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 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.
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
Dear (my) god, you folks are irrational. If someone acts a certain way, judge them for it! But judging anyone with faith just because you don’t believe in that!? I can’t prove God exists any more than you can prove they don’t. If a religious person acts kind, fair, and rational, you shouldn’t have anything against them, should you? But this post isn’t about American right-wingers, or extremist Islamic Muslims, is it? It’s about anyone who has any faith at all, just because you don’t believe the same thing. Caring Christians literally building homes for people internationally, Sikhs feeding anyone, no matter their beliefs…
I know I’m going to get downvoted for this, but that’s literally small-minded.
What would you think of someone who goes door to door trying to convince you a blubbery clown rules the universe from planet zebulon?
Is that a normal person just doing normal person things?
For the non-religious, there is no difference between the person above and a relgious believer.
I think it's reasonable to ask why people still hold unfounded beliefs with the greater interconnectedness of the world making it pretty plain that not all these religions can be divinely inspired truth, so many of them are necessarily imaginary.
Ignores the atrocities and genocide committed in the name of “religion” ✅
You are quite literally the pot calling the kettle black with your “small minded” comment. Nobody here was persecuting religion, but specific implementations that have committed mass murder, or engage in obnoxious displays (screaming at people at events (some events designed to support groups of people), going door to door, shaming vulnerable people trying to get medical procedures, etc etc)
The day you widen your view to see others perspectives and history of abuse is the day you’ll actually be on the right “religious” track. Humanity is the religion.
proceeds to generalize all religious people as the worst of religion
Most religious people do acknowledge all the stuff you’re talking about, and agree with you on how terrible they are. Most of the time when you meet a religious person, you won’t think there’s anything different until you ask them.
It’s a post asking why people believe in religion. People who don’t believe in religion or spirituality really have no reason to comment other than to condemn. The arrogance of atheists on Lemmy is very disappointing.
Because belief is intrinsic to humanity even if we don’t believe in religion.
I believe in a lot of human concepts, including kindness, altruism, democracy and humanism. They are all still effectively made up human ideas.
I also believe when I sit down that the chair below me really exists but I cannot truly trust my own senses 100% either. So effectively I “believe” what my sensory organs and brain interpretation tell me, but the reality is the brain and its interpretations can be wrong.
Look at the USA, the founders of the nation are often treated with a reverence akin to that of religious figures.
People have all kinds of delusions. People worship all kinds of weird things. Religion is just one of many.
Finally, someone like Ayn Rand shows that a human can have pretty reprehensible and hypocritical beliefs even if they are an atheist. She promoted bullshit “great men” theories of humanity and argued that selfishness could be used for good.
She also died penniless and on government benefits while spending her whole life preaching against things like government benefits.
People are deeply irrational even without religion.
As an atheist who is not anti-religion, I wholeheartedly agree. The religious do not have a monopoly on irrationality, or weaponizing ideology.
I see many atheists on forums proposing the idea that if we could only just get rid of religion, the world would be a harmonious and rational place. As if human beings wouldn’t still be perfectly able to come up with new and interesting ways to rationalize conflict and division amongst themselves.
Humans are emotional creatures. We can’t change that. Even when we’re being rational we’re still basing every decision we make on emotions. “I’ve researched this and I feel this is the right decision.”
We believe in those things because they’re practices we can observe and measure. The real question is why do theists not have the same standard of evidence for theistic claims.
I also believe when I sit down that the chair below me really exists …
Your trust (or “faith”) in the chair existing and supporting your weight is because of your experience with chairs in the past. I don’t think many people would say they have “absolute certainty” the chair exists and would hold them.
If you had a history of hallucinating you might have a higher standard of evidence, but it’s still there to be tested. The problem with religion is it seems like you need a standard of “none at all” to accept theistic claims.
Finally, someone like Ayn Rand shows …
“They do it too” doesn’t really get us to an answer, just another “why” question. She believes her claims with little to no evidence, theists believe their claims with little to no evidence, but like…why?
Like it or not, people who went to prayer house or religious gatherings socialise more than people who stay indoor and only interact with limited amount of people. Assuming there’s no fishy business going on with that particular chapter, they tend to be happier considering the fact human are social animal and the feeling of loneliness due to lack of human to human interaction is the build-in alarm system to warn us against solitude. It’s this reason religion is so success because it’s enforce togetherness and make you feels like you’re part of something.
If we’re going into a utopian world where human doesn’t need to work anymore and social security is guaranteed, religious will be something even bigger than today.
Edit: forgot to mentioned, am atheist and give no shit to skyman, but somehow on the internet atheist can’t have opinion that’s not shitting on people with faith.
We don’t need religion, we did at one time. When we didn’t know why or how people got sick, why sometimes crops would be plentiful and other times famine or why the ground shook sometimes or even just figuring out morals
But we know those things now and when we encounter something we don’t we have the knowledge and tools to figure out what’s up.
We don’t need churches for a common social place, we have parks, libraries, community centers and community wide events to invest in. We can socialize and learn other cultures around the world in an instant. We don’t just have random villages and tiny cities any more, we have large and diverse cities so we everyone can have a little of everything they’re interested in.
At this point, all religion does is serve as yet another thing to divide us.
