The REAL "What Religion Do You Believe" Thread

[Xerge]

I'm going to be the devil's advocate here and say that I assume we are all aware that "evidence" is a concept related to the verification of empirical data (which is related to scientific verification and experimentation), and yeah, Aliotroph? is right when he says that there is no empirical data that can prove the supernatural just like others may say that there's also no evidence that can prove it doesn't exist, and what I'll add to this is that before you can actually demand empirical data for anything you must first prove or theorize by rational means that such thing can be proved by an empirical scientific discipline in particular (like physics or biology), in other words you have to theorize rationally that the supernatural is a biological or physical entity, so the thing is that this same demand is actually assuming something that doesn't have evidence either.

[DoomzRules]

I'm Christian Buddhist agnostic.... so I don't really attack anyone for their faith, unless they are a radical religious fanatical nutjob like John Hagee (Christian Zionist Evangelical fucker who I really hate....) or ISIS or the Westboro Baptist Church.

So you know yeah....

I especially hate those Christian Zionists... dear God, they are the worst. It's like dealing with a Christian version of ISIS, except instead of preaching about the Islamic State, they won't shut up about the Jewish State...

One would think they are more Jewish than the average Jewish person.... just saying... and this is coming from me... an Arab (Semitic mutt) White (Euromutt) Afro (Ethiopian)-Altaic (Japanese)-Cuban American Hebrew (Arab Hebrew) by race, and a Christian Buddhist agnostic by faith.

Seriously, one would think they would convert to the Jewish faith.

Oh there is just one thing that I find funny about Christian Zionists. They conveniently ignore the Israelis who burn down Christian churches, and they also conveniently ignore the Talmud (which is extremely Anti-Christian by the way.)

Ah well, we are talking about Bible-thumpers.... people who are so deranged that they've just lost their marbles and are so out of it, that one would think they are stuck in the Stone Age.

And I don't care if I offended some Christian Zionists, or some evangelicals, because to be quite frank, I'm an Christian Buddhist agnostic and I don't care.

=)

Oh and not to get political but...

#freepalestine

[fraggle]

Xerge said:

Aliotroph? is right when he says that there is no empirical data that can prove the supernatural just like others may say that there's also no evidence that can prove it doesn't exist, and what I'll add to this is that before you can actually demand empirical data for anything you must first prove or theorize by rational means that such thing can be proved by an empirical scientific discipline in particular (like physics or biology),

No. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without argument. You appear to be asserting something akin to a balance fallacy. It's not true that both points of view are equally valid just because there's no evidence either way.

It's actually really crucially important to identify and dismiss baseless claims and I'll explain why. It's possible to formulate a literally infinite number of unfalsifiable propositions. For example, just off the top of my head, using my own imagination, here are some ideas that you can never disprove:

• A man is following you everywhere you go, and he has the ability to perfectly disguise and hide himself so that you never notice.
  
• The government has installed a secret video camera inside your house, watching everything you do. It's the most advanced model they have, so tiny you'll never spot it and no equipment can detect it.
  
• I have the magical ability to predict the future, but it doesn't always work.
  
• I have a medicine that can cure cancer, but it only works if you truly believe in it.
  

These are just four examples that I plucked from my own imagination to prove a point. I could sit here all night devising an endless number of them if I wanted to. None of them would be true but you'd never be able to prove them false. You could put them to the test, it would waste a lot of your time, and at the end of it I could still claim you hadn't disproved it. You didn't find the man because he's a master of disguise. You didn't find the camera because it's too small to see. My magical powers don't always work. The people you tested weren't true believers.

If these claims were true they would be worthy of serious investigation - you'd want to know if someone was spying on you, and if I really have a cure for cancer we should be urgently treating people. But they're also a very effective way of misleading you and wasting your time.

Ideas like these form a kind of mental trap - I think of it as like a "bug" in human reasoning. There are a huge number of people who take advantage of this trap - obvious examples are things like alternative health practitioners (homeopaths, etc.), "mediums" who claim to be able to speak with the dead, astrologers and so on.

