Because it can’t truly be proven that there either is or isn’t a god / gods.
You can laugh at people for believing in a god, but at the same time I’m willing to bet you can’t prove that there there isn’t one.
In my mind, atheism makes just as much sense as religion - they are both total assumptions based on incomplete data. Agnosticism is the only sensible way.
You don’t need proof where science doesn’t have any either. The beginning of creation remains a mystery. There is currently no explanation for the motion of the masses that collided, or the source of the matter. If science can hypothesize the events leading to the Big Bang, so can religion.
Science tests hypothesizes and never claims they’re true until there’s mountains of evidence to indicate so.
Religion on the other hand takes a book written by bronze age goat herders and claims it to be true, damn the evidence stacked against it and contradictions within.
You’re making large assumptions. There are more religions than you know. The way one practices also may not be familiar to you. You’re demonstrating intolerance through ignorance. Maybe you should be asking questions in this post about religion, or abstain if you’re not interested in understanding it.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
Do you not believe in untested hypotheses or theorems? They are also made up without evidence.
The Big Bang itself has evidence, like the rapid expansion of the universe from the universal center in a state of decay toward entropy. According to the laws of physics, the masses that collided could not have spontaneously begun moving towards each other without force. Suggesting they began to move on their own without propulsion is just as made up as a creator pushing them.
You may not understand science as well as you think you do. There is evidence that supports the theory, but it is untested until it is repeated in a controlled experiment. According to the scientific method, the vast majority of the field of astrophysics remains untested.
I’m making no claims of the unknown, other than defending the possibility of something that cannot be proven or disproven to exist. You’re openly discrediting the beliefs of others through your own understanding. What sounds more arrogant to you?
This chain of comments is so painful to read. What in the world makes you think astrophysicists believe in anything that isn’t tested? And why do you think we do?
Astrophysics is based on observation of non-controlled events, coupled with existing understanding of physical laws and mathematics. Since there are very few controlled experiments in astrophysics, most of it is comprised of untested theories supported by the aforementioned evidence.
I’m just pointing out the difference between theory and applied scientific method on repeatable phenomena. I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events. They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is. Some may believe science governs the laws we see in existence, others may believe it’s god.
Einstein believed in the possibility of a divine creator that did not concern itself with the fate of mankind, but was responsible for the perfection found in the connection of all things, also known as “Spinoza’s god,” after Baruch Spinoza. There is certainly room for science and religion to coexist, and therefore no need for condemnation of either.
You can test the hypotheses of astrophysics, though. I mean, how long have we had telescopes now? And today we have a whole array of other equipment for measuring things in space. If an astrophysicist is claiming a hypothesis to be true without testing it, they’ve failed science at a fundamental level. Can you give me even one example of this?
I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events.
What events? I’ve never heard of astrophysics making theistic claims. OR making claims that haven’t been tested.
They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
If they’re not proven then they’re hypothetical. By definition theories are well tested, and they’re still not claimed to be true with absolute certainty.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is.
We’re not saying there is no god. We’re saying we’re not convinced there is a god.
The event that I initially commented on way higher in this post was on the topic of creation. The Big Bang is widely accepted as the beginning of the universe. We have strong evidence of expansion from the universal center toward proposed systemic entropy.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began without violating the laws of physics, some involving non-existence of time. Other than speculation, we have no explanation as to where the masses came from or what set them in motion. Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science. Interference-based creation is just as possible as string theory.
You may not be saying that god doesn’t exist, but the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that. lemmy.world/comment/10760354
I was simply standing up for the scientific support of agnosticism against a gnostic atheist who was repeatedly critical of those believing in god, on a post asking religious people why they’re religious. As a scientific person, I felt he was representing science poorly.
The big bang isn’t creation ex nihilo, and it’s not a theistic claim. But more importantly, nobody with any scientific credibility claims we know the theory is true with absolute certainty. They don’t even claim it adequately explains 100% of the universe as we observe it. A lot of laymen probably think the big bang is creation ex nihilo and use it to explain the “something from nothing” issue, but that’s not what the theory says.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began
Hypotheses. Which nobody “believes” in like theists do with God.
Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science.
You’re right. They can hypothesize all they want. But they don’t present their claims as hypotheses, they present them as the truth. Scientists don’t claim their hypotheses are the truth, and they especially don’t believe it to be true before doing any testing.
the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that.
The link you gave me doesn’t show him claiming God doesn’t exist, and neither are any of the comments before it.
I’m not claiming that the Big Bang is theistic. I’m stating that there is no explanation for the creation or momentum of the two masses that collided, and proposing that it could have been accomplished by a divine creator just the same as ten-dimensional physicists believe that time was non-existent. If you don’t think scientists hold beliefs, you haven’t read enough about string theory. Religion is a belief, not a fact. Some may believe more whole-heartedly than others, but that doesn’t change the fundament.
Again, this was a post asking religious people why they are religious. There was no solicitation of god to atheists, yet many atheists took up arms to discredit the religious using the “burden of proof” argument. That argument only applies if someone is trying to convince another of an idea. A belief, by definition, is holding an idea without proof.
I absolutely respect rebuttals if they try to convince you of god’s existence. If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.
You must live in a very different society than those in Europe or America if your experience with theists has just been “people hypothesizing.” You also must not have read the Bible, Torah, or Quran. Their “beliefs” are presented as facts in all three of those religions, both by their holy texts and their people, and I don’t know of any religion that doesn’t also do that.
If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.
And again, nobody is saying they’re wrong. We’re saying they don’t have good reason to believe what they believe. Just look at the link you sent earlier.
And if an atheist genuinely believes their own untested hypothesis about what happened before the big bang is true, whether they’re a scientist or a layman, the same criticisms apply to them, too.
Then we are in agreement that string theory is simply a belief until any evidence has been found. That doesn’t stop them from writing books, holding lectures, and convincing others to participate in the field. I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence. I’d consider that pretty arrogant. Just because there’s no evidence, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Sound familiar?
Again, regardless of how strongly someone believes in religion, it’s still a belief, just like string theory. Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?
You keep circumventing the main point that I’m making. The religious commenting here were not telling others to believe. Most were not even citing dogma, only how faith affects them positively. Atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.
It doesn’t sound familiar because nobody here is saying God is impossible. We’re saying they don’t have good reason for believing he exists.
I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence.
You wouldn’t have to tell them to stop “believing” in string theory because none of them do. The math happens to work out so a lot of them are interested, but none of them “believe” in it because it hasn’t been tested.
Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?
We’re not saying they’re wrong. We’re saying their reasons for believing aren’t good reasons. And in a thread about why people believe, criticism is not only warranted, but expected.
Gnostic atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.
Can you point me to even one atheist here making a gnostic claim? The link you already gave is just Communist saying you don’t have evidence, and it seems like you’re translating every other instance of that to “GOD ISN’T REAL”.
You’re going in circles now. I linked a conversation where Communist explicitly stated people are wrong to believe in god without proof. It’s one of many on this post.
Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza? His take is fascinating. His higher power did not concern itself with the fates of mankind, but is responsible for the lawful harmony of existence. It also does not discount or displace science in any way.
