Anonymous #1 2w

That’s my other thing I feel like people only ever bring up abrahamic religions

1

Anonymous OP 2w

yeah, they are the most dominant, but that’s because of western colonialism and eurocentrism But even Buddhism has had atrocities committed in its name

2

Anonymous #1 2w

Ah yes all the religions: abrahamic and Buddhist 😭

0

Anonymous OP 2w

it was just an example, I can bring up examples of how almost any religion you can name has been used to justify crimes against humanity

12

Anonymous #1 2w

And that’s kinda my point when atheists only focus on abrahamic religions when they make these blanket statements it reinforces that dominance over other religions

1

Anonymous OP 2w

it’s often bc atheists come from western countries and thus criticize western religion, but all religion imo is stupid bc it’s not evidence-based

11

Anonymous #1 2w

Yeah but you can also find examples of people being inspired to do amazing altruistic things because of religion too. People have used atheism to justify atrocities too I don’t think any belief system is inherently above any other-their impact is based on how people have used them

5

Anonymous #1 2w

Also I doubt you know what very religion there are so many indigenous belief systems globally that never get acknowledged but are very important to practicing groups and that’s kinda my main issue with the assumed superiority is there’s so much you and anyone doesn’t know

4

Anonymous OP 2w

idk I think rationality is a trait that ought to be celebrated

2

Anonymous OP 2w

And I don’t know all the indigenous religions, but I can guarantee they didn’t arise from the scientific method or extensive evidence-based observation so they’re BS

4

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

bc we shouldn’t celebrate irrationality I know you as a tankie love it tho

-3

Anonymous #1 2w

You’re so slick and clever. Enjoy your Reddit gold

3

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Enjoy justifying the Holodomor, Uyghur genocide, and Katyn massacres Have fun calling it western propaganda without acc looking at any evidence

6

Anonymous #1 2w

We can go atrocity for atrocity all day if you want. Marxist countries have done bad things and I can admit that, but at the end of the day, for each atrocity committed by a Marxist country, I can name 10-15 committed by a liberal one

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Either way this thread is about annoying atheists, which you seem to be one of, not the atrocities of Marxist countries

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Do you think science has already discovered everything to there is to know? Cuz I feel like it’s so arrogant to assume humanity already understands how the universe works and there are religions that operate more like philosophies you just sound ignorant

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Cus people are annoying and weird. I’ve seen people post this same thing and it gets upvoted so

6

Anonymous #1 2w

That’s my other other thing you accuse all religion of being irrational without having thorough knowledge about every religion and irrationally assume religious people universally support atrocities which makes no sense

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Whataboutism is all tankies have

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

Name a religion that has empirical evidence supporting its claims

0

Anonymous OP 2w

Also I don’t think all religious people universally support atrocities, I just dislike tankies

1

Anonymous #1 2w

I’m just saying you all are really not any better. I’m not going to have a real conversation with you about the holodomor, Katyn, deportations of Crimean tatars, etc because you’re clearly trying to engage in bad faith

0

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

I’m not even a liberal lol, I’m a leftist, I just think tankies are stupid to the point that I wouldn’t even coalition-build with them

1

Anonymous OP 2w

My other other other thing is you already have the faith you claim is irrational. Throughout history there have been scientific concepts universally accepted as true based on existing evidence and technology that have been disproven later yet we do the same thing now without knowing which things might become outdated and inaccurate in the future

1

Anonymous #1 2w

“Name a religion that has empirical evidence” bro the whole thing that makes a religion a religion is the basis of it being faith-based. Fucking idiot

8

Anonymous OP 2w

of course, that’s how evidence works, you take the evidence and you make a conclusion based on the evidence, we often learn more as we get new evidence what does that have to do with evidence-based religion? Name a single one?