But the claimed existence of the supernatural is itself an example ("a supernatural world is there, you just can't detect it through any physical means"). The claimed existence of a supreme being (ie. god) is another ("god is real, he just keeps himself perfectly hidden"). The rational response isn't to treat both sides as equally plausible, but rather to dismiss the untestable claims until they can be formulated into something actually testable and falsifiable.

[Xerge]

fraggle said:

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without argument.

First of all this entirely depends on what you want to dismiss, once you know what you want to dismiss then you can know how you have to dismiss it.

Your list:

fraggle said:

• A man is following you everywhere you go, and he has the ability to perfectly disguise and hide himself so that you never notice.
  
• The government has installed a secret video camera inside your house, watching everything you do. It's the most advanced model they have, so tiny you'll never spot it and no equipment can detect it.
  
• I have the magical ability to predict the future, but it doesn't always work.
  
• I have a medicine that can cure cancer, but it only works if you truly believe in it.
  

It's true that none of these claims can be considered facts just like the supernatural can't be considered a fact either, however some of these claims are possible from a scientific point of view because men, desguises, the goverment and video cameras do have evidence of their existence.

So since most of these claims imply empirical entities which can be studied applying the scientific method it's totally valid from a rational point of view to demand empirical evidence in order to prove these claims, however demanding the same in order to prove or disprove the supernatural without having first theorized wether supernatural entities can be proved by any science in particular is not.

So my point actually is that there is no point in demanding evidence to prove the supernatural unless you first theorize by rational means (not empirical means) that the supernatural can be studied applying the scientific method, so basically this demand is actually implying that the supernatural is a scientific fact.

Spoiler

[...]there are obviously many philosophical and moral assumptions in all religions, philosophical and moral assumptions which haven't been confirmed or that can't be confirmed by science like for example the existence of a fundamental spiritual realm, ontological duality (Body-Spirit), christian morality, a fundamental absolute good or Aristotle's prime mover (which is one of the arguments theists use to back up the possibility of the existence of God), many of these philosophical assumptions linger in the mind even when one decides not to believe in Yahweh and although it's true these assumptions aren't neccesarily christian they have been incorporated into Christianity.

In The Gay Science Nietzsche talks about this like this:

"After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too." - The Gay Science, s.108

[VGamingJunkie]

Aliotroph? said:

I'm sufficiently familiar with it to know there's no evidence of the supernatural there.

You're looking for the wrong kind of evidence, Science can't explain the supernatural because you can't determine the immaterial by studying the material. That's like using Math to disprove Literature because Math doesn't have any Literature in it.

[fraggle]

Xerge said:

It's true that none of these claims can be considered facts just like the supernatural can't be considered a fact either, however some of these claims are possible from a scientific point of view because men, desguises, the goverment and video cameras do have evidence of their existence.

I picked real world examples to make them more relatable to prove my point. There's no need for any such example to have any real world foundation - it's equally baseless either way. "Invisible tentacle monsters are hiding in your basement" for example can't be disproved either. This claim doesn't have any more or less of a rational backing than the other ones I listed. The fact that disguises, the government and video cameras exist is really only tangentially relevant.

So since most of these claims imply empirical entities which can be studied applying the scientific method it's totally valid from a rational point of view to demand empirical evidence in order to prove these claims, however demanding the same in order to prove or disprove the supernatural without having first theorized wether supernatural entities can be proved by any science in particular is not.

No, what I am describing (falsifiability) is an accepted part of the philosophy of modern science. This is science. This is how we rationally decide whether something is true or not.

The core point that I am making here is not really that "we should demand evidence" (although that's of course important); rather, my point is "if there is no way to ever disprove your claims, they should be summarily dismissed as untrue".

[Xerge]

fraggle said:

"Invisible tentacle monsters are hiding in your basement" for example can't be disproved either.

First you have to rationally analyze these claims in order to determine if it is not possible to find any evidence to prove them, and you can come up with all the claims you want, we can analyze them all, in this case being invisible doesn't imply that it can't be heard or touched, so in theory it's possible to at least prove that there's something there that's moving which reasembles tentacles or something similar.

fraggle said:

(falsifiability) is an accepted part of the philosophy of modern science. This is science. This is how we rationally decide whether something is true or not.