That’s basic deism but I would disagree and say it does conflict with science. Science is evidence-based, if you claim something exists you must present evidence to support it. I can’t just claim there’s a 5-ton diamond in my backyard and say “trust me bro”. Nobody would believe me, so why should anyone believe in any god without evidence?
A hypothesis requires no evidence. It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments. The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence. If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments
repeatable controlled experiments are only one aspect of evidence gathering to falsify a hypothesis. Here are a few other methods:
Observational Astronomy
Modeling and Simulations
Indirect Experiments
Lab Experiments
Historical Data Analysis
By combining these methods we can still falsify a hypothesis, thus allowing “science to happen”.
The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence.
Correct! There is no evidence for what lead to the big bang because we can’t gather any data before it started. But we have mountains of evidence that all point to a “big bang” happening - down to a fraction of a second shortly after it started! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] .
If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Science is willing to discard ideas that lack evidence or aren’t falsifiable. Is religion ready to stop preaching because faith, by definition, is a lack of evidence?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
The difference between string theory and Spinoza’s god is the falsifiable part. String Theory, being a scientific theory, makes predictions that should be able to be tested through experiments (although testing will likely be a challenge much like Astrophysics and will instead depend on other scientific methods to gather evidence for/against it). Spinoza’s God is a philosophical concept and not directly falsifiable through scientific methods. Spinoza’s god is the equivalent of me claiming I’m friends with a telepathic unicorn from another dimension, both useless and irrelevant.
Making up whatever you want is exactly how science works. It’s called a hypothesis. In science, that hypothesis is tested repeatedly. This is why science is best suited for repeatable phenomena.
In this case, neither science nor religion can test said hypothesis. Why is science correct but religion is not in this situation?
The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic. Actually I cannot say I have ever once heard of a gnostic atheist, i.e. someone who would want to “prove no gods exist”. You (and afaict, all atheists) agree that that would be absurd, because for all we know some god is hiding under a rock somewhere. We can’t claim certainty until we’ve checked under every rock.
Agnostic atheism is where people generally land when they realize that none of the theists have found anything, either. Why believe in something prior to the point of there being any valid reason for the belief?
To further illustrate, do you believe in unicorns? No, right? Does that mean you say you can prove there aren’t any? Also no, right? Same situation with agnostic atheists.
Sorry if I’m over-explaining, it’s a commonly misunderstood topic
Requiring someone to provide evidence to back up a claim is not the same as taking a position that the claim isn’t true. This is the root component of the burden of proof and the stance many people have towards a god claim: they aren’t convinced the god exists due to a lack of evidence provided by the person claiming the god does exist. Until there’s actual evidence it’s rational and reasonable to withhold judgement.
The unicorn (or other mythological beings) are used as a similar case to illustrate to a theist that they have the same kind of attitude towards the idea of a unicorn existing as an atheist does to any gods. They’re both neat concepts, but without evidence showing they actually exist, they’re nothing more than an idea for stories and art.
I’d respect that opinion if this were a post about debating the existence of god. This is a post asking religious people why they are religious. Atheists were not under attack, nor were any religious people asserting that others should believe their faith. Actively attempting to discredit the beliefs of another is just as self-righteous as attempting to convert without request.
This is the fundamental problem that Einstein had with the arrogance of atheists. As a self-identified agnostic, this is why he was offended when he was referred to as an atheist.
“fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
Yes, really! I endorse Azimir’s explanation fully.
To potentially address some confusion:
If you said there are no gods, that would be a claim that requires proof. You would then have the burden of proving that there are no gods. Exceptionally difficult, as one could be hiding anywhere.
If you claim there is at least one god, then you have the burden of proving that.
Where would you land if you believed neither claim could be proven? Well, it turns out, you could actually be either an atheist or a theist! All we have learned so far is that you are agnostic.
This is where the story ends for the agnostic atheist. They have no reason to believe either claim, and therefore they do not believe there is at least one god, and therefore they are an atheist.
The agnostic theist however has additional work they must perform in order to become a theist from this position. They must believe in at least one god to be a theist, but they have no evidence that would compel such a belief. So they must take it on faith.
This leads to additional questions such as: is faith a good reason to believe in things? Can’t you use faith to believe in literally anything, thereby making it useless?
This is generally why the atheist is involuntarily forced to withhold belief. I phrase it that way because often people forget how beliefs work, they are compulsions. They can’t choose to look past these thoughts and believe in a god any more than you could choose to set aside your better judgement and believe, and I mean really believe, in unicorns.
I understand if you also can’t choose not to be offended by the unicorn comparison, btw. I didn’t like hearing it the first time when I was young and involved with the church. It made me think “surely that’s a step too far, and these two concepts are incomparable. Billions of people worship, they can’t all be that wrong”. It inspired me to go look and see what all of my fellow religious people had to offer in that regard. And to be honest, I still love hearing from them, but the truth is so far nobody has any evidence whatsoever. Most religious people themselves will even admit that. So it really does just come down to faith in the end.
By definition, science has proven nothing. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Yet you believe in science, but expect religion to have proof.
That is not my claim. I’m stating that the scientific method is not a proof. There are only supported and unsupported theories. Science is best suited for testing a hypothesis of repeatable phenomena. An untested theory is no different than religion.
Interference-based creation can be considered a hypothesis. It is a theory that a supreme being or entity created and set the masses in motion that caused the Big Bang. Science also has unsupported theories about creation prior to the Big Bang.
My point is that a truly scientific person would accept all possible theories, no matter how improbable, until data is provided to believe otherwise.
Sure, and so as an atheist and an otherwise “scientific person”, I do accept that god is a valid hypothesis. And I will remain an atheist until any evidence pops up to support that hypothesis.
At some point I think you may have gotten confused by terminology. It is indeed similar to various other scientific ideas, which are believed only after being tested. You do not accept every hypothesis as being the truth until proven otherwise. That is the essential difference between conducting science and exercising one’s imagination.
That’s wholly incorrect. The vast majority of astrophysics is comprised of untested theories. The cosmos is not repeatable phenomena. The evidence we’ve collected is used in creating the theories, but they remain untested.
Religion is referred to as a belief (hypothesis) in god. There is evidence of improvement in the quality of life and personal contentment by believing in god, however the existence of god remains tangibly untested.
I myself am a physicist lol, I assure you that we do not believe in our work in the way you suggest. This is why it has been so outlandish and perplexing for you to continually insist that I “believe” in every science themed idea but irrationally hold religion to some even higher standard. I’m sorry my friend, but I stand by my conclusion that you have simply made some mistakes along the way while learning about all of this. It happens to all of us, the important thing is having a willingness to reexamine.
But yes, many of the hypotheses regarding ‘before’ the big bang etc. are currently on the same level as the hypothesis of a god (or prime mover). As I have continually affirmed over the course of our discussion that is all correct and definitionally compatible with atheism and the scientific method. I think perhaps we have reached the end of what we can discuss, unless you are willing to take into consideration how the scientific community actually thinks, rather than trying to insist they use your personal definitions of their words
You wrote of your understanding, but didn’t share any of it. That’s quite arrogant. Can you explain how what I wrote is not in line with the Scientific Method?
I have already abundantly shared my understanding and specifically addressed your concerns. Now it is clear that you simply like arguing and care little about what is being discussed.
