I found that last word, "atheist", tacked on hastily to the end of the video title, all too fitting. Sagan was an agnostic. Many people, including the dudes in my gym's dry sauna last week, seem to think that agnosticism loosely equates to theism. Nay. Agnostics profess mankind's inability to definitively know whether or not a divine deity exists (or multiple deities, whatever). Now, unless there was a major press release today that I've missed, this seems the most scientifically informed stance to take. We can talk about who has the burden of proof for proving or disproving the existence of the divine, or we can stop pointing fingers, and get back to doing whatever gives us the warm and fuzzies. Unless it's the Crusades. Or ISIS. Or moderating /r/atheism.
This image is appropriate. There are people out there who will claim, entirely solidly, that they not only think that a deity exists, but that the rules that their deity says are moral should be applied universally. To "lay back" and say "well, we can't prove it wrong" is dishonest and misleading. Allowing false ideas to spread because they make people feel good will never result in a good thing. Allow a set of morals based on false ideals to spread under the guise of tolorance. Allow the majority of people in society to follow any ideaology based on nothing but what they believe, and you are asking for nothing but trouble. Science is about being open to new evidence, but accepting the evidence that currently exists as well, with skepticism and testing. Current evidence points to every large book that religions are based on are either hugely metaphorical, or outright lies. Now, while I will agree that you cannot prove there is no such thing as a deity, I do not see it as any reason to accept or tolorate claims that one exists if there is no evidence backing them. Science is accepting things with evidence, not accepting things with nothing disproving them. It is only through debate that we can refine, hone, and ensure that the ideas that people hold in society have solid footing and will lead society in a proper direction. The entire ideological of "sit back and let people believe what they want" starts being poison the moment you cross into the correct side of "don't consider or put down other people from holding opinions that are different than you". Opinions are made to be challenged, stances are made to be argued. Acceptance is going to get us nowhere, debate is going to weed out the bullshit in the end.Agnostics profess mankind's inability to definitively know whether or not a divine deity exists (or multiple deities, whatever). Now, unless there was a major press release today that I've missed, this seems the most scientifically informed stance to take.
or we can stop pointing fingers, and get back to doing whatever gives us the warm and fuzzies.
I don't terribly disagree with most of what you're claiming, but I gave up on being militant about it. There are people near to me in my life with whom my relationships would suffer if I constantly reminded them that I considered Jesus to be just another leading brand-name. That's on the exact same level as theists being intolerant to you holding your position, because you have no evidence backing you up either. I know what science is, but it still hasn't been able to answer certain existential questions that a dwindling percentage of educated mankind has a rabid craving of answers for. And here's the thing; the believers think they do have evidence of some sort backing up their answers to existence. Usually a holy book or the words of powerful figurehead. How many times can you stomach watching an atheist "destroy" a person of faith with logical attacks? How many times can people of faith stomach watching other believers "destroy" an atheist with powerful religious rhetoric and references to scriptures? It quickly gets very boring, and degenerates into the same type of predictable behavior and content that religion turned me off with. Religiosity is, like I said, dwindling. It's going out of style in the western world like Crocs™ circa one decade ago, and yes, that is largely due to some increased scientific progress and literacy. Most models predict that religion's decline is inevitable and likely near at-hand, mere centuries away. So, bioemerl, you can go yell at those people dressed in their Sunday best, driving slow in the fast lane, high on Jeebus. Tell them everything that they're doing wrong. But don't get mad when they turn around and nitpick your faults for all the world to hear as well. And yeah, there's always a chance you'll get through, that you'll make a difference, but you're always introducing yourself and another (usually) harmless human being to conflict, distress, and/or ego-reinforcement, etc. I thought the graphic was interesting, but I guess I don't fall into a square. I can mark my 'X' far out from the origin on the "agnostic" arrow axis. Anyway, I can already tell you that we have more in common than most members of my nuclear family, none of whom will ever engage in a decent conversation on Hubski. Cheers! :)Now, while I will agree that you cannot prove there is no such thing as a deity, I do not see it as any reason to accept or tolorate claims that one exists if there is no evidence backing them. Science is accepting things with evidence, not accepting things with nothing disproving them.