0

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Which is exactly why it’s irrational and stupid It’s a coping mechanism for people who can’t accept death and need protection

5

Anonymous #1 2w

So when you say it like that it actually sounds super rational and understandable because death is understandably scary for some people and having something to believe in is stabilizing and provides community and comfort

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Okay, and? That’s not necessarily a bad thing. You can sit on your rational high horse all you want, but some people need comfort in hard times. If they’re not weaponizing their beliefs to harm people, who gives a shit?

5

Anonymous OP 2w

yes, I guess the better word is that it’s rational but illusory, it’s not based in reality

0

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

i understand people need comfort in hard times, but expecting me to follow in your illusions or try to impact my life and my rights based on said illusions is gonna piss me off

3

Anonymous #1 2w

So the evidence comes from spiritual practice and self reflection you gotta find the proof of your religion’s validity on your own because it manifests differently for everyone in theory

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Okay, then speak out against the people forcing their beliefs on you rather than religious people in general

3

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

the thing is most religious people don’t keep their beliefs to themselves otherwise the religions wouldn’t have spread globally…

4

Anonymous #1 2w

And that’s what I’ve been saying you’re drawing issue with the actions of some religious people not the religions themselves which is why blanket statements are, again, irrational

6

Anonymous #1 2w

Well you’re about 100,000+ years too late to make this point

6

Anonymous #1 2w

Again if you mean abrahamic religion that’s what you should say

1

Anonymous OP 2w

no, science hasn’t found everything, science never will find anything but it’s the closest humans can get to finding answers for anything, that’s why we use it you take the evidence you have and find a conclusion, if new evidence arises, ofc the conclusions will change, that doesn’t discount the previous science, it just outdates it I think you’re the ignorant one tbh

2

Anonymous OP 2w

no i generally oppose all religion, simply because it is illusory, but also because it often holds the social role to justify inequality the misdeeds done by religion simply outweigh any potential benefits in my view

2

Anonymous #1 2w

Wym doesn’t discount previous science? Do you think there was ever any validity to something like phrenology?

3

Anonymous OP 2w

No phrenology was a pseudoscience, just bc it’s called science doesn’t mean its methods or conclusions are scientific

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Explain how it’s rational to oppose all religion if you admitted you don’t even know all religions

1

Anonymous OP 2w

because i prioritize objective truth over sociological function and happiness

3

Anonymous #1 2w

And you assume none of the science we hold to be true now will be considered pseudoscience in the future? Because the origin of phrenology which was people wanting to use science for social power is definitely still a thing

4

Anonymous #1 2w

You already agreed science will never know everything so how can there be an objective truth?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Specific sub fields and theories currently accepted as mainstream may be labeled as pseudoscience yes, but major established scientific disciplines will not be String theory comes to mind as it isn’t verifiable currently, nutritional science has outsized corporate influence on its findings But science is inherently a self-correcting process, plus pseudoscience refers to “science” that lacked the rigorous scientific method we use today

4

Anonymous OP 2w

science is the best method we have right now of approaching it

3

Anonymous #1 2w

So the method of determining truth that you follow isn’t infallible and it can’t give you objective truths

1

Anonymous OP 2w

objectivity is an ideal, science is the most successful tool we have for determining objectivity even if it can’t determine objectivity outright science also corrects itself without outside input, it’s the only discipline that requires its followers to try and debunk their own findings / beliefs rather than reinforce through bias plus, science consistently predicts outcomes that are impossible to reach with any sort of consistency without it

0

Anonymous #1 2w

I’m not arguing against science as a concept nor saying it’s not important I’m just pointing out you claimed to be basing this entire argument off of objective truth when you are admitting you technically don’t know anything objectively so you are exhibiting complete trust in something without requiring absolute proof- the exact thing you criticize religious people for

1

Anonymous OP 2w

dumbass faith in religion involves believing in something despite a lack of evidence or even contradictory evidence trust in science is based on a track record of reliability, im not believing a prophetic scientist, I am trusting a methodology that teaches you to assume that you’re currently wrong and constantly strives to correct itself Science is inter-subjective, it will have human bias, but it requires reproducibility by someone outside one’s own self

