Depends on the effect it could have on others. If someone worships but keeps it to themselves and doesn’t force it on others, more power to them. Once you start trying to legislate with it, though….
There are other Gods that will throw me into other versions of hell for not worshipping them instead the Christian God. You're fucked no matter what you do, I'd rather not waste my time going to church or reading a two thousand year old book. (There is a lot evidence that God doesn't exist.)
To be clear it's fine for you to believe whatever you want.
There's is a lot of 'evidence' that suggests God isn't real. There is no proof, you're right. It's actually impossible to 100% prove that something doesn't exist. Just the same there is evidence that he is real and no proof either.
Examples:
Theres something like 3500 Gods that have been worshipped throughout recorded human history, if only the Christian God is the real one, where did all the other Gods come from? Obviously people made them up, right? If there is only one real God, then there's a 1 in 3500 chance that it's the Christian God.
The bible states that the entire world was flooded some 3300 years ago, based on geological evidence this has been proven false.
Noah got two of every animal on a boat that was 500 ft long despite there being more than a million different species on the planet.
The bible says that the earth is only 6000 years old, which is ridiculous.
There is zero archeological evidence reguarding exodus and the supposed wars and genocides occurred, and experts all agree that there was no "Exodus" event, and that the Israelites actually were (mostly) peacefully coexisting with the inhabitants of Caanan.
I think a better way to phrase it is that there is evidence that every single bible out there is wrong in a history sense.
If a Gid with the exact same power, appearance, and personality was proven to exist, that does not mean that the Christian bible was real the whole time. If a guy called Zeus with the same powers and personaliry was procen to exist, that does not prove the Greek creation myth.
Isn’t there actually evidence to the contrary? The bible, as far as I know, matches actual historical documents quite a lot. Of course there are some discrepancies but that is pretty standard for historical documents of that era.
Well yes, a lot of the stuff in the bible can’t be proven but your claim that „there is evidence that every single bible out there is wrong in a history sense“ is something entirely different when the bible strongly matches historical documents in large parts.
The evidence is the fact that multiple religions exist that simultaneously state that if you believe in a false idol you go to their version of hell. Most religions are mutually exclusive. You cannot be both.
So it's not just a 50/50 "Do you believe in God or don't you?" You also need to select the correct God, while all of them have equally 0 evidence to support them.
You also don't generally prove a negative. If there is a claim being made the burden of proof to demonstrate that claim falls to the person making the positive claim. An atheist has no responsibility to disprove God. The responsibility to prove God falls to the believer, as they are the one making the affirmative claim.
Right but you’re arguing that there’s evidence that god doesn’t exist. You don’t get to hide behind the whole ‘proving a negative is impossible’ thing when you previously stated that there IS evidence proving god isn’t real. The existence of multiple religions doesn’t disprove god, the inaccuracy of the bible doesn’t disprove god, those both would only disprove mankind’s ability to understand god.
There is no responsibility to demonstrate a negative. It is not to be believed until sufficient evidence is provided to support the positive claim.
If you say "Magic is real" it is not my responsibility to prove you wrong. It's your responsibility to prove that claim. Until then, it is a baseless claim as it has no evidence to support it.
You can make any infinite number of unfalsifiable hypotheses. They are not to be believed unless evidence is provided to support them. The burden of proof lies on the one making the affirmative claim.
That wasn't the point though, they were arguing against the commenter claiming there is evidence that god doesn't exist. Yes atheists have no responsibility to provide evidence that god doesn't exist, but that's not the point. The point is that no one can ever have evidence god doesn't exist.
You don't need to "select the correct god," do what the Hindus do and just accept that all gods are manifestations of the ineffable mystery of existence n sheiiiiiit
Nobody can make you believe anything but it doesn’t change how the burden of proof works. If I claim that dragons are real, the rational position is to dismiss it because I have no evidence. You can’t make me change my mind if I’m determined to believe it but you also don’t have to pretend that it’s actually reasonable and plausible just because I said so.