Sorry, but Falsifiability is how we can determine wether the method applied to construct or prove a theory has been scientifically valid or not, the problem that falsiability brings up is that there are theories that can't be scientifically tested in order to see if they can be refuted, which is your whole argument to dismiss the existence of the supernatural right? You see the problem is precisely that the supernatural is not a scientific fact and that's precisely why demanding evidence is pointless.

You are also mistaking epistemology with Falsifiability.

fraggle said:

"if there is no way to ever disprove your claims, they should be summarily dismissed as untrue".

Well that's not coherent with this:

fraggle said:

"Invisible tentacle monsters are hiding in your basement" for example can't be disproved either.

[fraggle]

Xerge said:

First you have to rationally analyze these claims in order to determine if you can't find any evidence to prove them, and you can come up with all the claims you want, we can analyze them all, in this case being invisibile doesn't imply that it can't be heard or touched, so in theory it's possible to at least prove that there's something there that's moving which reasembles tentacles or something similar.

My point is this: what's your end state? After a month of searching the basement and finding nothing, do you decide the claim has been disproven? Or do you continue, for a year, 10 years, a century, etc.? However long you search, I can always just answer - "it's there, you just haven't found it yet because it's invisible".

And it's the exact same with claims about "the supernatural". People have been making supernatural claims for literally millennia at this point, yet there's never been any real evidence presented to back it up beyond a few clever tricks which have been systematically debunked.

Well that's not coherent with this:

I don't see why you think that's incoherent.

[Xerge]

fraggle said:

My point is this: what's your end state? After a month of searching the basement and finding nothing, do you decide the claim has been disproven? Or do you continue, for a year, 10 years, a century, etc.? However long you search, I can always just answer - "it's there, you just haven't found it yet because it's invisible".

I think you are now touching a whole different aspect of this besides the scientific and epistemological aspect of it, like "When should we stop trying to prove this?" that's actually more of an ethical matter and you could dedicate your whole life to try to prove whatever you want, like for example dedicate your whole life to try to prove the existence of UFOs, Higgs Boson (which has actually been scientifaclly proven not to long ago although it was theorized years ago) or the Aliens, so I'm not really interested in the moral aspects of this.

I am aware that anyone can say that UFOs, Higgs boson, the aliens or an invisible tentacle monster are real and that doesn't prove anything just like me saying "it's not there because we haven't found any evidence yet" isn't going to prove anything either.

Sure, scientists theorized about the existence of the Higgs boson but that doesn't mean they provided any evidence to prove it's existence just because they theorized about it.

I think I understand better what you are saying and where you are actually coming from; that it's safer to trust scientists who theorize about something than trusting some random guy who says he has been kidnapped by aliens, but that's really just an ethical matter; Who should we trusth more and why? And you can put all the trust you want in scientists, but that isn't really going to prove their claims either and your trust in their theories isn't any "evidence" just as the theory itself isn't any evidence either.

fraggle said:

I don't see why you think that's incoherent.

Well if it can't be disproved why then do you dismiss it or label it as untrue or false? If you analyze all what are you saying now it seems like you are making a moral judgment about who we should trust.

[Doomkid]

So my point actually is that there is no point in demanding evidence to prove the supernatural unless you first theorize by rational means (not empirical means) that the supernatural can be studied applying the scientific method, so basically this demand is actually implying that the supernatural is a scientific fact.

Since the entire postulation of a supernatural being is hypothetical, saying you would, hypothetically, want to apply the scientific method doesn't prove anything in the here and now, it only proves it within the hypothetical context..

I am aware that anyone can say that UFOs, Higgs boson, the aliens or an invisible tentacle monster are real and that doesn't prove anything just like me saying "it's not there because we haven't found any evidence yet" isn't going to prove anything either.

Sure, scientists theorized about the existence of the Higgs boson but that doesn't mean they provided any evidence to prove it's existence just because they theorized about it.

Am I reading something wrong, or does this not dismiss the essence of your original point? There is no more validity to one religious claim than another, hence why it can be such a point of contention. Some of us prefer not to fill gaps in knowledge with baseless theories. Some prefer it that way and feel happier that way, which is just fine, but that doesn't mean certain baseless theories are "above the scientific method, just because" and others are not. That's a subjective decision on your part, that doesn't make it reality.