It is only through debate that we can refine, hone, and ensure that the ideas that people hold in society have solid footing and will lead society in a proper direction.
I wouldn't dare ever mention religion to anyone I know in real life. Perhaps if a debate came up, I would join in, but I will never bring the topic up. This is where the flying spaghetti monster comes into play. Acceptance of ideas because there is nothing disproving them is not acceptable or reasonable. Those answers are things we should come to on our own terms, and share with each other without the framework of religion. Questions not related to science, such as, "why do I exist" should not be dictated to us by some larger authority, but instead to ourselves, by ourselves. Of course, that leaves open that a person could consider it their purpose to serve a god of some form. To that I go back to responding that such a thing does not exist, and the person should be saying "I exist to serve my church, or what I feel is correct at any moment after meditation". And there is no evidence backing religion of any form. All that exists is coincidence and bias. Some can claim that they have evidence, and they can choose to be stubborn about it, but at the end of the day they do not, not until it can be repeated and studied/proven beyond anecdote. An infinite number? I am less concerned about the quality of the debate, but instead that they continue to exist and be seen by all people walking by, allowing them to get facts and come to their own decision. The same reasoning applies above. It's the whole point of debate. People who already are steady and unmoving in their side aren't the point of debate in the first place. It's due to the debates, it's due to those who talk, who speak, etc. I do not yell. I do not bust into churches in order to attack people's faith. I speak my opinion when it is appropriate. I debate where I feel that it will result in something decent and constructive. I am not trying to explicitly change minds and be some crusader of atheism. However, when I am dragged to church by my mother, sent off to a two week church camp, and get to sit and listen to a crowd inside of a church that appears to be one of the more "acceptable" "modern" churches that have projectors and play pop rather than classic music, cheer about a tornado that went through the town to kill 8, because it knocked over a stripper club, I feel like something has to be said. When people will try to push the agenda that religion has founding because it's a personal choice, when people say that they can make claims of god's existance because there is no proof against it, when people say things that are clearly and demonstrably false and irrational, I feel like I have to say something. I don't consider myself a militant atheist. I don't consider myself someone who will barge into churches and tell people they are wrong, but when you twist facts in public. When you attack other people under the guise of religion, when you cheer for destruction, I can't help but say "you are wrong." Of course, I don't do that in reality, because I am never going to be in such situations when I am out of college, when I don't go to churches anymore, when I keep to myself. And now, when I do see those situations, I don't say anything because I am representing my family, and I am a bit of a coward, I don't like speaking publicly, or to anyone that I do not very closely know that isn't online. I expect and would love them to point out my own faults. Knowledge and admitting my faults is a very good thing to have. Now, if you are talking about myself being demonized, or hated, or whatever it is. Honestly, so long as I do not get fired, and I do not get killed, I am more than happy to have people hate me for whatever reasons. If they do so, I didn't want to know them in the first place. This post is going to be cringy in the future.but I gave up on being militant about it.
That's on the exact same level as theists being intolerant to you holding your position, because you have no evidence backing you up either.
I know what science is, but it still hasn't been able to answer certain existential questions that a dwindling percentage of educated mankind has a rabid craving of answers for. And here's the thing; the believers think they do have evidence of some sort backing up their answers to existence. Usually a holy book or the words of powerful figurehead.
How many times can you stomach watching an atheist "destroy" a person of faith with logical attacks?
How many times can people of faith stomach watching other believers "destroy" an atheist with powerful religious rhetoric and references to scriptures?
Religiosity is, like I said, dwindling. It's going out of style in the western world like Crocs™ circa one decade ago, and yes, that is largely due to some increased scientific progress and literacy.
So, bioemerl, you can go yell at those people dressed in their Sunday best, driving slow in the fast lane, high on Jeebus. Tell them everything that they're doing wrong. But don't get mad when they turn around and nitpick your faults for all the world to hear as well.
