, computers, and humans for that matter would not function.

1. What are some of the most accessible scientific proofs that demonstrate the value of the scientific method over religious faith

Science is not really in the business of proving things, especially assertions outside the realm of methodological naturalism under which science brought humanity out of the dark ages.
Religion is a philosophical assertion, not a scientific one. One uses different tools to assess such assertions, but a big clue is the blatant lying:
If you want to brainwash a group of people to believe say that the sun crosses the sky from west to east or that the world was created last Tuesday, all you have to do is punish any heretic who points out otherwise, using social shunning, or create unassailable figureheads, one of which is responsible for all good, and the other for all things bad and contradictory. So you might say 'But I can see the sun go from east to west", to which they'd retort that it's the devil that put that false image in the sky, and BTW, in the gulag you go.

PHD level understanding of physics/chemistry/biology and the necessary equipment?

Wrong track. No scientific evidence or explanation can debunk a story that suggests the evidence is lying.

2. What are some other successful responses to this common, frustrating response.

Well for one, if there was a deity that in any way cared about humanity enough to reveal its identity and demands to them, then separate cultures would all come up with the same story. They don't. Each thinks the others are wrong. They're all right about that at least.

[Bored chemist]

Who created your god?
Why?
How?
Why did your god create congenital syphilis?
How does he decide which babies to infect with it?
Whose side is he on in the conflict between (name any two sects of your religion)?

These are all valid points of scientific enquiry, and the sort of questions that any prospective customer should ask of the product being offered.

To be fair that doesn't address whether or not there is a God,it just tells you that He is a bastard.

[vhfpmr]

What are some of the most accessible scientific proofs that demonstrate the value of the scientific method over religious faith

Ask them when anyone ever designed a car, computer, aircraft, bridge etc using information they got out of the Bible.
Ask them which verse of the Bible predicts the position of Mars accurately enough to land a spacecraft on it.

[Bored chemist]

It's also interesting to ask them about the "power of prayer".
Why does God only listen if (for example) you kneel and put your hands together and sign off your request with "amen"?
He's God; He already knows what you want.
There's no point at all in telling him.
And many religions frown upon the idea of praying "in public" as a display of piety.
So they say you should pray alone, where only God will hear.

But God already knows what you plan to say (and He also knowns what you will pray for tomorrow).
So the Act of prayer isn't to inform God of your desires. The purpose is to tell God that you are prepared to go out of your way to do "the right thing". You are telling him of your depth of faith.

Is that the worst sort of virtue signalling?

[alancalverd]

To be fair that doesn't address whether or not there is a God,it just tells you that He is a bastard.

The question was about religion, i.e.  praising and revering a deity. Of course there is a god - how else could the universe have come into being (ask any believer)? but praiseworthy? no way.

[alancalverd]

Ask them which verse of the Bible predicts the position of Mars accurately enough to land a spacecraft on it.

Clearly not the one NASA uses. Confusion between feet and meters? Lack of faith, more likely. Or maybe they didn't sacrifice enough virgins.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

   Looks like there have have been no further replies or comments from the OP.
   That's a shame,  I was going to ask:   Why would you want to debunk religion anyway?

    Most religions value free will.   I expect you've all seen the free will arguments before.   Assuming you have free will,  there should be some system which governs the consequences of your actions, otherwise a different thing happens each time you throw a brick at someone and you can't be responsible for the consequences of your actions.   So that system of governance could be called the laws of nature.    Then, if free will is worth having, it should be possible to predict consequences before the actions are taken   (otherwise, just do wahetver you like at any time because you couldn't have been expected to know what would happen anyway).   

   Anyway,  most religions aren't incompatible with science and there's really no need to see them as opposites.   There may be a few that see certain texts as abosulte literal truths but not that many.   Most people here seem to be focusing on the bible, so Genesis is the obvious example of something that seems to disagree with theories of evolution etc.    The usual route around that is that 7 days is not a well defined period of time.   You've got General Relativity to suggest that 7 days for god could be 7 million years for something on earth   etc.    To be fair there wasn't any sun to provide a day or night until god made it,  so when the bible says 7 days that must surely be a poetic description of some period of time that we can think of as something like a day   etc.