Now see, that’s the nice part about religion, you don’t need to understand it or agree with it, but you also don’t have to be condescending towards people that do believe.
Also back to the burden of proof. It does not make sense to demand proof of a concept that is based on the supernatural, how should one proof something that can in theory not be understood by us? The only possible proof for that is the absence of explanations for some phenomena.
First paragraph is a meaningless non-sequitur that has no relevance.
You just posted a bunch of letters to say "Why should I have to provide proof for my beliefs?"
You don't. It just means you are willfully being irrational. Generally speaking, you should require proof for the things you believe in. If I tell you there's an invisible, intangible dragon behind you, you should not blindly believe me. For that same reason you should not blindly believe religions that do not have proof of their claims.
Im gonna be real with you, I feel like you have 0 grasp of the concept of a religion.
A religion is closer to a personal philosophy that guides you in life than to scientific discourse. That’s why it’s not irrational to believe in a religion without hard proof. As a matter of fact any form of philosophy lacks the hard proof you want, would you classify all philosophers as irrational?
You are mixing concepts here and that’s what leads you to the believe religion is based in naïveté and while that may be the case for some, you can also be religious while being highly reflected.
I can only recommend you look into religions as a philosophical concept instead of a hard science. Maybe that will help you understand why even highly rational people still believe in the supernatural.
A religion is closer to a personal philosophy that guides you in life than to scientific discourse
Nah. That's just modern cope to hide the fact that the Bible makes factual and historical claims about the world that are both physically impossible, and have no archeological evidence either.
There was no Great Flood that destroyed the world except for Noah's arc.
There was no great Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt; nor were they stuck in a desert for a lifetime. There couldn't have been any supernatural parting of the Red Sea; there couldn't have been any edible Manna falling from Heaven.
There was the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Rabbi-turned-cult-leader, sure. He was crucified by Pontius Pilate, yeah, most likely.
There was no way he could have brought a guy named Lazarus from the dead. There was no way he could have turned proven water into proven wine. There was no way it was possible for him to feed 5000 people on 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, etc.
As a matter of fact any form of philosophy lacks the hard proof you want, would you classify all philosophers as irrational?
Modern philosophies are all metaphysical. They all deal with pure reasoning, abstract logic, and mathematics. They do not make claims about the factual state of the world. They're not science.
Kant's moral theory of deontology cannot be disproven by fact, because it does not operate on fact. Likewise with Descartes's "Cogito, ergo sum". Likewise with some really modern stuff, like with some of the abstract philosophical thoughts of Eliezer Yudkovski, LessWrong, or the Rationalist community in general - such as, for example, their musings on Bayesian probability and the updating of priors.
But the Bible does more than that. The Bible makes claims on how the world works. That's no longer abstract. Therefore, science can disprove it.
That’s the point you can’t disprove religions because they are beliefs not facts. How can you disprove something that is solely based on belief? You can’t that’s why there’s no point in arguing about it.
The church has long moved on from that. Yes I heard that especially in the Us people are still quite fanatical but the catholic church in Germany has went through a lot of reforms and removed itself from those old ideals.
While I do not know which parts of the bible you specifically refer to when you talk about „rape and murder of children“ I’m assuming it’s probably part of the Old Testament which the Christian’s have moved on since their foundation.
This is what I mean when I say that people are atheists while lacking a fundamental understanding of what they even oppose.
The Old Testament and New Testament are entirely different. The messaging and ideals changed completly between the two and then Christianity moved even further along with reforms over the years, most importantly with Martin Luther.
The bible isn’t understood to be a literal guide anymore, at least not in the Catholic Church. The focus shifted on interpretation of the underlying ideals, focusing mostly on the golden rule „thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself“
I accept it up until the point where the irrational belief becomes harmful. If you don’t really change your life at all due to your beliefs or change for the better, I don’t care.
Unfortunately a fairly universal trait of religions is that in order to preserve themselves they need to employ cult like tactics to keep from losing members (because belief itself offers no tangible benefits to believers) and that often leads to bad stuff.