You encounter those sorts of things in college? Damn, what kinda college are you going to, bruh? That sounds horrible. CU is shit in a lot of ways, but at least it doesn't push religion on me - the conspicuously placed churches around the university take care of that.because I am never going to be in such situations when I am out of college
I grew up like that, but the WAKE-UP-ITS-SUNDAY! routine didn't persist through college. Apart from Christmas & Easter for a couple of years, it ended when I left the house. Naturally, I recommend vacating their premises and living in an apartment across town. If only that didn't cost you $40k in student loan debt. Hang in there.
Ah, I don't think it's such a big deal outside of a minor inconvenience. I wouldn't even consider leaving home for the sake of getting away from my family, outside of the fact that it's a part of growing up. Going to church is probably something I could actively refuse and deny (now that I am in college and seen as an adult), but I don't think it's worth the statement of "I want to be away from you". I do remain pissed, however, about the two week church camp when I was still 18, and the church cheering about that tornado. Luckily those aren't going to happen again, or, the church camp won't.Hang in there.
Is it okay if I ask how old you are? I am not using it to "prove you wrong," I just want to know. You do not need to give an exact year.
Who is in charge of deciding what ideas and morals are false? Is there a secret committee that only atheists are members of? I do feel that the point of the fight over religion, God, etc. is that no one has any sort of proof one way or another. There is nothing proving existence or nonexistence that cannot be argued away. Using anything like the scientific method on philosophical questions has no point. It is impossible to run experiments on a point of view.Now, while I will agree that you cannot prove there is no such thing as a deity, I do not see it as any reason to accept or tolerate claims that one exists if there is no evidence backing them. Science is accepting things with evidence, not accepting things with nothing disproving them.
Nobody is/everybody is, but when you are basing your morality, what you think is a good or a bad decision, that has no grounding in reality, you are far more likely to make the bad decisions. It's not so much about what is moral, it's about doing what is best, rather than deciding everything based on some abstract concept of "this is right no matter what" and "this is wrong on matter what". You cannot find proof of something not existing. You can find things that contradict a thing exist, such as there being zero signs of it existing, explanations for everything without needing some deity to fill in the games, etc, but you cannot find disproof of a god. It's literally impossible. It is, however, very possible to run experiments on how prayer does nothing, on how the sheer volume of the claims made in the bible have been proven false, and so on. Yeah, it's impossible to run experiments to disprove religions, but what does that say exactly? Look at any other claim, and look at the baseline for people to regard you as sane when making it. You need proof, you need evidence, you need backing. Religion has none.Who is in charge of decided what ideas and morals are false? Is there a secret committee that only atheists are members of?
I do feel that the point of the fight over religion, God, etc. is that no one has any sort of proof one way or another.
It is impossible to run experiments on a point of view.
This is something that can be proven or disproved. It is also something that can be safely unaccepted without evidence. That is what the word moral means, yes. Then we agree. It seems that you make several important assumptions here. 1) That being religious or spiritual means: 1a) That you must be a follower of any of the three main Abrahamic religions. 1b) That, if you are Christian, you are automatically a Biblical literalist. 2) That scientific principles apply to non-scientific questions. 3) That religion implies insanity. I do not feel that any of these assumptions are accurate to this conversation. I feel that a personal hatred of fanaticism on your part colour your perspective. I feel as though a debate is not your mission, and I prefer to remove the stage and podium. Thank you for offering your voice.basing morality on something with no grounding in reality makes you more likely to make bad decisions
It's not so much about what is moral, it's about doing what is best
cannot find disproof of a God
History tells otherwise. The worst atrocities in history have always come about due to someone believing they are correct, that they are moral, that they have the right to intrude or prevent another person from doing something, including existing. While religion does not inherently cause this, and while science does not inherently prevent it (many do things in the name of false studies), science is far more equipped to continue to change and adapt what it says, to grow over time to inform people on what things truly make our society run best. What is "moral". At least, moral in the way that I define morality. Nice out of context quote there. More accurate would be to quote me saying
When I say the vast majority of religion, I refer to religions with some form of deity, and some form of solid book, set of beliefs, etc, that say definite things about the world. Secondly, if you are a christian, you at the least believe that there exists a god, and that there exited a Jesus. That's enough literalist for me. What, exactly, is a non-scientific question? I never stated that religion implies insanity, although I do think it implies someone who follow religion because of either lack of knowledge or a unwillingness to accept the evidence they have been given. Or a lack of knowledge of what exactly counts as evidence. I would more say a tendency for literalism caused me to hate any ideas that turn it into fanaticism. My mission is the spread of more solid ideas, the idea most solid of which I believe is atheism, through debate. If you are unwilling to debate, it is a signal to me, more than anything else, that you are unable to without reducing things to the final-endpoint of every other atheism vs theism debate I have seen. "I feel this is true, and you should respect my opinions. Evidence does not mean what I think is not true, science does not give me a reason to live". That is a very bad and biased explanation of the endpoint, but it's the one I have seen happen over and over.This is something that can be proven or disproved.
