Why I don't believe any of them is the same reason I don't believe in fairy tales. It has nothing to do with what other people do or don't believe. Religion is just a form of Little Red Riding Hood that's believed to me.
Actually, the reason you don’t believe in fairy tales is probably because believing in fairy tales gets you socially ostricised. I don’t think anybody here ever ran through the Little Red Riding Hood story to find the indescrepancies. First, it wasn’t taught to you as a fact, and, second, you sure as hell wouldn’t start believing it later due to the social punishment you’d get for it. Yeah, maybe if it was taught to you as a fact and it was considered okay to believe it, you might have later in life worked through it and found it lacking, but then it’d be analogous to religion and you wouldn’t be able to just outright dismiss it.
When you say “Religion is ridiculous,” you’re just telling us that it’s worthy of ridicule. Maybe that works for less popular but still widespread beliefs (especially if you’re of a higher social class so people have more incentive to be seen agreeing with you), but religion seems to be too popular and entrenched for ridicule to work if you want to get rid of it.
As I said, I don't want to get rid of it. People can do as they please in regard to what faith they follow, and it doesn't faze me so long as it doesn't become damaging to any sizeable degree.
Actually, the reason you don’t believe in fairy tales is probably because believing in fairy tales gets you socially ostricised.
I doubt it. If I were really concerned about that, then I wouldn't be an atheist. You're right in that an added factor is that I wasn't told throughout that it was real, but rather was told on many occasions it was false. And that's part of my point - that's one of the key differences between mythology/fairy tale and religion. I also don't believe in it because to do so would require believing in it when the events recorded therein are contrary to every thing I can observe. Both fairy tales and religion carry verification of themselves almost exclusively within themselves.
---
My point is that if anyone's belief in, say, Christianity is brought about by their society, then your disbelief in, say, Christianity must comparably be brought about by your society.
This raises the issue that either you're a hypocrite/your argument is wrong or your argument is actually not so much an argument as an 'I say these must be false because they must be false', which I don't begrudge you, but isn't the same as, say, the problem of evil and an omnimax God.
I think. I'm tired and I'm struggling to phrase this, which almost certainly means I don't understand my argument well enough and it has holes in it.
Society encourages belief in Christianity. It is beaten into people from birth, and whilst not exactly comparable to propaganda, it is similar. Atheism is not based on societal pressure - I only know one other atheist, and him for only a year. Similarly, I did not become an atheist because I wanted to be contrary to society. Belief coming about as a result of societal pressure is part of my argument (it's how it's perpetuated. If your parents, Sunday School, and everything to do with Christianity didn't exist and you stumbled on a Bible, you would most likely see it as fantasy on par with Homer's works. And if you felt you had to believe one, you could just as easily be praying to Pallas Athene rather than God.) How is disbelief perpetuated by society? Though I just may not be understanding your argument.
----
...I'm just gonna point out that 'your philosophy is about as valid as children's stories' is more or less being opposed to religion. At least, that's the message that comes across when you put it that way.
Opposed to religion would be Richard Dawkins trying to enforce his beliefs. I am accepting enough of religion as a social phenomenon, I just don't buy into it. That it's as valid as a story book is just one of the reasons.
Second, your objections are rather moot. If we applied them to science (as publication bias and experimental inaccuracy could mean we're actually totally off); scientific consensus? Just the results most people want. Organized proponents of a theory, rather than muddled and disorganized? Just had more time. Respectability; Freud was respectable in his time! Intellectual accomplishment is what this measures in the first place, so it's even less applicable as a positive factor.
Science may be influenced by want, to some extent, but most of the time it's governed by readings and other observations. People reach a consensus because it's the option that, given the evidence, seems most viable. Besides, no one takes science as...well, an exact science. Science never says it's absolutely correct. Even gravity is a theory. So yes, Science can be wrong. Its systems were built over time. A lot of respected people contributed to it. The attributes of science you listed - consensus, organisation, and respectability aren't the means by which Science deems itself correct, which you seem to imply religion does. Science deems itself correct - or at least as correct as possible - when its empirical findings most reflect the world/universe. Not by any of those other features.
Your argument presupposes that religion is false, and what's more, the logic you use proves too much. Science is the practice of making belief conform to reality. Belief in god is rather different, if merely for the fact that many intelligent people believe in and feel they have good reasons to do so. Something which exists is inherently distinct from something which does not exist. This applies to belief systems as well; you can tell a lot about a belief by the fact that it isn't [commonly] held.
No. Science is the practice of finding that which is real. Often, the pursuit is started by a certain belief. In the process of finding reality, that belief undergoes rigourous testing until it is no longer just a belief - or, rather, it involves as little belief as is possible. Religion is a belief that finds evidence within itself. That intelligent people can have a belief means absolutely nothing. Intelligent people are, after all, still people. Absolute imbeciles are also religious. I could say this says something about religion, but I don't - nor does the fact that some religious people are also intelligent. Intelligent people are most often as susceptible to societal pressure as the rest of us.
You've just equated religion to fairy tales. Both may be considered superstitions, yes, but you haven't given actual reasons. Just said that they're the same reasons.
Religion finds verification within itself. I've said religion is a fairly tale which is believed - a fantasy which finds verification within itself, and is perpetuated by society. Religions may have historical records pertaining to them - much as there are records of the deification of various emperors, Augustus Caesar amongst them. Such "evidence" was written from the perspective of the religion which was dominant at the time in that society - the religion being perpetuated, which was paganism mixed with emperor worship in the case of Augustus Caesar. This does not amount to evidence.
Poll
71 (27.7%)
Author
Topic: Railgun and Spirituality Discussion (Read 684811 times)