[Doomkid]

the_miano wrote on Mar 29 2016 01:26:
Even though I'm unable to post in that thread, I guess I'll just PM you my two cents on what I believe in:

Do I believe in a deity? I stand on the Agnostic side to be honest. I just can't prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being because we can't see it.

Was I brought up with a religion? Yes. I'm raised in a Roman Catholic household. My extended family on both my mother and father's side are also Catholics. I go to church every now and then because some of the sermons are interesting. You can learn some good life lessons from Priests.

Culturally, I'm Roman Catholic. I live by Christian principles of what I believe guided me to the right path in life. I try to avoid the Seven Deadly Sins. I believe if you follow the Seven Virtues and avoid the Seven Deadly Sins, you can fulfill a happier / healthier life. I made an old blog about this: https://www.doomworld.com/vb/blogs/84820-se7en/

So, I guess I would vote Agnostic / Christian.

[Xerge]

Doomkid said:

that doesn't mean certain baseless theories are "above the scientific method, just because" and others are not. That's a subjective decision on your part, that doesn't make it reality.

My whole point or rather my intention here is attempting to distinguish between a rational theory and just some arbitrary claim or "theory" done without any regard to rationality and the problem I see here is precisely the last thing you are saying: demanding empirical evidence only makes sense if you first rationally theorize (without any evidence) that supernatural entities are empirical or can be proven by empirical means, if you do not then it's just an arbitrary demand with arbitrary assumptions about the supernatural (with no evidence at all) and of course that doesn't make the supernatural a reality.

On the other hand, can there be rational theories for the supernatural? You would first have to define what "supernatural" is and then apply that concept in a theory.

[GreyGhost]

Xerge said:

On the other hand, can there be rational theories for the supernatural? You would first have to define what "supernatural" is and then apply that concept in a theory.

Once you reach the point of being able to offer a rational theory, the phenomena you've defined probably ceases to be "supernatural".

[Xerge]

GreyGhost said:

Once you reach the point of being able to offer a rational theory, the phenomena you've defined probably ceases to be "supernatural".

Probably, I really don't know as I don't really use that term, however I am aware of rational theories which theorize about immaterial/spiritual ontological realities that aren't precisely governed by the laws of physics, like Plato's theory of forms, Aristotle's Prime Mover or Berkeley's Idealism.

I'm not saying they are right, actually I think Platonism and Berkeley's Idealism are wrong, still they theorize about immaterial aspects of reality rationally and they cannot be proven wrong with science and they aren't meant to.

[Budoka]

Neutrino said:

Unfortunately, by all accounts his seems to be very common with the countries of former Eastern block. Fall of Communism saw the re-emergence of christianity, often in an extreme and heavily bigoted form, that then proceeded to infiltrate everything from politics to pop-culture with exclusively negative consequences.

That reminds of some of the more... bizarre imagery found in A.L.T.

I can confirm this point somewhat, I personally know people from Eastern Europe who are very level-headed and open, but somehow can never wrap their minds around the fact that the idea of "The Devil" can be considered utterly childish and silly.

Anyway, relying on religion as a counter to Marxism is committing a fallacy of essential-ism. You shouldn't compare Judaeo-Christianity and Marxism on the basis of how they represent each other, you should instead do so on the basis of the actions their proponents take and the ideological motivations behind those actions. As far as that's concerned, the two don't look very different to me...

As for me, I have a thoroughly skeptical streak, and nonsense like Creationism or New Age "magic" gets on my nerves very quickly.

But I also have a vivid historical and philosophical interest in the Gaulish and British traditions that are part of my cultural history. Whether there is a genuine supernatural element involved... well, I've been a direct witness of several utterly improbable sceneries, but that's beside the point. what both atheists and members of mainstream religions can have a tough time grasping is that we don't care about this in the first place. The notion of belief for belief's sake as a virtuous thing is pretty much exclusive to "revealed" religions.

[Zed]

MetroidJunkie said:

Science can't explain the supernatural

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7jClyinERY

[Guest DILDOMASTER666]

Atheist, but picked impse in poll fyi

[CARRiON]

Cyanosis said:

The Brotherhood of Nod.