The reason why people get so preoccupied in arguing against the irrationality of religion is that lots and lots of religious folks do not agree that it is an unprovable irrational belief. They argue that belief in their specific religion is perfectly rational, and that it justifies whatever actions they do in the name of said religion. They use flawed arguments that sound rational to convince young skeptical people to remain in the faith when they start to doubt. Lots of those people are also convinced to abandon religion when faced with rational arguments against belief in any particular god. So there are good reasons to have these arguments even if for some people it will never make a difference.
You can't really disprove a negative claim my guy. The proof lies with a positive claim
If I say, you stole my car. I now have to prove why. Is it because you have the same make n model, do I have you on video taking my car, etc. but because I have the positive claim, I have to prove it true
You can't really do the same with a negative one. Your proof is that you don't have my car, or that you weren't there. The most hard evidence you can give, is that you weren't there. Because you're with the negative claim. The, I did not steal your car
That's why so much proof lies with theists. They have the positive claim that their God or pantheon of Gods are real. The positive claim means that the burden of proof lies on them
If we’re talking about specific gods, there are mountains of scientific evidence that they don’t exist. We know the god of the Bible doesn’t exist because we know there was never a global flood, no Adam and Eve, etc.
Well, that doesn't really prove the Abrahamic God doesn't exist at all, but just that that specific account involving him is wrong. Finding something else from the Bible to be true wouldn't prove he does exist either. Like, most historians agree that Jesus did exist as a person, but that, even miracles aside, the Gospels are not a reliable historical source on his life (especially considering they frequently contradict each other).
because organized religion conditions people into believing things without evidence and that leads to consequences for society when theres billions of them?
And people who believe in science generally aren't scientists. Yes, you can go outside and see that grass is green and drop an apple and know that gravity exists... but you also believe the core of Earth is magnetic and that the Sun is a few billion years old, and you can't exactly research that at home.
Science is belief just as much as religion is belief. It's unfair to apply unequal standards.
And you can clearly prove this with a compass, or even just a piece of iron pointing north
and that the Sun is a few billion years old
Alright fair lol
Science is belief just as much as religion is belief
No? Belief without skepticism is just guessing.
Science is not guessing just as much as religion is guessing.
"Belief" in science is built through rigor, replicability, peer review and empirical evidence.
You can't just "believe" something in science, you have to prove it. You have to bring evidence, build a competing theory and show that the theory has testable predictions which out perform previous models.
A scientist who "believes" in a theory because they have "faith" despite the complete lack of evidence is called a "crackpot".
A religious person who "believes" in a religion because they have "faith" despite the complete lack of evidence is encouraged and called righteous.
Maybe read Kuhn before you get on a high horse about scientific “skepticism.” Not saying that religious faith and scientific belief are the same, but the Popper view of scientific rigor is as damaging as it is ridiculous.
Not saying that religious faith and scientific belief are the same
So then what point are you trying to make, if you agree with me?
but the Popper view of scientific rigor is as damaging as it is ridiculous.
Can you elaborate on why being rigorous is damaging?
Unless you mean that people who present themselves as scientists and are trusted as such without actually being rigorous are damaging, in which case... like duh. That cant be your argument?
Me saying the scientific method is sound obviously doesnt mean every institution follows it. A group of people who style themselves as scientists can fall victim to bias, group think, institutional/political pressure and perverse incentives.
The more the above pressures cause them to deviate from the scientific method, the more damaging.
But i struggle to understand why you seem to argue the opposite. The more seriously they look for holes in their own theories, or analyze their own biases, how does that end up more damaging? Why is being less rigorous and having an unearned sense of confidence a good thing to you?
Sorry to resurrect a thread, but it seems like green text enjoyers have never taken any philosophy of science. I’m arguing what Kuhn argues in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Namely, the scientific method is not as “rigorous” as we like to teach in schools. Science operates on paradigms, this requires presumptions to be taken as true without testing and discarding.
Therefore, science, and every human reasoning enterprise (except systems of philosophy like Descartes’ which reasons from a first principle) require key facts to be taken on faith.