3

Anonymous OP 2w

Science is happy to be proven wrong and scientists love when new data is found and old theories are proven wrong Science does not have objective proof of truths, but it can objectively disproved falsehoods, which inherently gets you to a closer understanding of objectivity This is a stupid bad faith false equivalency Subjective faith experience is not the same as peer-reviewed studies and mathematical probability…

0

Anonymous #1 2w

Do you not immediately see the irony in saying science requires you to assume you’re wrong yet fervently denying you could possibly be wrong about this

0

Anonymous #1 2w

And actually there is evidence for people believing in their religion like I said it just requires a different method and seeing as I very much doubt you’ve tried to go through such manners of collecting evidence based on different belief system’s methods you haven’t made enough effort to understand what your arguing against for your argument to be strong

0

Anonymous #1 2w

There are levels to it- one requires more faith than the other maybe but to some extent if you have absolute faith in something you’re being at least a little irrational

0

Anonymous OP 2w

I can be 100% certain that a self-correcting process is superior to a non-correcting process without needing faith, it’s a simple comparison of mechanics If science isn’t the best method to approach objective truth, then what is? Plus if science weren’t effective, then why is our technology so advanced? Why have we eradicated smallpox? Why have we gone to the moon? Why do we have cellphones?

5

Anonymous OP 2w

You’re using “evidence” as a purposeful false equivalence Scientific evidence is external, repeatable, and public. Anyone can look through the same telescope and see the same stars or run the same chemical experiment and see the same results. Religious evidence is typically internal, subjective, and private. It relies on personal feelings, “revelations”, or interpretations of ancient texts. If two people have different revelations, there is no way to verify which one is more objective.

3

Anonymous OP 2w

also the effort fallacy proves my point, science doesn’t require effort to believe, gravity exists whether or not you put in effort to believe im not fervently denying I could be wrong, simply no other method has consistently produced the same level of objective, verifiable results as science, if prayer could cure cancer reliably, I’d support prayer

2

Anonymous #1 2w

I feel like you’ve never understood what I’m arguing from the very beginning because I never argued religion is just as reliable as science or even reliable at all nor did I say it’s irrational to be atheist just that because you don’t know anything for sure it’s impossible for your understanding to be objectively better than someone else’s which is why I think we should all practice humility that’s all

1

Anonymous OP 2w

just because we don’t know the ultimate truth doesn’t mean all guesses are equally valid, if I say the moon is made of rocks and you say it’s made of jello, we are both technically “uncertain”, but my understanding is still objectively better because it aligns with every piece of date we have

3

Anonymous OP 2w

also when religious people claim they know the Truth and scientists say, “this is our best guess based on the data and it might change tomorrow with new data,” who is more intellectually humble? by saying no one’s understanding is better, you are equating a doctor’s understanding of medicine with anti-vax Facebook moms, should we just let random people fly planes out of humility, or should we pick the pilot?

1

Anonymous #1 2w

I never said I think they’re equal and I didn’t say nothing is better-just not objectively. I guess this is more of a philosophical conversation than what I thought but within our society and everything we know yes there is objectivity but when it comes to the truths of the universe there isn’t and that’s the realm religion operates in

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Basically you can’t prove it but you can’t disprove it so you never know 100%

1

Anonymous OP 2w

You are doing the two truths fallacy, if there’s a divide between societal/functional truth and universal truth and that universal truth has zero impact on our reality and can’t be measured, how is it a truth at all? it’s merely an idea if religion operates in a realm where objectivity doesn’t exist, then religion cannot claim to be true in any meaningful way, if you admit there is no objectivity in that realm, then you are admiring that religion is purely subjective/personal

4

Anonymous OP 2w

also you are using misguided humility to say we shouldn’t judge one belief as better than another, but if one belief such as religion makes claims about the physical world like certain miracles or the age of earth, it has entered the realm of science, and can be objectively wrong if a religious truth has no objective evidence and doesn’t manifest in our reality, how do we distinguish it from something that is simply made up?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

we are 99.999999% sure the sun will rise tomorrow due to gravity, we are 0% sure about specific religious truths treating these as the same level of uncertainty is intellectually dishonest

