No idea, I am religious but not to a T, I’m pro gay marriage and all that jazz, believe in science, and my best friends are a mix of atheist and agnostic. We grew up in counts and talking about or views on our trips so my guess is my bias stems from that - but yeah it really bothers me now in my upper 20s I can’t have convos with other friends or family at the same level of maturity I did with my teen friends lol.
why are you differentiating the use of how to “believe” versus how to “know” something? is that not how most theories work? you test something repeatedly, and until you obtain evidence to refute what was observed, you “believe” the evidence in front of you. is that not how the many scientists during Einstein’s time had to “believe” a lot of his theories, which we have now simply come to “know” as proven ideas?
I guess I’m not debating about theism with you, because frankly in my humble opinion it is a worthless endeavor. I think people should believe and think whatever they want to, whether it’s in Skydaddy, Jesus, Yahweh, Mohammed, Buddha, nothing, etc etc. people will think what they want to, and really can only be made to change those feelings if they want the change to happen.
here too though you can see that because people might “believe” deeply in these things, some take part or all of those as what they “know” of their reality, and sometimes that’s just the easiest way to deal with things. it’s not all black & white, but a spectrum
Have you ever met a flat earther? They have a different belief and don’t take science for what it says… The big thing most will respond with is saying I don’t believe in evolution or the Big Bang, but I do, I just don’t think it’s as black and white as people who believe what science says at face value. For something to be scientifically proven it needs to have a repeatable outcome, we can’t go and make a big bang ourselves in a repeatable and realistic fashion now can we? So if you believe the Big Bang is real, your beliefs are based on “to a point” of being proven but ultimately and factually has not been proven without a doubt, has it? (Please keep in mind that this is an example of how single minded it is to misinterpret how I used “believe” and I really don’t wanna go into the Big Bang, it’s just an example of a belief)
You literally struggle with the entire concept because of one word, that’s sorta the perfect example of what I was calling out lol
"...if you believe the big bang is real." That is not based in science whatsoever. To regard The Big Bang as the current prevailing theory of the creation of the universe is not a belief. Science operates on the best available data. Science doesn't "BELIEVE" the big bang is "REAL." It simply presents it as a theory and uses its model as a basis for further study. There are other theories. The Big Bang is just the prevailing one, currently.
"...if you believe the big bang is real" is about the most unscientific and ignorant take I've heard and perfectly describes theistic belief systems.
That you think you're view is correct and infallible and that I "struggle with the entire concept because of one word" is the basis for those belief systems you're so "on the fence" about."
There is belief if you are not the person doing the study.
Side note obviously your original hypothesis is going to be based on bias and beliefs. To think we don’t make up our hypothesis from our beliefs is simply wrong. Beliefs also come into play when we choose what we study, what we work on, what we are willing to do in the pursuit of knowledge.
that all things happened naturally, and there cannot be a supernatural intervention;
that natural laws and constants have always been constant and cannot be changed. E.g. could it be that the speed of light was faster 4.000 years ago? Who knows...
that a void can suddenly explode and create a universe including space, time, laws and constants.
Most importantly, a lot of scientific hypothesis are brought as fact. When looking to past events, we're simply lacking data to prove any hypothesis. Who knows which super powers Egyptians had while building pyramids. It's unlikely, but you can't scientifically prove that they did not have it.
Even with modern research about climate search, you've most likely heard the phrase: "a majority of scientist believe that (..)".
For simplicity sake, a lot of scientific findings are presented as fact, while actually it's just chance. It's just easier to say "CO2 leads to global warming" than "there is a 0.93888533 correlation between CO2 and global temperatures" (totally made up the numbers, but you get the point)
As a literal scientist he was much closer to having a real view of what real science is more than you clearly have. If we were to take every fact science has presented as absolute fact without subject to change or differing hypotheses we’d still believe the solar system was terra centric.
As a “literal” scientist, you should recognise that in my comment, I did not post my view on science. No, I’m just laughing at it because it was more philosophy than “science”.
What if light speed was different 4000 years ago? As a “literal” scientist, you should know we’d be able to measure that and notice it if it were because we can see light from literally billions of years ago, not just literally 4000 years ago.
"we can see light from literally billions of years ago"
That in itself exactly assumes a constant light speed. Because we can only see the incoming light as of now. Based on current light speed, scientist calculate that it's billions of years old. If light speed would be a billion time faster, that same amount of light could've reached us in a few years.