I think we are likely beyond the point of productivity, but the ‘scientific method’ isn’t capitalized btw. This error is perfectly emblematic of the error in your thought process as a whole
I don’t disagree that religious people need to prove their beliefs. They are the ones making up insane stories that all contradict one another, and it is absolutely up to them to prove that there is a god, or miracles, or whatever.
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?” That doesn’t make them correct. More correct, maybe, as they aren’t the ones making up the stories in the first place, but I’m fairly sure history and science have proven time and time again that humans know less than we think.
This has become a misunderstanding of language and wording.
When I say agnostic, that includes “agnostic atheists”. Does that clear things up?
I swear some people (i.e. self proclaimed “atheists”) get offended at the thought that they might be associated with anyone religious by accepting the fact that their beliefs are, by definition, agnostic.
I’m tapping out of this thread, didn’t come here to argue about English. Also, please don’t take my last paragraph as an attack - it’s a general observation.
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?”
The language is irrelevant, you’re claiming something that’s just untrue for 99% of atheists. You going on to distinguish “agnostics” from “atheists” isn’t the real issue.
He very clearly spoke against organized religion and dogma. However, he maintained that he himself was agnostic. He labeled atheists to be just as arrogant as religious zealots for their absolutist views.
He said he believed in “Spinoza’s God” – referring to Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch thinker – “who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”.
On another occasion, he criticised “fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics”.
He took offense to being labeled as an atheist. Not because of his Jewish roots, but because he believed that there was a possibility of a divine creator.
Ah okay, we’re on the same page now - you were referring to their last bit, not necessarily the first when speaking of Einstein. That lines up with what I knew about his beliefs
Atheists religiously repeating the word “science” long enough that they trick themselves into believing they have explained the origins of the universe. And thus there is no reason for anyone to believe in God.
Certainly science has achieved a lot. However we are no closer to explaining the origins of the universe as before. As the origin has not been explained why is everyone somehow so confident in the falsehood of a creator?
Agnosticism (not being sure about a creator) is totally fine. However Atheists have a weird obsession about being absolutely certain of something they cannot prove an their alternative for. Atheism runs on pure faith that “science will figure it out in the future”. It is a religion in itself.
The “largest minds” of Atheism are all too often based on pure emotion. As we find with Richard Dawkins, the man so smart that he can explain the universe away… and also believes Israel is not committing Genocide in Gaza.
Your explanation reveals a misunderstanding of the terms, both of science and atheism.
If I may, could I suggest you would be better served by learning about what science is, and also, particularly in this case, just asking atheists what they think and what they mean by the terms they use.
This isn’t a put down, I genuinely think you would be better served by doing so.
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
As clearly demonstrated in this thread by people certain of their atheism so much you would be hard pressed to find a religious person so arrogant in their beliefs.
It’s difficult to dismantle an argument that does not exist. I suppose if your explanation is non existent you always win the discussion. Le epic Atheist wins again.
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
This is wrong. The only thing required to be an atheist is lacking a belief in theistic claims. You don’t need to make the claim that God doesn’t exist, and most atheists don’t.
The only thing we’re certain of (not absolutely, but fairly certain) is that theists haven’t met their burden of proof.
You highlighted the A without any understanding of what the prefix a- means. It means not, or without.
I’m not a theist because they haven’t convinced me of any theistic claims. I don’t claim no gods exist. I just don’t know of any gods that exist, therefore I am without theism. A-theism.
There is a key distinction between these terms. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being. The word atheist originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.
Sure. And nobody claimed “God doesn’t exist.” Two people now have told you that you’re mistaken, but you insist.
From our perspective it seems like you’re imposing a baseless claim onto us so you can feel better about your own baseless claims. Only theists say atheism is a claim.
There is no baseless claim it is the only reasonable claim from our current understanding of physics.
Claiming that the universe magically came out of nothing is not an answer to some. It contradicts all of science especially the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Nonetheless you are still conflating Atheism and Agnosticism. These words exist for a reason they mean different things.
These words exist for a reason they mean different things.
Correct, and you’re still misusing them according to the people who actually identify with these labels. Atheism is the answer to what you believe, and agnosticism is the answer to what you know.
I don’t believe God exists and I don’t know if God exists, so I’m an agnostic atheist. For you to assume atheists are gnostic by default is like me assuming Christians are Mormons by default. It’d be even more ridiculous for me to go on and argue with Christians that “Christian” means “Mormon.”
The year has little to do with it. The only things we’ve really undeniably progressed in over the past century are scientific knowledge and the level of technology. Existential philosophy hasn’t exactly made breakthroughs recently, to my knowledge.
Each person still needs to find their own answer to the fundamental questions of “why am I here” and “wtf is death and how do I deal with it”.
Our mechanical, scientific understanding of reality provides fairly depressing answers to these questions. Religion? Sunshine and roses.
Also, on a more practical factor: childhood indoctrination and cultural inertia. Most people are raised in religion and they find it “good enough”, so religion continues.
I find it more depressing that there is a God that decides what is good and what isn’t and gives us “free will” just so He can torture us for eternity if we dont do what He wants… kinda fucked up ngl
Fortunately I don’t need any more reasons to live than enjoying my day to day, being with the people I love, doing my little projects etc.
Oh, continuing down that line of thinking leads to far worse then “kinda fucked up.” If the judeo christian deity exists and is accurately described by their books than it is a total monster not worthy of praise or devotion…
What I understand about the judeo christian god is that they are believed to have created everything that has ever been or will ever be. They have total knowledge of everything past present and future, and they “knew me” prior to them creating me, knew what kind of person I would be, and knew without doubt that I wouldn’t believe in or worship them… so they created me with full knowledge that I’ll spend eternity being tortured in hell. What kind of benevolent deity brings a creature into existence just so they can be tortured? If that’s not full blown fucked up, then I don’t know what is.
You’ve basically touched on one of the core logical issues at play in Abrahamic religions (and others). God is omnipotent and omniscient, or people have free will. It can’t be both.
This isn’t about responsibility, it’s about preventing suffering. If you could prevent a genocidal leader from being born, which you knew would save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, why wouldn’t you? Because it’s that person’s “responsibility” that all of those innocent people died after all?
God existing would absolutely place all responsibility upon God, not on its creation for doing only what it was created and constrained to do by that God. Every “decision” would require that God to allow it, making that God responsible.
For the same sort of reasons there are (generally) 12 months in a year and there are 7 days on a calendar, and for the same reason that “John” is a name, and why London is placed where it is, and etc?
Because some dudes decided some stuff, and some other dudes decided some stuff influenced like that, and so on. And some stuff got changed, and some stuff was inconvenient to change or there was no real reason to change it.
The year is ironic in the exact context you quoted I guess. But the days of the week and many months were named for other mythologies.
What I was actually saying is that the same reasons for belief apply whether it’s 2000 BCE or 4000 CE. Humans remain human, and religion fills an inherent need.
There’s other religions than Christianity - large ones - that do not consider the birth of Christ as particularly meaningful. The fact that we’re using it as a point of reference is meaningful - the Christian religion has been very influential - but it is hardly some grand irony you seem to imply.
First of all, I want to make it clear that I’m glad to answer genuine questions made in good faith (no pun intended), but I won’t argue with anyone.