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/1/897/kane_time.jpg

Kane lives in death.

[ducon]

MetroidJunkie said:

You're looking for the wrong kind of evidence, Science can't explain the supernatural because you can't determine the immaterial by studying the material. That's like using Math to disprove Literature because Math doesn't have any Literature in it.

What if there is no supernatural?

[Koko Ricky]

The problem with trying to prove/disprove God with science is that God is so poorly defined, you might as well not investigate it. If you found evidence that God exists, how would you know? What if what you actually uncovered was something on a lower eschelon, like a demi-god? Or some kind of highly advanced technological being?

Personally, I think we conceptualized God in the first place because some kind of experience left an impression on us, and we constructed this crude interpretation as a way of trying to understand the event. Whether this was some kind of psychedelic thing (starvation, sleep deprivation, consuming mushrooms, near-death experiences, the onset of human consciousness, etc.), or just a way of arresting existential angst, is anyone's guess. But we didn't just pull it out of our asses. Something happened to early man and it obviously had a profound impact on us.

[Bucket]

Science might not prove that God exists but it doesn't need to. Everything in my universe is science-powered, not god-powered. No one said any gods have to obey the laws of science - unless they want to exist in this universe. If everything I can observe and everything that will have an impact on my existence is sufficiently explained by science, and gods fall outside of that purview, then they effectively don't exist. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the frequency of miracles and reports of supernatural activity have plummeted ever since we invented more reliable and objective methods to record history.

tl;dr Russell's Teapot.

[Tracer]

I am a christian...or at least I try to be. I fuck up a lot. I take The Lord's name in veign often. I am a sinner.

I believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind.

However...I acknowledge that there is no tangible proof of that or the existence of any form of creator. I just don't think that existence can be an accident. Therefore, I am a creationist, and I like Christianity.

I also don't use the bible as a weapon. Just because I believe something doesn't mean my neighbor is obligated to share in that belief, and the bible (which I accept as the word of God) explicitely states that condemnation of another person is not something to burden myself with.

Ergo...live and let live.

[Xerge]

Bucket said:

Everything in my universe is science-powered

Bucket said:

If everything I can observe and everything that will
have an impact on my existence is sufficiently explained by science

I am really curious to know what you are refering to when you say "science", because science itself can't be explained nor justified by science itself, unless you are considering epistemology a science, but in case you aren't then not everything in your life is science-powered, it's also philosophy-powered.

[EduXYZ]

I'm deist, well, in my vision it's impossible anything come from nothing.

The cars comes from factories, babies come from women and etc.

Sorry for my english.

[Decay]

Xerge said:

I am really curious to know what you are refering to when you say "science", because science itself can't be explained nor justified by science itself, unless you are considering epistemology a science, but in case you aren't then not everything in your life is science-powered, it's also philosophy-powered.

Your posts are continually reminding me of the shitty undergrad papers I marked over the past couple years. Please stop.

[Bucket]

Xerge said:

I am really curious to know what you are refering to when you say "science", because science itself can't be explained nor justified by science itself, unless you are considering epistemology a science, but in case you aren't then not everything in your life is science-powered, it's also philosophy-powered.

I don't understand what you're asking.
Are you posting from a toaster, and therefore have no access to an encyclopedia?

I also don't know why science needs to be "justified".

[Xerge]

Bucket said:

I also don't know why science needs to be "justified".

I shall recommend some gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science to you then.

[Bucket]

Philosophy is an amusing diversion but it is NOT a prerequisite for the sciences. There is ultimately no "why" to existence, only "how".

[Xerge]

Bucket said:

it is NOT a prerequisite for the sciences.

It is if you want to define science, explain and justify what it does, also it's not like science came out of nowhere or from science itself, but if you just want to use that word without knowing what it means, what it does and without caring about what it stands for I guess you don't need philosophy.

[Koko Ricky]

TraceOfSpades said:

II just don't think that existence can be an accident. Therefore, I am a creationist, and I like Christianity.

What makes you think accident versus creation are the only options? Why does one make more sense than the other?