Lack of disproof does not give any credibility to an idea
I feel that a personal hatred of fanaticism on your part colour your perspective.
I feel as though a debate is not your mission, and I prefer to remove the stage and podium.
There is my proof, such as it is. Otherwise I ignore the first half and the last two sentences of your comment. A scientific question is a question that is solely grounded in the physical world and that can be proven or disproved by following the scientific method. Questions like "Why does a human need to breathe?" and "Why do rocks fall when I drop them?" are scientific questions. A question that does not follow this pattern is a non-scientific question. Questions like "Is there a God?" and "Where do we go when we die?" are non-scientific questions because the scientific method cannot be applied to them. You enter the conversation with one approved outcome: to convert the other person to think as you do. I do not enjoy this. I also do not enjoy the idea that holding a different opinion automatically proves a lack of understanding the subject. EDIT: You seem to believe that a debate means preaching one's own opinion without giving a shred of thought to another's. There is no point in engaging in a conversation that will have no outcome but "I am correct. Listen to how you are incorrect. If you leave, you are too weak for my strong opinions." Yeah, it's impossible to run experiments to disprove religions, but what does that say exactly? Look at any other claim, and look at the baseline for people to regard you as sane when making it. You need proof, you need evidence, you need backing.
Religion has none.
How? The scientific method could definitly be applied to the questions you mention. You can examine how people react during death, you can examine the effects of a soul in the body, you could observe the effects of a god interacting with the physical world, you could see the claims religions have effect reality and the world around us. The only reason we can't scientifically study the questions is that not a single of those physical interactions exist. There has yet to be any evidence of anything beyond the physical world. Lets also not forget that scientists can study the subjective, they can study how people feel, how people act, how people react. We can study feelings, we can study perspectives, we can study how humans interact with one another. Again, it all falls down to the point that there is no solid evidence for religion, in any form. Anything that would indicate there being something more falls flat. There is no visible point in death that a soul leaves the body, those brought back to life report no experience with the afterlife, and when they do, the things they report are depictions they have been taught from childhood. People who feel their prayers are being answered always find that it was bias in perception. Science can study gravity, after all, when we haven't really been able to see anything but the effects of it. We can study galaxies millions of miles away, without ever coming close to interacting with them. We can study the effects of particles so tiny that they are smaller than the very things we use to observe the world. Why can't we find a soul? Something that makes up the entire part of conscious existence? Why can't we find evidence of a god, and instead we find evidence of a universe we grew to fit in with, rather than one tuned for us. While it is absolutely true that it is possible something is missing, that the spiritual is truly, entirely, disconnected from reality, I have to ask, what's the point of the spiritual in that case? What does the spirit do when we find that all our thoughts, our actions, etc, are found and can be modified through the firing of neurons in the mind? I am dodging the point a bit there, and saying why I think the idea that science cannot study a god is a point that doesn't hold. You are entirely correct in saying that science cannot disprove something or prove something that is unable to be studied. However, I can't do much to that little nagging voice in my head saying "what's the difference between that and spirituality not existing at all?". I tried getting around it for years, going so far as to label God as a simulator for the whole universe, and our immoral actions were forcing this God to simulate immoral actions, which creates the narrative needed for why sin is bad. It may be a personal thing, but I am not happy with having faith. I can not, and will never be. And I don't trust those who do to inform me about how the world works, and how I should make my decisions when basing them on their faith. (In other matters, such as experience with interactions, life, etc, I would absolutely take advice). Well, yes, because I believe my point of view is the correct one. I believe the point of debate is to hone and kill ideas that do not hold up. To refine and strengthen your own views, as much as it is about changing those views of others. I regularly go to places to argue and argue for days-lasting conversations online, because I find it an activity that is important to keep yourself informed. I often come away from a good argument thinking "I really was wrong there". That's the end point, even if it doesn't change others opinion. If I seeked the spread of my idea, I would target the weak, I would target children, I would indoctrinate, I would scare. That isn't my goal. People believe and think things for different reasons. I am sure you also believe I am missing something, that I am uninformed, mislead, that I do not see the truth. If you believed in what you think is true, it must be for a reason, and it must be for a reason that I either do not accept for what you view as under false reason, or I am not aware of.A question that does not follow this pattern is a non-scientific question. Questions like "Is there a God?" and "Where do we go when we die?" are non-scientific questions because the scientific method cannot be applied to them.