I’m a practicing Hellenic Polytheist and this is my personal experience. I do not only worship deities with names and myths, but also the twinkling of stars, the waves of the ocean, the colors of a sunset, the kindling of a fire on a cold winter day, and the rustling of leaves in the treetops. Sometimes I look at the sky and see stars so far away that we will (probably) never reach them, and that feels divine to me. There’s something that can’t be described with words that is too great for a human to understand, and I find that something so beautiful that I will worship it.
Got a bit poetic there, but I also think that my relationship with religion has also been influenced by the good old autism a lot. I find the psychology behind religion very fascinating, and I think that for some people, especially those who have been raised in a certain faith, it is a “home” that provides comfort in difficult situations. For some people, the thought that a recently deceased loved one is now in Heaven or has been reincarnated as someone/something else is probably a lot easier to accept than that they don’t exist anymore in any shape or form.
That being said, I also want to state that I always try to maintain a healthy sense of scepticism with my beliefs, whether they be religious, moral, or political, because blind belief never leads to anything good. I think that sadly the darker aspects of religion, such as cults and using religion to justify unjust power structures (the patriarchy or the divine right of kings for example) are hard to get rid of.
Meaning and Purpose: Religion can offer a framework for understanding the universe and our place in it. It can provide answers to big questions about life, death, and morality.
Community and Belonging: Religious communities can provide social support, a sense of belonging, and shared values. This can be especially important during difficult times.
Comfort and Hope: Religion can offer comfort in times of grief or hardship. It can also provide hope for the afterlife or a better future.
Tradition and Identity: Religion can be a core part of a person’s cultural heritage or family identity. People may feel a connection to their ancestors or cultural background through their faith.
Ethics and Morality: Many religions provide a moral code that guides people’s behavior. This can be helpful in making decisions about right and wrong.
I don’t believe, but I can see why people stick with it and don’t look beyond it. You can get all these things without religion, its just not something that’s taught/passed down in the same way as religion is. Additionally, deconstructing is very difficult. You’re raised to believe something to be real and you’re expected to just drop it and step out of Plato’s cave? You’d look like a madman to any friends/family who aren’t willing and ready to step out and look around.
The one point I can really agree with is the meaning and purpose part. I’m not religious and the whole what happens after death part really fucks me up quite a bit. It’d be really damn nice if I could just go “I’ll go to Heaven” and be done
Part of the identity crises that comes with(out) religion is the ultimate question of purpose: why are we suffering, surely it has a reason? Some of us are content to accept that there is no purpose, and therefore we must define our own; others need a purpose greater than themselves and/or to have one defined for them, and look to religion for that purpose. There is no right answer, and the struggle of identity and purpose are well documented in religion, fiction, history, and philosophy.
Personally I don’t see what the afterlife has to do with your purpose or sense of meaning in this life. For me, I figure my purpose is whatever I find fulfilling in life while hopefully helping others do the same. Anything that comes after that is a bonus.
My partner and I had a difficult conversation recently about how we plan to handle her brother when her mother passes.
Her mother is obviously religious and raised him religiously Christian.
He is a sweet man with a severe developmental disability. Things literally take a very long time for him to learn. He still acts like a teen and he’s pushing 40. That’s not his fault, that’s just life. We love him.
The thing is though…
We don’t believe in religion, but we also think that when his mother finally passes, it would not be wise to try to turn him from Christianity.
He struggled and still struggles years later due to the passing of his father. The idea of being able to see his father in heaven is big to him.
At one point, he panicked because he was playing DOOM 2016 on his game console, and he asked my partner (his sister) if he was going to go to hell for playing it. She reminded him that the Doomslayer kills demons and loves bunnies and reminded him the themes of the game say demons are bad, even if the game itself is violent.
We don’t think it’s worth it to try to break his brain when he’s over 40 and his mom finally passes. Hell, she’s in good health, he could be over 50 when it happens. He has a learning disability and it would literally be unfair to him to try to force a change in belief on him at such a late stage with such a disability.
It’s not worth it to wreck his mental health so we can feel better about being “truthful” with him. We’re focusing on trying to relate healthy interpretations of Christianity to him.
Religion is an old form of it is what is, hope, direction, tradition, and community.
Can’t explain a thing or understand it God’s will or only God knows. Can’t do anything to help a person because they are in surgery pray or talk to God to wish for good outcomes.
Don’t feel loved or know what to do or wanted. God loves you, will show you the way, and wants you.
Most traditions and communities in the west were founded on a religion so you have hundreds of people to connect with at a church and maybe millions world wide that will help. Those raised on books of wisdom or what is right and wrong still tend to keep the values even after they move away from the religion but realize they can have values without divine beings
Lastly control. Just like businesses it is easier to control people under a religion so if you can get people indebted, traditionalized, and ostracized otherwise. You can control people easily. Lots of people don’t know what to do and why trust another human being but if a human being says wisely God said this it is easier to accept and gain a direction
Even if they do question, it’s not like they are in a safe environment to do so openly. They have to be prepared to give up community, friends, family, potentially their physical safety, and a worldview that says exactly who to be and how to live to be living a good life. That’s a huge step.
I know for a fact there are religious people going through the motions because the alternative is too frightening, just like people stay in bad marriages.
Right. Throughout human history, if someone was cast out of a community, they didn’t survive. We’ve been trained through evolution to go along with the tribe because it’s unsafe to question anything and get cast out.
Survival of the fittest. Evolution does not value truth or mortality, so for example secret rapists are a highly successful adaptation regardless of the morality of the action. If evolution is a correct model of reality, this pesky religion and moral agency will diminish with time. True progress. Maybe we can start counting the years from the big bang instead of that Jesus event or w/e!
Education fails to instil scientific temper in them
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery. Believing in god have nothing to do with science or math, it’s superstition, something that cannot be proven or unproven, it’s that irrational thought that make us human.
Thank you, I think people often overlook how faith and scientific thought can be complimentary. In any case, for questions of religious/spiritual matters, people are basically just running with a hypothesis that works for them. As long as they’re capable of being self-critical and aren’t pushing their beliefs on people who aren’t interested, then it seems fine to me.
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery.
People of all religions have contributed to scientific growth.
The average religious person and the person discovering scientific/mathematical stuff are generally different tho.
Universal basic education has gained focus in many parts of the world, only relatively recently.
I think improved scientific temper would obviously clash with many mainstresm religions.
Presence of some supreme creator may not be proven or disproven, but I think the anti-evolution stuff and similar things in most mainstream religions would face more questions when scientific temper improves.
And I’m not saying that non-religious people are safe from similar stuff too. Just that it is easily spread and maintained when you have a community on it.
Presence of some supreme creator may not be proven or disproven, but I think most of the anti-evolution stuff and similar things in most mainstream religions would face more questions when scientific temper improves.
And religions can evolve with this (or die from declining membership), as long as the leaders don’t stick to the “These actually scientifically proven facts are lies sent by the Devil” line.
Islam used to be the forefront of scientific and mathematical discovery.
No, Islamic COUNTRIES did. They didn’t achieve excellence in science because Islam benefitted science.
They achieved excellence in science compared to Christian countries in large part because their religious authority figures didn’t stand in the way anywhere near as much. Not because religion helped.