Like it or not, people who went to prayer house or religious gatherings socialise more than people who stay indoor and only interact with limited amount of people.
While this statement is true, its also true even if you’re not religious. I was not raised religious at all but always got together with family/cousins/friends nearly every weekend.
… they tend to be happier considering the fact human are social animal and the feeling of loneliness due to lack of human to human interaction is the build-in alarm system to warn us against solitude. It’s this reason religion is so success because it’s enforce togetherness and make you feels like you’re part of something.
Kinda. This study [0] of 3,942 19-year-old in Sweden put it best:
… religion and religiousness per se have little impact on happiness. In particular, we find that social networks tend to be positively associated with happiness, and that this effect is driven by co-organizational membership among friends.
So while religious upbringing can force people to socialize, that doesn’t mean the lack of religiosity will have a negative impact as the lack of religion does not dictate that you will not congregate/gather with peers/friends/family and feel the same level of “belonging” to a group - even if its not a well defined group.
If we’re going into a utopian world where human doesn’t need to work anymore and social security is guaranteed, religious will be something even bigger than today.
I’d say this claim is unfounded. Why must we turn to religion? There are clubs, groups, meetups, friends, events and niches of never ending categories that easily fulfill the need of “belonging” to a group - it’s actually one thing humans are really good at - forming “in” and “out” groups.
Yes, i do agree on all the thing you said, what i’m saying is it’s not mutually exclusive. Religious people can and will go to religious meetup and all the other non-religious gathering too. I know that because i have some friend that do both. It’s not the case of black and white, this or that, do and don’t.
The issue i have with OP’s question and a lot of atheist is they tend to put religious people as a one dimension entity and think highly of themselves because they “aren’t like that”, that irrationality is what they accuse religious people have. It’s that sort of tribalism that cause a lot of conflict, and i fear tribalism more than i fear religion.
How do you know that the real creator(s) are documented?
You’ve been threatened and Stockholm’d through fear, likely as a child or when vulnerable into seeing 1 alternative, when the alternatives are infinite
I think you missed the point here. To the believer, evidence is not the main concern. Many Christians talk about their connection and relationship with god, which is subjective. To them, god exists because they have faith, not evidence, that it exists. Where’s that faith coming from? As many others explained in this thread, it’s about finding the sense of community and comfort in knowing that somebody higher us knows best in the world of uncertainty.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I believe in a religion because I’ve found it to be personally beneficial.
I was a pastor for many years and saw much of the best and worst religion had to offer. I haven’t stepped foot inside a church since COVID broke out and don’t know that I ever will again.
My personal beliefs are still a significant part of my life, but I understand why someone would ask the question that spawned this discussion.
I think that does answer the question - for a lot of people, the reason they’re religious is because they find it personally beneficial for one reason or another.
I guess I’m putting emphasis on the word “believe” and you seem to be seeing religion as a way to find comfort. This is why I feel you are not actually answering the question that OP posed. Perhaps I’m taking the question too literally.
Adding more to this. The question is why do you believe in religion, not why you are religious. To me, there’s a difference between the two of these.
There is a significant difference, but, in my limited experience, many people are religious, but don’t actually believe, but they think they do believe. When the rubber hits the road you find it what a person actually thinks is true.
I’d say it’s partly to find some comfort with life’s many uncertainties, and one of several ways to achieve a sense of purpose when struggling for some.
Ah yes, how childish of OP to wonder why the majority of English speaking countries believe in answers to life’s greatest questions with little to no evidence. What a naive little question, that one.
To each their own, but personally that sounds like a bad reason to stop pursuing life’s greatest questions. Plenty of my family has passed away, but that doesn’t make faith seem like a reliable pathway to truth.
I’d love to believe they’re in an eternal paradise, but I’d also love to believe my next paycheck will be $1,000,000. The time to believe I’m a millionaire is when I have evidence for it, not when I’d be heartbroken otherwise.
I disagree with your last line. A hypothesis is a great analogy for faith. It’s a belief that something is true. Science involves testing the hypothesis, just as faith can be tested.
It’s important to remember that science, by definition, does not prove anything either. There are only supported and unsupported theories.
I think what I’m saying there is that faith is more of an on-off switch. You see an astronaut who’s returned from space and he’s holding a pencil and he lets go of it in the air, goes and does something, and returns to the place where he let it go expecting the pencil to still be there.
It’s not there, but he BELIEVED it would be, because he had no doubt. It surprised him that it wasn’t there.
Hypothesis is quite a different thing. If I hypothesize there are crackers in the pantry, all I have to do is go and open the pantry and look and see if there’s crackers. That’s testing the hypothesis.
One does not talk about the existence of things like love, or truth, or God, in the same way one talks about crackers in the pantry. They are metaphysical, and they are different.
Close. You’re comparing a repeatable phenomenon to an unrepeatable one. Unrepeatable phenomena are where science is equal to religion, in that there may only be a hypothesis supporting the theory.
For example, according to the current scientific theory of creation, two masses collided in the Big Bang. The laws of physics state that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. There are scientific theories on how the masses came to exist, and what set them in motion, but there is no way to test an unrepeatable phenomenon. Interference-based creation is just as possible.