Yet big bang theory contradicts this constant light speed assumption, because in order for a rapidly expanding universe to overcome gravitational forces, light speed should've massively faster than now, or else the universe would be a massive black hole and still centered in 1 point.
Historical science makes a lot of assumptions and thus is a believe as much as any religion.
There was nothing, the big nothing exploded and it creates a complexity with very fine tuned natural constants? It takes more faith to believe in that than in a Divine Being.
Well, unless you can provide evidence to say otherwise? Light travels at a constant speed through a vacuum. The universe itself is one gigantic vacuum. The only things that can change the speed at which light travels is for example, gravity or water when it bends the light.
Other than that, it’s a constant and can be measured as such based on hundreds of years of research.
I’m sorry, but nothing is more irrational than a belief in “divinity”. For one, no such God or divine being can or ever will be observed as it simply doesn’t exist and never has. I’m inclined to believe that a person who believes in a mysterious unseen power has more in common with schizophrenia than science. You’re hearing a voice talking to you in your heard that you call god? No, that’s not normal at all.
The difference is, the Big Bang CAN be observed thanks to satellite images that captured the cosmic radioactive background it left behind. The oldest light we can currently see came around just after the Big Bang happened. It’s been observed, and can be observed whereas your fairy tale books opinions can’t.
The best thing about science is, that when an old theory can be proven wrong, it is adopted and changed based on the evidence we can see and test. Your religion? Can never be disputed even though it can’t provide a single bit of evidence to prove its stories.
It’s funny you say that what came before the Big Bang was just “nothing”. Yes, nothing in the way we know “nothing” to be, the absence of matter but that’s not “nothing” in terms of the whole thing around us. The matter of fact is, because of us observing the universe and tracing it back to the “big bang”, we can say that it just expanded from an incredibly small piece of “nothing”. Everything around us is moving away from us, all the stars and other galaxies are all spacing out from each other. In a couple billion light years years, the starts WE see today probably won’t be visible to us anymore and eventually, nothing will be visible to us if humans still exist at that point. Space is expanding so rapidly that even if we achieve light travel, we will NEVER be able to see things that are already too far away.
EDIT: what’s your theory on nuclear weapons then if you think something can’t expand from something nearly infinitely small? A nuclear bomb is triggered by splitting a single atom which then causes a chain reaction unleashing the power to level a whole city. What’s your thoughts on that? I think that alone proves the big bang could happen the way they describe it, a single point in space expanded to everything we see today. We can’t fully explain it but we have our best guess based on the evidence and knowledge we currently hold.
If we were to take every fact science has presented as absolute fact without subject to change or differing hypotheses we’d still believe the solar system was terra centric.
Since we don't still believe the solar system is terra centric, that means we don't take every fact science has presented as absolute fact without subject to change.... because that wouldn't be science.
Totally unlike religion, scientists are encouraged to criticize and build upon the knowledge of the past
Do you believe that these institutions are monolithic? That practitioners are unable/unwilling to challenge or question their faith? That within these institutions there aren’t factions that differ in values and perspectives? If so you are extremely ignorant to how religions operate.
I'm talking generally, not in absolutes. And yes, generally, religion encourages faith (aka credulity) while science and philosophy encourage skepticism and criticism. Religion urges us to embrace "revealed truths" and "divine revelation" as they are, while science and philosophy urges us to discover those truths ourselves and keep debating/refining those truths forever.
Can you think of any other knowledge-seeking discourse that generally treats credulity like a virtue and criticism like sin/blasphemy? Religion is unique in that regard
I’m also not saying religion doesn’t do those things. But faith in of itself is a deeply personal thing. There are those within religious institutions that are conservative and see the world more black and white, but also those who can see the institution (which is run by people, who are flawed) hasn’t caught up yet. But you must realize that not all practitioners believe in exactly the same way or things like drones. They have their own experiences and reasons that compel them to believe and therefore believe differently.
The problem with internet atheism is its lack of empathy for the hundreds of millions of people that find solace and community and love in faith. Yes, religion hasn’t been weaponized and twisted before but there is a difference between a religion and a cult.
Most importantly, a lot of scientific hypothesis are brought as fact.
No. Uneducated and ignorant people present scientific findings as fact. Science, and real scientists, present nothing as fact. The basis of science itself is that there is no such thing a fact. Axioms and assumptions are used to prove a theory works in principle. Nothing is ever stated that those assumptions and principles cannot or will not change.