Believing in god have nothing to do with science
Not true. They are polar opposites. That’s why scientists are disproportionately atheist and agnostic: the evidence based mode of thinking employed in science doesn’t mix with the superstitious and unquestioningly convinced thinking of religion without some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance.
it’s that irrational thought that make us human
No. That’s not being human, that’s being brainwashed and/or obedient to authority.
You’re right that it’s irrational and that irrationality is an inherent part of being human, but the SPECIFIC irrationality of religion is learned and enforced, NOT inherent.
No, Islamic COUNTRIES did. They didn’t achieve excellence in science because Islam benefitted science.
No one claiming it is.
They achieved excellence in science compared to Christian countries in large part because their religious authority figures didn’t stand in the way anywhere near as much, not because religion helped.
Not sure how much difference is by changing “Islam” to “Islamic countries”, because the fact still remain that Muslim make scientific discovery and excel in mathematics despite being religious. Again, no one claiming Islam benefitted science.
Not true. They are polar opposites.
You just contradicted your last point. Also science are not religion, how can an apple be polar opposite to orange? One can believe in santa clause and ghost while excel in science. It’s not mutually exclusive.
That’s why scientists are disproportionately atheist and agnostic: the evidence based mode of thinking employed in science doesn’t mix with the superstitious and unquestioningly convinced thinking of religion without some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance.
Science are a broad subject, unless they purposely went and look for god, which they wouldn’t find, there’s like a huge load of subject that doesn’t have anything to do with god. Also your impression of religion is like, wrong lol. There’s more to religion than just praising god.
No. That’s not being human, that’s being brainwashed and/or obedient to authority.
OP this is why people believe in religion, and it’s nearly impossible to get them out of it, you can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into in the first place
My search for truth in my early 30’s led me to study the world’s religions, having grown up secular and feeling like something was missing. But don’t let this anecdote or others like it get in the way of your logic. You’re doing pretty good for a hairless monkey!
I find this a seemingly straight - forward point I’ve never gotten a religious person to acknowledge.
99.99999% of people follow the religion they do because their parents did. Not because it’s true. That Christian, that Hindu, that Jew. It’s just because they were told it was true at birth.
If their religion was actually the Truth, why would that be the case…?
I find this a seemingly straight-forward point I’ve never gotten a religious person to acknowledge.
because they don’t see it that way, they have their own understanding of free will, religion sells itself as test ( for the most part ), if you pass the test ( temptation or whatever you wanna call it ) you’re qualified to enter heaven, so in a way even if you’re born christian or a Muslim you still going to get tested, so in their view it doesn’t change anything, but from our perspective, it changes everything because we bet that if their parents didn’t make them that way, they would never go that route on their own…
99.99999% of people follow the religion they do because their parents did. Not because it’s true. That Christian, that Hindu, that Jew. It’s just because they were told it was true at birth.
That’s why we must address the root cause of all this, which is religion, in Islam for example “Prophet” Mohammed piss be upon him, said
“Every child is born in a state of fitrah, then his parents make him into a Jew or a Christian or a Magian.” (Agreed upon)
As you can see, Mohammed doesn’t apply his own observation on his beliefs and because people glorify him, they will never dare to question his reasoning, which is also their own reasoning now…
You can tell a religious person to criticise everything and everyone, and they can, tell them to redirect their critism to their own belief, and suddenly they’ll become intellectually handicapped
Because the lowest common denominator is much MUCH lower than you think it is.
This means it’s easy to indoctrinate and easy to maintain that for a massive number of people.
Scientific illiteracy is extremely high, and actual “6th grade reading comprehension” is the highest level of literacy for > 50% of a country like the U.S. and ~20% are low literacy or actually illiterate.
This means that half of everyone in the U.S. can read and understand what they read at or below a 6th grade level. This isn’t “reading big words”, it’s “tell us about what you read”, “what is the relationship between x & y” type questions.
This comment for example, up to this point only, would be difficult to understand & comprehend for > 50% of people in the U.S. (it demands an 11th grade reading comprehension). And may be misread, misunderstood, or not understood at all.
People are driven to religions to cults and alt conspiracy theories when they don’t understand how the world works around them. They latch onto extremely simple often misleading or incorrect ideas of how the world works because they can understand it and it “makes sense” within their sphere of ignorance (we all have one, this isn’t meant to be a disparaging term).
This means that the problem is that humans are just not smart enough to escape religion yet. It’s the simplest answer, and it appears to be correct.
I agree. At the root of it, people want to feel safe. This is a fundamental need. Religion does this for them because they don’t need to make decisions and they’re promised that if they follow it they will indeed be kept safe. Also spiritual bypass is awesome.
Having been raised in a religious household and having escaped it later in life to become an engineer/science nerd, while being ostracized by my, incredibly, incredibly disappointing parents because they refuse to learn new things or acknowledge scientific studies that conflict with their religious views:
This answer is unequivocally, absolutely, a 100% correct take on humanity and their need for the “simplistic” and incorrect answers religion gives about the world around them.
I am not even remotely religious. But I take science pretty seriously.
Please tell me, scientifically, why you are so sure that people of faith are wrong?
There is some decent science that prayer does not work. I am not aware of anything offers anything at all testable concerning God.
And if we are simply pushing our preferences on others, I think a more important question is what makes people that claim to be evidence driven to adopt such strong opinions on things ( without evidence ) that they feel comfortable publicly slamming the preferences and values of others ( again with no evidence at all ).
As a science fan, you can say that absence of evidence means you do not have to believe. Correct. You cannot say that an absence of evidence proves your guess correct such that you can treat people who believe otherwise as stupid. Incorrect.
And “they have to show me the evidence” is a moronic stance. As a fan of the scientific method, evidence is YOUR burden of proof. For people that adhere to a religion, their standard is FAITH. So, they are holding up their end and you are dropping the ball. So what gives you the right to be the abuser?
So, I guess my answer to “why do people believe in religion would be”, “well, people still have faith and tradition and science has not produced any evidence that credibly calls that into question”.
Why are people not arriving at this conclusion on their own in 2024? Why have we failed so badly to explain the scientific method that people can still make wild pronouncements like this one.
I don’t like religion because it makes people easy to manipulate. People that treat science like a religion exhibit the same problems. I am not a fan of that.
Please tell me, scientifically, why you are so sure that people of faith are wrong?
Because they all offer competing and mutually exclusive hypotheses.
Christianity tells us that the one true path to salvation is by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour.
Hinduism tells us that our next life will take place in this world, based on our actions in this life.
Islam tells us that Mohammed is the one true prophet.
Buddhism says that there are no prophets, enlightenment only comes from within.
They make contradictory claims, so by definition they can’t all be right, and they typically claim that they are correct and the other explanations are false, so even if one religion is correct, the rest (comprising of the majority of the faithful) must be wrong.
I am certain that Russel’s teapot is not orbiting Jupiter.
If you want to hypothesize about the existence of some kind of demiurge then that’s one thing, but religions are about some really and weirdly specific gods with very specific rules and systems and laws without a shred of evidence for anything.
That teapot is orbiting somewhere. I have no idea if my universe is the one.