You enter the conversation with one approved outcome: to convert the other person to think as you do. I do not enjoy this.
I also do not enjoy the idea that holding a different opinion automatically proves a lack of understanding the subject.
I say "Religion and spirituality cannot be proven or disproved." You say "Yes, of course they can." I say 'No, they cannot." You say "Yes, they can." At this point I have nothing else to say on that matter. The point of debate is to present your points and let the listener decide. At the beginning of the discussion, you forced your idea upon me. "This is the right idea! Other ideas are inherently wrong!" No, I do not. I think that you hold your own opinion. I also think that you express your opinion in a rude way. However, I have given a circle to this post because in this post you explain how you feel (mostly) without looking down on other views. I feel that we come to our opinions on this subject from different mindsets. You come from a more logical, scientific mindset. I come from a more emotional, spiritual mindset. We have been collided from the start of discussion to disagree. I do not know how to explain to you how I feel because you would scoff at my thoughts. I have no evidence, no proof, no things that could be listed but my view. My view cannot be quantified. That is very much the point. Nobody knows. Some people think they know. People do not agree.I am sure that you also believe I am missing something, that I am uninformed
I can't do much to that little nagging voice in my head saying "what's the difference between that and spirituality not existing at all?
And why would I hold an opinion different than you if we were both equally informed and equally correct? I agree! I tend to avoid doing any voting or sharing when involved in any debate, but an eye for an eye. I don't mean to be... even more of an ass here, but I did say this earlier: (I can't get this to go into a quote, the site keeps excaping my bar character | by putting a \ before it.) And, honestly, once it gets down to that point, there is no longer a possibility of debate.No, I do not. I think that you hold your own opinion.
I also think that you express your opinion in a rude way
I have given a circle to this post because in this post you explain how you feel (mostly) without looking down on other views.
I come from a more emotional, spiritual mindset. We have been collided from the start of discussion to disagree.
reducing things to the final-endpoint of every other atheism vs theism debate I have seen. "I feel this is true, and you should respect my opinions. Evidence does not mean what I think is not true, science does not give me a reason to live".
That is a very bad and biased explanation of the endpoint, but it's the one I have seen happen over and over. |
It is okay. I have done well with this post by reading quotes as you and material as quotes. Because two people can look at information and view it in different ways. This is because, going back to a previous statement, this question is not a scientific question. There is no "correct answer," and there is no way to be correct. It is only a matter of opinion. People can have different opinions even on important things. That is okay. I do not understand your "final endpoint". What does "science does not give me a reason to live" refer to?And why would I hold an opinion different than you if we were both equally informed and equally correct?
My concern with religion is one of truth. Is there a deity, is there a spirit, is there metaphysics. To that question, there is only one answer. I do understand that you can look at things from the viewpoint that objective reality is not all there is, and that there can be something beyond that we cannot see, that we cannot detect, etc, and you feel it is there, you feel it is real. However, I view that as wrong, just as you probably view the fact that I do not see or believe in anything beyond the physical as wrong.