4 ms·

> what if non-religious people are actually the most religious of them all. humor me. I can't. It's self-contradictory. Religion is wholly based in faith: beli

> what if non-religious people are actually the most religious of them all. humor me. I can't. It's self-contradictory. Religion is wholly based in faith: believing when you have no concrete, demonstrable, scientific reason to. No religion can exist without that core concept, you have to be willing to believe when you have no proof. More broadly all mysticism is based on faith, and all mysticism (ghost hunters! magic rocks! miracles!) similarly runs counter to science accordingly. So non-religious scientifically-oriented people have more faith (willingness to base their lives and beliefs around things they can't prove exist) than religious people do? No. In terms of religion, asking for proof, requiring evidence, is the true first sin: thou shalt not! Religion builds upon that first step, you must first suspend your rational mental self and then turn your brain over to someone else's opinions as fact (which you then must accept as true, even if there's no way to prove such; religion is always based on subservience to someone else's faith-based opinions; religion begins at the point where you turn off your brain and hand it to someone else who says: because I say so, and you must believe what they're saying and specifically not let reason interfere). Here's how religion begins for everyone: someone tells you a (typically fantastical) story, with absolutely no evidence to support it, and then you believe it; to believe it you have to shut down inspection, debate, skepticism, reasoning, and so on. One of the core tenets of all religion is: don't ask such questions; who are you to question; etc. Even the more docile religions fold at those corners eventually and require that you stop asking questions or challenging (aka shut your brain off and just believe on faith). Science is contrary to faith. People occasionally try to worm around that in touchy-feely ways, you'll run across historical quotes by famous scientists saying dumb things like: my science is rooted in a powerful faith, dur dur dur. But that's just someone smart (at a thing) saying something exceptionally stupid about a different realm of thought and should be regarded as such. Like putting much stock into the dumb things Stephen Hawking used to say in the political or economic realm; geniuses are quite typically gifted at one thing, very rarely at two things, and people commonly seem to make the mistake of thinking that translates widely, when the opposite is true and it very rarely translates widely. Science grows stronger through questioning, debate, inquiry, challenging notions, requiring evidence to believe. Religion - and all faith based systems - wither when confronted by such, without exception. They react in such opposite manners, because they are indeed opposites.

hunterb123 5y ago
Most people who are religious nowadays know that the stories aren't real or are embellished. It's a story to teach a lesson. The faith allows comfort for people who need it, the community does as well. If you don't need that comfort, fine, don't make fun of people who do. They aren't stupid, they're filling a hole in their heart with community and a shared belief / interest. My wife fills mine, some people don't have that or lost it. Pro-tip, instead of asking for "proof" like an interrogation, ask for clarification to understand the story or viewpoint. Getting in a fight over something neither side can prove is ridiculous. But if you want to debate what we cannot know, riddle me this, how do you know we're not in a simulation made by a higher being? Math and science is the reverse engineering of our created universe. It's more probable we were created in some way than a random occurrence.
- lmm 5y ago
  > Most people who are religious nowadays know that the stories aren't real or are embellished. It's a story to teach a lesson. This is a thin excuse. These stories were held up as literal truths for centuries. The moral principles they embody are held up as serious until they become too unfashionable, then those are dismissed as metaphor too. If you claim a given religious lesson is good and valid today, what basis do we have for believing that someone in 40 years won't be saying that that lesson too was something that was never meant to be taken seriously? > Getting in a fight over something neither side can prove is ridiculous. Note how you're contradicting your previous argument, because you don't have a position beyond throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall and hoping something will stick. The burden of proof is on the one making claims; otherwise we should all take Russell's teapot seriously. > But if you want to debate what we cannot know, riddle me this, how do you know we're not in a simulation made by a higher being? We don't. Act accordingly.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    > This is a thin excuse. These stories were held up as literal truths for centuries. The moral principles they embody are held up as serious until they become too unfashionable, then those are dismissed as metaphor too. If you claim a given religious lesson is good and valid today, what basis do we have for believing that someone in 40 years won't be saying that that lesson too was something that was never meant to be taken seriously? It's not an excuse, it's reality. Your perception of religious people is outdated, ignorant, and generalizing. Should we not let any tradition modernize? Should all tradition and culture be discarded because it was once done differently at one point in time? Should we all practice life how you see fit? > Note how you're contradicting your previous argument, because you don't have a position beyond throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall and hoping something will stick. The burden of proof is on the one making claims; otherwise we should all take Russell's teapot seriously. A bit hostile there. No one is trying to claim anything, they are practicing their beliefs that make them feel good. > We don't. Act accordingly. Exactly, just be smug that you have it all figured out and let people go about their business. Or you can keep judging something you know nothing about and generalizing billions of people.

hunterb123 5y ago

Most people who are religious nowadays know that the stories aren't real or are embellished. It's a story to teach a lesson. The faith allows comfort for people who need it, the community does as well. If you don't need that comfort, fine, don't make fun of people who do. They aren't stupid, they're filling a hole in their heart with community and a shared belief / interest. My wife fills mine, some people don't have that or lost it. Pro-tip, instead of asking for "proof" like an interrogation, ask for clarification to understand the story or viewpoint. Getting in a fight over something neither side can prove is ridiculous. But if you want to debate what we cannot know, riddle me this, how do you know we're not in a simulation made by a higher being? Math and science is the reverse engineering of our created universe. It's more probable we were created in some way than a random occurrence.

lmm 5y ago
> Most people who are religious nowadays know that the stories aren't real or are embellished. It's a story to teach a lesson. This is a thin excuse. These stories were held up as literal truths for centuries. The moral principles they embody are held up as serious until they become too unfashionable, then those are dismissed as metaphor too. If you claim a given religious lesson is good and valid today, what basis do we have for believing that someone in 40 years won't be saying that that lesson too was something that was never meant to be taken seriously? > Getting in a fight over something neither side can prove is ridiculous. Note how you're contradicting your previous argument, because you don't have a position beyond throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall and hoping something will stick. The burden of proof is on the one making claims; otherwise we should all take Russell's teapot seriously. > But if you want to debate what we cannot know, riddle me this, how do you know we're not in a simulation made by a higher being? We don't. Act accordingly.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  > This is a thin excuse. These stories were held up as literal truths for centuries. The moral principles they embody are held up as serious until they become too unfashionable, then those are dismissed as metaphor too. If you claim a given religious lesson is good and valid today, what basis do we have for believing that someone in 40 years won't be saying that that lesson too was something that was never meant to be taken seriously? It's not an excuse, it's reality. Your perception of religious people is outdated, ignorant, and generalizing. Should we not let any tradition modernize? Should all tradition and culture be discarded because it was once done differently at one point in time? Should we all practice life how you see fit? > Note how you're contradicting your previous argument, because you don't have a position beyond throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall and hoping something will stick. The burden of proof is on the one making claims; otherwise we should all take Russell's teapot seriously. A bit hostile there. No one is trying to claim anything, they are practicing their beliefs that make them feel good. > We don't. Act accordingly. Exactly, just be smug that you have it all figured out and let people go about their business. Or you can keep judging something you know nothing about and generalizing billions of people.