Saying that you “know” there is no God is an extraordinary claim. Do you demand extraordinary evidence from people that make that claim? Or do you only demand it from people following a philosophy that requires them to believe independent of evidence?
Honestly, this is about as smart as religious people demanding miracles before they will believe in Science.
Ignoring the inherit assumption that religion is de facto an issue or backwards, and ignoring the fallacy that “progress” is co-liniar with the passage of time, logic is not in of itself a perfect humanistic process of thought, rather it has been developed by humans over the millennia.
There is great comfort in the process of growing into and exploring one’s faith. Growing up in a theologically liberal Christian church, I was invited to find ways to meld the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man is such a way that I find purpose and vocation within my life. Religion also offers a place for community among people committed to a mission, be it good or bad. These communities preserve and honor cultural traditions, again, the good and the bad. These are just a few reasons I think people are now, and will remain well into the future, religious.
How do you account for tolerance found within religion and religious communities throughout the world and throughout history, then? How can intolerance be inherent to religion if it is not universally observed?
And for clarity, I’m not trying to no-true-scotsman out religious communities that harbor hatred and shut off diversity and the like. They totally exist and they are a problem. But to suggest religiosity itself is the issue, to me at least, is missing a sound foundation.
The text they rally behind as a fundamental part of their religion, in no uncertain terms, promotes violence against gay men and tells you women are worth a fraction of men and can’t be trusted to preach. Not to mention the endorsement and regulation of slavery.
It’s not that they’re a monolith of bigotry or anything, it’s that they start from a pretty messed up place and have to mould that out of their understanding of their religion, and plenty of them don’t.
But the real issue is that you can justify just about any sort of prejudice when that is your foundation. There’s no shortage of Christians who cite Leviticus to tell me my sexuality is an abomination, yet they dismiss the parts about slavery because “that’s the old testament.” The Bible also doesn’t say anything about trans people and it doesn’t oppose abortion rights, yet the majority of the Christians in my state are opposed to both.
Firstly, I am assuming that “they” is referring to Christians, which the op did not specify, and my subsequent commentary is interpreted to generalizing to all presentations of religion. While I explicitly pointed to Christianity, that was because I was referencing my personal faith journey.
Secondly, we are in agreement that the Pentateuch, in its literal form, calls for and endorses a society which does not privilege equality for all races, genders, or creeds. I would assume we are also in agreement that the epistles of Paul and Timothy and other early Christian writers have some pretty messed up opinions of who God is and what God wants.
But you yourself drew attention to the agency Christians, and all other faithful people, have. There is choice, and people do choose, to interpret scripture as non-literal. By the virtue of this existence, one cannot simply label all religious expressions as backwards or at issue, as I originally posited.
That’s true, they can mould their interpretation however they need to so it conforms to their own morality, but that doesn’t come from the religion.
If you gave an alien any of the abrahamic holy texts and then dropped it on earth it’d probably behave pretty abhorrently. In order to behave more civilly it’d have to learn from the society it was dropped into, not the religion.
Most churches and other theists do a pretty good job of doing that and that’s a great thing, but the way I see it, the religion itself is inherently problematic until people mould it into something resembling secular morality.
Christianity is inherently problematic, or all religions are inherently problematic? You’ve made a case for Christianity (and probably Judaism and Islam), but those are just two (very large) religions. I’m taking about, and I feel the op’s essence was, the idea of religion and people being religious. Not just the Christians. Can you also point to the Taoists, the Universalists, the Zoroastrians (just to name a few) and say that their faiths are all inherently problematic?
Still arguably both. Even if their doctrine isn’t problematic, the sort of standard of evidence you seem to need to believe religious claims is what gets us things like antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
It may not be universal but you’re certainly opening the door for it if you believe truth comes from uncritical belief. That by itself is still “problematic” even if the consequences aren’t as blatant.
And I guess this must be closing in on the root of our disagreement: I don’t see that religion requires uncritical belief.
I don’t know what your litmus test is for “standards of evidence.” Can you elaborate on what good standards of evidence looks like to you and how you know they are good?
Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality in the backwards-ness and issue of religion, it seems to me you can’t argue for religious thought to have inherit nature to that kind. Rather, there are expressions of it, religiosity, being backwards and bad. The part does not account for the whole.
I don’t think there is one single test that could encompass bad standards of evidence, but the whole “just have faith” thing is a dead giveaway. Hostility towards skepticism is another. Circular logic is also a pretty good indicator, like saying your holy text is the truth because your holy text says it’s true. I guess the simplest and most effective test would be to see if the standard of evidence could be used to justify any claim.
And for good standards of evidence, I think it depends on the context and claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that. If you told me “I got a pet goldfish” the only evidence I really need is your word. But for claims about how the universe works and why it is the way it is, you might need much more sound reasoning, math that checks out when measurements or numbers are involved, a demonstration or test to serve as proof, etc…
Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality …
The majority of people who smoke don’t die from it but that doesn’t mean cigarettes aren’t problematic. I’m not saying all religions are bigoted or anything, but I am saying having any sort of doctrine opens the door to outdated beliefs overriding what we’d normally consider moral, and that by itself is problematic.
I’d also just like to say I think this has been the most civil conversation in the whole thread, so cheers to that lol
Yeah, these things all make sense, again, with the implied idea that “all religions” use fallacious logic like circular reasoning, which I think we both agree is a common feature but not a rule of religion.
And sure, there are plenty of things that I trust on faith, like my Creator and my Savior, or the concept of sin. For me, the faith is critical for my psyche, but I’m of the world and in the world, so I am called to work good in this world now, which grace and guidance.
I would be careful with the smoking analogy. The only control someone really has in their outcome from smoking is deciding heavily limit or to quit early enough to not have a high risk of health complications of death. Religious expression is the interface between the divine and the worldly. It’s socially controlled and always has been. There are so many things people of faith can do to prevent allowing their expressions and works from causing harm, alienate “others,” and ultimately do things incongruent with their proclaimed beliefs.
I think of it more like democracy: a social phenomenon many feel confident in being “the best,” but also one that can fall victim to abuses that prevent it’s ideal in such a way as to disenfranchise and deliver results many, if not most, are unhappy with, if not harmed from. But I don’t think either of us would call for a monarchy or autocracy in order to “prevent the ills of democracy.” We, collectively, have to be better at making democracy better.
And yeah! It has been fun to discuss with you. I appreciate hearing your perspectives on this and allowing me to better understand your line of reasoning.
I believe it started with a sense of security. Don’t worry, there’s a reason and someone is in control of this shit show. Feels better than we’re on this crazy freight train called life that is almost completely out of control, no one knows where we’re going, no one knows how we’re going to get there, and we basically have no control over any of it.
There’s a degree of just feeling viscerally like the supernatural is around us, too. Not everyone has that, but some people certainly do. Then yeah, we also want to answers the big questions in a satisfying, even comforting way. Particularly modern monotheism has a deep component of offering a way the world is fair, actually, despite all appearances.
It looks like religion is a thing that started with modern humans, just based on archeological finds, but I don’t know why or if it was adaptive. Some scholars will talk about the beginning of religious finds as a beginning of abstract thought, but it seems to me that even a damn dog can make a creative guess about how the world works, so that’s not it.