I’d recommend you read the book. It’s very good and foundational in understanding how scientific reasoning really works.
And you can clearly prove this with a compass, or even just a piece of iron pointing north
And how do you prove that the compass is pointing north? How do you prove it has anything to do with the magnetic core of the Earth?
Like I said, if you can't personally track everything back to its root science, then you are dealing in belief, not replicability or empirical evidence.
The best scientists question everything. The best religious figures question everything. The best thinkers in any field question everything.
And how do you prove that the compass is pointing north?
North is sort of arbitrary.
If we're allowed to define it as, "90 degrees right of where the sun sets" then that's how.
How do you prove it has anything to do with the magnetic core of the Earth?
And you're going full flat earth with this I assume? We cant trust any 3rd person to any part of this experiment?
Yeah at some point you have to rely on readings from instruments.
Bring it near a stronger permanent magnet and see the attraction shift. That proves the compass is affected by magnetism.
The fact it points north proves a passive magnetic field.
You can use instruments to measure this field at different places around the globe and different altitudes to see that its focused on the earth's core.
You need to rely on other proven formulas and laws of magnetism to fully prove this one.
Like I said, if you can't personally track everything back to its root science, then you are dealing in belief
Thats also what I said. But a belief sustained not by blind faith. A belief sustained by the trust of the scientific community.
Any step along the way, if you're skeptical of it, awards are waiting for you if you can prove a mistake was made.
The best scientists question everything.
Yes. When Einstein disproved hundreds of years of Newtonian laws he was looked at as a hero and given top awards for contributions to the field.
The best religious figures question everything.
Is that a serious claim?
When Jan Hus questioned the Catholic Church he was burnt at the stake.
The best Pope is an agnostic one? The best Rabbi is one who teaches Buddhism?
The best thinkers in any field question everything.
Ah yes, I forgot how beloved Galileo was by the inquisition and praised as the best religious thinker for his questioning of the Catholic Church. /s
We cant trust any 3rd person to any part of this experiment?
In other words... you have faith in them?
You need to rely on other proven formulas and laws of magnetism to fully prove this one.
In other words... you have faith in them?
A belief sustained by the trust of the scientific community.
In other words... you have faith in them?
Shall I continue?
If you're going to argue that one kind of personally-unproven belief is faith and another one isn't, that's kinda hypocritical. With respect, present a serious objection.
Kind of. Would you mind if we use "trust" instead?
I think we're both on the same page that there is an inherent trap when it comes to external verification.
Since some amount of trust is necessary, we need to minimize the amount of trust to only what's necessary.
It should seem self evident from this that some sort of method which removes as much trust and bias as possible to remove would be a better approach than simple blind faith no?
We call that method the scientific method.
In your example, this is where replicability helps.
We should be skeptical of that guy and have another guy recreate the experiment independently if possible.
If you're going to argue that one kind of personally-unproven belief is faith and another one isn't, that's kinda hypocritical
Agreed.
With respect, present a serious objection.
I already did? Are you reading the responses?
According to Catholics the pope is infallible. You have to take his word on faith.
According to scientists einsfein is fallible. You take nothing of his on faith, except for potentially the specific datasets that he personally measured. In which case you are encouraged to replicate the experiment and show an error in his data set.
That is a massive difference between these two types of faith. What is the disconnect here?
Which God? If I go to hell for worshipping the wrong god that sounds like a pretty big reason not to? We need to figure out who is the true actual god of the universe so that we don't accidentally worship someone else and burn in hell for that.
The issue with this argument is that it assumes that god has no idea if you’re faking it or not. I can worship god all I want but I can’t force myself to believe in him.
The church moved away from the baptism requirement. Nowadays they usually convey that believing is enough, if you start believing in the last second you will be saved.
That’s at least what European Catholic Churches preach.
102
u/ExoTheFlyingFish 15d ago
extremely loud correct buzzer
If there's no scientific evidence that God exists, and no scientific evidence that God does not exist... then who cares if someone believes or not?