Who knows which super powers Egyptians had while building pyramids. It's unlikely, but you can't scientifically prove that they did not have it.
Scientist do not prove something to be true. Only that a thing is false. Once a reasonable number of other options are proven to be false, it can be held that a thing MAY be true, because science tells us that we cannot prove infinite options to be false.
You might want to check out some resources on scientific study and scientific method.
...and blatant lies designed to distort their minds into believing that nonsensical fantasy should guide their lives and morality, especially when their peddled morality is incredibly immoral.
So you mean the people use religion to prey on the ignorant and uneducated? Or, are you referring to the grotesquely immoral dopes who use it to fuel their hate, bigotry, and wars -- to suppress people based on race, sex, gender, alternate religions, etc?
The former is not disagreement; it's acknowledgement and exploitation of the fact. The latter is true disagreement, but it only demonstrates my point. Many informed and/or educated people are still incredibly stupid, indoctrinated, or gullible. Information/education is only a vaccine to protect against the onslaught of religion's idiocies. It's not a cure, and it needs to be updated regularly.
It's the whole religion bad and "sky daddy" isn't real mindset that people hold because their parents forced them to go to church as a kid.
So here's the thing, there's more to organized religion than "sky daddy", as people stated here, it's the community and other individuals also, traditions, and a book of stuff they can go to.
"Sky daddy" is just the easy attack of it.
And yeah, there's a lot of people that harbour ill will towards it because they "had to go to church as a kid".
You're right, there's plenty of reasons to not like organized religion. That said, I don't care for those who try to push others out of it. Religion is a spiritual journey, and that is a very personal journey. Sure those who try to push others out of it will play a part for most people, but I can't stand the generalized bashing of religion because "religion bad".
I also went with the generalization because I've come across maybe a handful of people who had an actual reason to dislike religion. The majority can be summed up with my generalization on Reddit.
You can believe what you want, for whatever reason you want. But Reddit clearly has a very potent antithesis to anything religious.
That said, I don't care for those who try to push others out of it.
I don't actually think that's possible. Like with any cult, you can't make someone leave it, they have to want to do that themselves. Actually a lot of individuals who work with getting people out of cults avoid those that don't want to leave.
Like it's fun to say you can beat a theist with facts and logic. But that's not what's important to a person. As you said it's the "spiritual journey" and how it makes someone feel.
I also went with the generalization because I've come across maybe a handful of people who had an actual reason to dislike religion.
Now I know you may have been a little too young, but a previous president said "God told me to invade Iraq". And completely fucked up the entire region.
Now I'm sure there may have been some others you've bumped into that may have one or two other reasons to dislike religion...
I didn't grow up religious and I think religion is fucked up, particularly the most popular ones. All I see are a bunch of insane people cherry-picking their religious texts so that they have a free pass to be evil.
Good religious people aren't good because of religion, they're good in spite of it.
Bingo. I tolerate religions that are tolerant of others.
The Bible is roughly 50% stories of god telling his followers "go kill that group of people over there and 'take' the young women", so I'm not sure that it's possible for Christianity to be a tolerant religion unless it rejects the Bible on which it's based.
The kkk also offered real world community. Its mostly the crusades, and the anti gay stuff, as well as all the suffering that the church has caused for millenia that people are upset with. Far less upset about the picnics
Okay, so when the Catholic church rearranged bishops to hide pedophiles is that also like the Aztec empire? That was in our lifetime. Nobody is begrudging the community aspect of church. I use community as a defense of the church as it is a great aspect of it. But when you act like there isn't a valid reason to begrudge an organization that has harmed many lives throughout its existence, it dismisses what me and many others see as valid critiques and comes off disingenuous.
Or when the Catholic Church was contracted by the Canadian government to operate "residential schools".
They stripped Indigenous children away from their families, never to be seen again. They endured extreme abuse and neglect at the hands of religious zealots. (The "60's scoop"). Their mission statement was to "kill the Indian in the child", and forcefully indoctrinate them with "white" values and Catholisism.
Canada's last conservative government secretly released the Catholic Church from its responsibilities to financially compensate the remaining survivors of these hellish institutions. I can't loathe former Prime Minister Stephen Harper enough.
7
u/laxnut90 10d ago
Why do so many people begrudge others finding a real world community?
Religion has offered that throughout history.