I mean, depending on how profound you need it to be. I had my dog jump into a neighbor’s car once. Clearly, he figured a different one would take him fun places if the usual one did, generalising the concept.
In my view, there are two components to “religion”.
1 - it typically starts with an attempt to explain why and how things are
2 - it becomes a human administration - this becomes more about politics than “religion”
Most of the problems with religion stem from the second part. I see the politics as the far bigger problem there. So people that want to create political movements around “science” are absolutely no better in my view.
If you read the question being asked in this thread critically, do you find it a scientific question? A political one?
Human politics are always going to be human politics. Religion is usually just an excuse to do what everyone wanted to do anyway. Science is what happens when you inquire about how why and how things are honestly and thoroughly, though, so I don’t think the former is harmless.
If you read the question being asked in this thread critically, do you find it a scientific question? A political one?
Probably political, or at least personally motivated. I suppose it’s possible OP genuinely has no ideas, but I think that’s unlikely. I still stand by my answer.
I don’t find it surprising given that the vast majority of people don’t research the claims that other people make. For example, during the GameStop short squeeze, people came to the conclusion that corruption or collusion was at play, when in reality it wasn’t for the most part.
People would rather listen to a guy who says something confidently than a guy who says “I don’t know.” The former gets to spread their word, and the latter gets ignored.
I’m not religious at all. But in responding to your question OP: we don’t have to understand why people believe. Religion just isn’t for us, and that’s fine. Other people find it has value, and that’s fine too. The fact that religion has lasted this long with this many people is proof in itself that there’s some value people get out of it. We don’t have to get it to understand that.
All the comments here that explain religion solely as dumb or irrational are just as closed minded as the people they’re talking about.
On point, additionally religion has also effectively associated itself with spirituality. It’s also associated itself with caring for others, volunteering, community, togetherness and acceptance. Additionally it’s a great place to network and organize communities. Even if belief has faded, tradition is usually important with that group of people.
It’s only recently in the past century or so that serious spirituality in our culture has been able to detach itself from religion, sometimes forming new ones
It’s also a great path to getting people to do what you want. I was already an atheist when my father and I had a philosophical discussion regarding religion when I was an adolescent. He brought up this point early in the discussion. I only need to look around at all the bullshit laws getting passed that religious zealots vote for against their own interest to confirm that this is true.
The Southern Baptist Church just had their annual conference and decided that their position on Invitro Fertilization is against the procedure. How does that help anyone? It doesn’t.
It is just as easy to point to the ideas of the extreme members of the “new atheist” movement as evidence that they are a dangerous cult.
Using the Southern Baptist Church as your example of religion is not a very good argument. Implying that atheists are somehow more rational as a group is not really a great argument either.
By the way, I am an atheist. I do no consider my beliefs to be unassailable scientific conclusions though. I recognize that many of my beliefs and preferences lack the robust rational foundation I would like them to. I doubt I am the pinnacle of morality or ethics ( more than doubt - but I am not looking to trash my own reputation here ).
Voting against your own interests or scapegoating others for what you see as damage against yourself or even just plain old hate do not require religion. Humans have lots of ways at arriving at those and being manipulated into them.
Hard disagree. Religion has a measurable impact on people voting against the rights of minorities, and it deserves every bit of scrutiny it has coming its way.
It’s not like Bigfoot or flat earth. This shit is having serious consequences for others, physically and mentally.
Religion itself? Or man using religious dogma to justify the uglier natures of their internal belief systems and cherry-picking religious quotes to shoehorn their false righteousness into moral discussion? Religion is a powerful tool and it can be used to drum up donations for an orphanage, or leveraged and wielded by people who aren’t seeking to enlighten themselves at all apart from learning how to use religion to control people.
I agree with you. Using religion to manipulate people for political reasons is not really a religion problem. If you eradicate religion, there are many other levers to pull. In fact, manipulating religious groups these days also requires using these other weaknesses against people and then convincing them to ignore the conflict with their religious teachings.
Ahh yes, agreed. Like prosperity Jesus wanting you to be wealthy despite saying in the Bible “it’s easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Or a year round favorite: “Love thy neighbor” (unless they’re people we don’t like, such as LGBT, immigrants, liberals etc. )
Both. Texts like the Bible tell you how to conduct slavery, endorses violence against men who have gay sex, and in no uncertain terms (and in many different ways) tells you women are worth a fraction of men and shouldn’t be trusted to preach.
Yet there are things that aren’t endorsed in the Bible are far too commonly preached by Christians. Like being against trans people, opposing abortion rights (in fact the Bible tells you how to induce an abortion and that you should do it if your wife cheats on you)… and like you said, some drum up donations for the express purpose of leveraging control over others, or to buy private jets, in spite of the life Jesus led and in spite of his teachings.
Do you find this post more scientific or more religious?
Because I will agree with you if we can agree that the position being taken here is driven by treating science as a religion ( one they poorly understand ).
The question itself isn’t scientific or religious. And nobody in this thread is conducting science, but the majority of us here definitely trust the scientific method over faith.
That’s not to say we take scientific claims as gospel like theists do with theistic claims. Science is about updating our understanding as new evidence is presented. Religion is about being handed the truth.
You are dumb so I am going to explain to you so you can understand why this is actually a counterexample that you just gave yourself. Irrationality is what’s the most important problem here. Celebrities can talk about absolute random and insane shit and people will believe them 100% and pretend their words are the words of god. You can prove it’s bullshit 100% and people will still believe it.
For me its a combination of learning it since childhood and experiencing minor things that i can’t explain differently.
For example once i had a thought in my mind that i should go home that evening when i see the clouds. Later at the bbq i remembered that and looked into the sky and saw some clouds in the distance and just knew that these were the clouds. But it didn’t looked like it should rain, and the weather forecast was also clear. So i stayed. Later when i went to the train, a huge number of people from a heavy metal concert that just finished came, and enough people wanted to take the last train that day that some didn’t make it inside. If i had gone home when i saw the clouds, i wouldn’t have been in that overcrowded train.
Also for me my faith looks consistent internally and with other stuff that i see.
If both parties achieved mental and physical maturity then what’s wrong.
Ask your grandmother at what she - or people her age - married at.
This is likely to get downvoted, I say this because mentioning downvotes in your posts/comments usually prevents them from being downvoted (a little psychological thing probably)
Then let’s talk facts and logic, why is an older person marrying a younger person bad? because you’re an educated Atheist/Agnostic (I guess), you must’ve questioned what you were taught at childhood, unlike those brainwashed and spoon fed Christians.
“Minimum age of marriage”, who came up with concept? it surely isn’t common sense since it only appeared less than a century ago, so what is it? Some may say that young marriage is a mere relic of the ancients, a result of their underdeveloped logic and science, and that our advanced logic is better and is infallible.
But wait, your people, just mere a century ago saw people 2 centuries a ago the exact same way, and so did those before them, so using our logic, we can deduct that our logic is illogical.
How about statistical data we can speculate, a mere century ago, how did the world look like? there was certainly very little employees, even Christians believed in their book, Javascript did not exist (alhamdulillah), young people were treated as adults, and people older than Israel who to this day live under bombing by your morally superior society were being born; How does something like the depression rate among their youth compare to today? It is reportedly much lower, so how did your generation fail? Surely with all that development of medicine and the like, your people should “logically” be much happier. Are you really strictly superior to the ancients?