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Literally what I’ve been trying to say the whole time is we have no way of knowing because yea it requires subjectivity but we don’t know what we don’t know so to say you KNOW religion is false would be incorrect. You have absolutely no way of knowing for sure if there’s a higher power so to claim there objectively isn’t one makes no sense. To believe there isn’t one makes plenty of sense tho

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Feel like I just said I don’t think they’re equal

1

Anonymous OP 2w

certain miracles like Noah’s flood can be objectively disproven also im not claiming to know that there is no higher power, just that there is no evidence to believe there is one using your logic, I can’t know for sure that there’s not an invisible dragon living in my garage, but it would be weird for me to live my life thinking it’s there I think belief should be justified, I justify my belief in gravity because we have shown it works, belief in a higher power isn’t that way

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Well exactly- a lack of evidence isn’t counter evidence. and yeah dismissing all religion as completely absurdity kind of is claiming you know there isn’t a higher power. And again there is theoretically a form of proof it’s just different from what you’re used to or have apparently tried pursuing

1

Anonymous #1 2w

And yea you only believe in things that are palpable that makes sense to me but what doesn’t is claiming people are universally unreasonable for trying to learn the things that aren’t palpable

1

Anonymous OP 2w

You are technically correct in a narrow, logical sense. However, in both science and law, the absence of evidence where we would expect to find it serves as evidence of absence. With the dragon, if the dragon isn’t in my garage, then that serves as evidence against the dragon’s existence. Religions often make palpable claims about the world such as miracles, historical events, or even Earth’s creation, and when those claims are tested and fail, that is counter-evidence to that specific religion.

0

Anonymous OP 2w

Also, the idea of different proof has the problem of reliability. If method A allows two people from two different cultures to reach the same conclusion, its objective. If method B leads one person to believe in Jesus, another in Allah, and another in Vishnu, it is subjective. Subjective proof is only proof for the person experiencing it. It cannot be used to claim an objective truth about the universe that others should accept.

0

Anonymous OP 2w

If these same religious people wouldn’t accept subjective feelings of mine as proof that I deposited a million dollars into their bank account, why should we accept it as proof of the creator of the universe? It isn’t unreasonable to seek the unknown, but it is a leap of faith to claim you’ve found an objective truth in a realm where you admit you have no objective tools.

0

Anonymous #1 2w

My qualm this entire time has been people making blanket statement about all of religion as a concept not specific religions. Not all religions even claim to have an objective truth some claim there’s subjective truths when it comes to universal powers and so everyone has to discover those truths for themselves

4

Anonymous #1 2w

And yes I fear faith is the entire point of religion

3

Anonymous OP 2w

If rge religion is purely subjective and personal and meant for self-discovery, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it As soon as it makes objective claims or encourages others to enforce that belief system in the actual world, I oppose it if those claims aren’t supported by evidence

0

Anonymous OP 2w

So this proves im not a hypocrite because I value science for its objectivity because it is falsiable whereas religion isn’t (relies on faith regardless of proof) I think faith and objective evidence are fundamentally incompatible tools, and that faith isn’t a “different kind” of evidence like you suggest But yes, if you merely mean religion isn’t an emotional or spiritual connection to something unprovable, then we agree

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Well yeah that’s what I’m saying that’s exactly how millions of people practice their religion so to claim they’re all like the latter is irrational

6

Anonymous #1 2w

And the faith isn’t evidence each religion has its own instructions for spiritual journey to deepen the your beliefs whatever the journey does for you is the evidence that is a person to person thing

5

Anonymous OP 2w

but it’s not “evidence,” it’s subjective interpretation, if it were actual evidence then the same thing would produce the same beliefs and conclusions reliably

0