   Anyway, that's it....  I can't see why most religions can't be compatible with science.   What is the need to debunk religion?

Best Wishes.

[Bored chemist]

Most religions value free will. 

You are free to worship with us, or die horribly, and spend eternity in Hell.

   Anyway,  most religions aren't incompatible with science

Check with Galileo.

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

....  and spend eternity in Hell.

    I don't spend a lot of time with people who are that extreme.   Most of the religious folk I know are prepared to consider that heaven is quite a nice place and simply not getting into Heaven is hell-enough by comparison.  I just wouldn't bother trying to debunk the religion of someone who feels that strongly that they start telling you you're going to hell.

Best Wishes.

[Bored chemist]

    I don't spend a lot of time with people who are that extreme.

That's because the atheists calmed them down for you.
The Church has always opposed changes like the abolition of slavery.
The Church wanted to carry on persecuting women on the irrational basis that they were witches.
The Church wanted to keep "trial by ordeal" because they were fundamentally opposed to (and frightened of) the idea that evidence was important.

Essentially, the Church has never been on the right side of history.

[syhprum]

When I see the word god on a forum I skip thru it it has no place in a scientific forum unless mental slickness is being discussed

[alancalverd]

Why would you want to debunk religion anyway?

To prevent wars and promote human happiness. Trivial objectives compared with the importance of ritual incantations and belief in the impossible, but I find amusement in such trivia.

there should be some system which governs the consequences of your actions

Physically, these are the discovered "laws" of physics (how things move) and biology (how people get hurt and killed).
 

each time you throw a brick at someone and you can't be responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Which is what Catholics and Protestants do because their god demands it. Other faiths prefer explosives as their route to eternal bliss.

Religion is just an excuse for egregious behavior.

[Bored chemist]

you throw a brick at someone and you can't be responsible for the consequences of your actions.

What worries me  is that some people think they are allowed to throw bricks, without any consequences because afterwards they told a man in a dress, and he said that their invisible friend forgave them.

[chiralSPO]

It's also interesting to ask them about the "power of prayer".
Why does God only listen if (for example) you kneel and put your hands together and sign off your request with "amen"?
He's God; He already knows what you want.
There's no point at all in telling him.
And many religions frown upon the idea of praying "in public" as a display of piety.
So they say you should pray alone, where only God will hear.

But God already knows what you plan to say (and He also knowns what you will pray for tomorrow).
So the Act of prayer isn't to inform God of your desires. The purpose is to tell God that you are prepared to go out of your way to do "the right thing". You are telling him of your depth of faith.

Is that the worst sort of virtue signalling?

Apparently God (at least the Catholic version) is a soulless bureaucrat, unwilling to "save" souls of those who filled out their "paperwork" improperly: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080829813/priest-resigns-baptisms

[alancalverd]

If your religion is based on an omnipotent, omniscient, benign deity, then any prayer for healing, word peace, etc., is telling said deity that she has got it wrong and is therefore not omnipotent, omnisicent or benign. Thus the act of prayer is a denial of the fundamental axiom of faith.

[Bored chemist]

If your religion is based on an omnipotent, omniscient, benign deity, then any prayer for healing, word peace, etc., is telling said deity that she has got it wrong and is therefore not omnipotent, omnisicent or benign. Thus the act of prayer is a denial of the fundamental axiom of faith.

OK, that's why prayer isn't "Telling Him what to do".
And that's why I think it's just "telling Him that you are a person who prays to Him".
Which seems to me to be the ultimate in virtue signaling.

[alancalverd]

But what are you praying to her about? She knows everything, sees everything, and is privy to your innermost thoughts, so kneeling and chanting is a deliberate waste of the life she gave you, claiming that she doesn't already know, see, etc. and you are therefore in some way superior to your deity.

Or are you just thanking her for syphilis and earthquakes? Do you think she can't remember your gratitude from one Sunday to the next?