“But statistics back then were biased and limited”, I see your point, unlike the “infallible” statistics of today, those statistics were surely awful, so let’s move to broader ideas.
At childhood, you were spoon fed many ideas, like “Slavery is unacceptable”, “The old marrying the young is awful”, and “Humans evolved from monkeys”. By using the fact that our logic is illogical, we can conclude that these aren’t concrete facts. How is slavery involved with almost every product in the average American household? how did the ancients grow up to be healthy adults? Again, ask your grandmother. How is there not, to this day, concrete evidence of humans evolving from anything but slightly taller humans?
How is slavery unacceptable in your eyes, yet you can’t live without it? Is the average McDonalds worker treated better that how Islam treats slaves?
How did the ancients grow up to be healthy individuals? Is insisting that you’re much better than the ancients truly your way of avoiding depression?
Why is anything that goes against the theory of someone named Darwin, of whose book you know nothing, and whose theory’s shortcomings you are ignoring, and whose teachings you were fed in school, and whose ways you never questioned, mere ancient fables?
But there stands, the teachings of Islam, Allah’s divine revelation to us, it never failed, for 14 centuries it stood unchanged, yet who reads it could never tell, that this book wasn’t written by a scholar of today, how could it so accurately describe today? how did our caliphate, only a mere century from today, stand strong? How didn’t we truly fail, until we forgot the words and called it a day?
//////////end
I got a little peotic at the end.
You guys just look at Christians and decide that religion is dumb.
I thought of finishing with some miracles like the 360 joints, the beating of alcoholics and adulterers, and camel milk+urine, but the article south_park_remark reply got too long.
I realize these miracles can be individually dismissed, it is not their individual traits that will persuade, it is their collected wight. It is the fact that the prophet, peace be upon him, never claimed anything that is wrong, unlike scientists of a mere decade ago, and that his medicines did nothing but heal, unlike scientists of a mere decade ago.
This is likely to get downvoted, I say this because mentioning downvotes in your posts/comments usually prevents them from being downvoted (a little psychological thing probably)
I look at religion and decided it’s silly…wish you’d stop putting words in my mouth. And you can stop defending slavery/pedophilia or whatever, I’m not having that convo with you troll
Here’s the problem with English: I can not use the word “you”, and still have people know whether I am talking to them, or to people like them in general. Some of my "you"s were plural, some were singular. I need some way of coping with this language.
You replied to only 1 paragraph of mine, and decided I am a troll just for suggesting pushing that slavery/“pedophilia” might not be bad, unlike what you were taught.
Although you’ve been lied to, it’s not the lies that’s the problem. As an adult, you can a lot of the times tell when the media is manipulating you, especially in the last past decade it’s gotten so obvious even a Boomer could see it. But what you don’t see is how when you were lied to (or told selective truths) as a child, you didn’t have the same BS-detector, and that allowed a lot of deep-seated impressions about the world to be formed. So a lot of people who don’t believe anything the media says now (rightly) are still mind-cucked. They accept the programming and differ on the details.
I will give you this hint. Basically all of your programmed emotional responses are your enemies. There was an old Moldbug blog post where he talked about even far after “awaking from his dogmatic slumber,” he still was surprised that if he saw a group of Nazi LARPers, he would reflexively have a pang of emotional stress, but if he saw Stalinist LARPers, he wouldn’t have the same kind of emotional reaction. I think everyone raised in the West has that same programmed reaction. You might know with your head that the communist death count is supposed to be higher and the suppression wider, but it doesn’t click because you weren’t made sensitive to it.
Edit: no, actually, English isn’t the problem, since I appended “guys” to my statement about looking at religion and deciding it’s silly, you should know that I wasn’t talking about you personally.
I think the biggest flaw is assuming you’re among the atheist/agnostic crowd, but even then, I appended that claim with “(I guess)” to indicate that I am indeed putting words in someone’s mouth. Maybe you’re among the Christian crowd, or maybe you’re a… Zionist Jew? Hindu?
For any passing people, the original reply isn’t edited, so I am safe from that side of accusations.
I see, English isn’t your first language. You made (and continue to make) false assumptions. The media has had no influence on my viewpoints on religion (Christianity in particular), my personal experiences are more than sufficient. My first comment was based on Mohammeds youngest wife and how it’s accepted/ignored by Muslims. We have (somewhat?) similar action in the US, there was a republican GOP member in New Hampshire that was pushing to keep legal marriage set at 16 rather than 18, described the 16 year-olds as “ripe”…super creepy
We have (somewhat?) similar action in the US, there was a republican GOP member in New Hampshire that was pushing to keep legal marriage set at 16 rather than 18, described the 16 year-olds as “ripe”…super creepy
I am pretty sure he’s an awful person just because he’s an American politician.
But you’re missing the point though, you still think of young marriage as an absolutely-no-questions-asked obscene thing, which is understandable, seeing that most western teenagers are brainwashed into thinking they’re kids, and are therefore immature and aren’t ready for marriage. (Which creates some other problems because that’s the natural age for marriage)
Where I live, we have 16-year-old men marrying 14-year-old women, and they have a child a year or two later, and they’re really fine, except for maybe being less educated that they could have otherwise been. Speed of maturity actually depends mainly on two factors: difficulty of life (maturity of the mind and body), and heat of the climate (sexual maturity), and considering how high both were at the time of prophet PbUH, marrying at 9 is absolutely normal.
In fact, I am sure there are many marriage-ready 9-year-old women at places like Uganda and the poor African nations.
Actually, the idea of setting a minimum age only came to us with the french when they decided to colonize us, so of course we won’t look positively at ideas brought by people who came to rape and pillage, and it still doesn’t seem so bright considering they’re still pillaging us implicitly through corrupt political affairs.
Isn’t it weird that some resource-rich nations are dead-poor, while something like London can look like science fiction, and that a system as inefficient as democracy continues to function, and that every citizen somehow has human rights, and that the electricity doesn’t get cut daily. To this day I have a hard time believing that flat asphalt roads exist, and that driving on them doesn’t feel like riding a roller coaster of some sort; NO IT MUST BE FICTION, I WON’T BELIEVE IT TILL I SEE IT WITH MY OWN EYES!!!
Note to Americans: you guys might say: “Oh, but our medical system is a scam and colleges cause students to drown in debt because we normalized the disgusting act of usury!”, it’s just because your government’s is spending a third-of-the-world’s-military-budget worth of money on bombing Iraq and Yemen and Palestine and Cuba and Afghanistan and some other things in the name of “War On Terrorism” against those they pillaged. (No wait they made it back when they built a dock in Gaza to steal all their oil, so your government actually has no excuse, it must be corruption/falling into usury)
On the topic of American wastage, I read an article long ago where Americans were concerned that a 2000$ houthi drone was usually dealt with using a 2m$ missile, so the Pentagon spokesman or something replied with what was essentially: “Don’t worry, Americans! the houthi’s “terrorism” is already causing much more economic harm, so that’s a negligible efficiency loss”, like, how is telling people that the situation is much worse than they imagine supposed to calm them down?
Edit: I forgot Russia, almost the only nation America has any right to actually fight.