Support NeoGAF

[Fireblend]

It happened naturally for me, as I kept learning things I just eventually rejected the inaccurate magical explanations for rational scientific ones, and the reasons I had for believing in religion sort of faded away. I often found myself thinking about the paradoxes in the bible and the concept of God in general, and many actions by the church (recent and not so much) further fueled my decision to dislike being associated to catholicism in general. I read about semiotics, astronomy, biology, history, logic and it all clicked without the need for belief in any form of paranormal phenomenon; I realized that if I could easily and rationally reject the existence of ghosts, OoBEs, other religions and other paranormal phenomena I was just fooling myself if I kept thinking everything about the religion that was chosen for me was right.

Also, I like to think that it would require a pretty stupid God to create a race in his image, with a brain practically designed for rationality, pattern matching and logical deduction and then pretend they have to believe and act according to a set of often paradoxical and contradictory magical facts and rules that more than once have conveniently acted in favor only of those in power in order for them to not go to hell. Many people around me seem to think God is a merciful force and full of love, but I really am convinced they haven't read the bible thru. The fact that he will sent me to hell for using rational deduction and denying it's existence through logic is enough proof for me that I wouldn't like that kind of God existing at all. A God that punishes suicide, even though it's known to be cause by mental illness? one that punishes homosexuals? masturbation? wearing fancy clothes, tattoos? Everyone is condemned anyway! No thanks.

Final edit: It must have something to do with how people here were raised, but my family is very catholic, and I was "one of them" for most of my life, having only recently confronted myself about it. It's been a gradual process, and it probably started no more than 6 years ago. Right now I'm 21. Also, because of that only my parents and my brother know.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

i find it a little embarrassing that enlightened 21st century society has any requirement for the term "atheist".

The term normal can only be used if something is the norm. And that won't happen for a while.

 

[ultim8p00]

Jesus.

Remember what I was saying about "leagues"?

The bolded never happened. Like analogies, atheists can be retarded, too.

Yeah, I'm sure it didn't. Drop the whole leagues thing though. No one cares, and no one thinks of you as superior. You're not even a moderator and I don't even think of them as superior other than in terms of policing GAF. This thread will be forgotten in a matter of days. I will forget your username in a matter of days, and you probably will do the same to mine.

Really, the only thing thinking of yourself as in a league does is make you act like a douche...

Spoiler

and troll on SDN

. Actions speak louder than words buddy.

 

[Nocebo]

It wasn't easy at all for me, but I don't make several threads a week about it because I am comfortable enough with the decision that I don't see anything special about it. We literally had one of these like 3 to 4 days ago or so. If you know something you did was right, then that's it. It doesn't matter that your family treated you like shit or ignored you. It is what it is. My comment really wasn't that difficult to understand, but I figured that if I didn't give you an opportunity to be less of a prick while keeping your ego intact (essentially by saying that I could have fucked up my explanation) things would have kept escalating. I'm also guessing that you probably made the assumption that I was a theist because I was against the thread, which made you process my "analogy" with some bias.

Who are you to decide which thread does or doesn't have merit? Also you're a retard for thinking the same selection of people read neogaf all the time (24/7) and read every thread. You're implying that everyone who will ever read this thread has already read the previous similar ones. It is pretty stupid to think that, considering the amount of people who visit gaf. Similarly people's thoughts are not locked in stasis.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yeah, I'm sure it didn't. Drop the whole leagues thing though. No one cares, and no one thinks of you as superior. You're not even a moderator and I don't even think of them as superior other than in terms of policing GAF. This thread will be forgotten in a matter of days. I will forget your username in a matter of days, and you probably will do the same to mine.

Really, the only thing thinking of yourself as in a league does is make you act like a douche...

Spoiler

and troll on SDN

. Actions speak louder than words buddy.

Bolded is not likely.

Spoiler is funny.

 

[Tenks]

I imagine it's similar to if you ask a gay when he realized he was gay. I can't pinpoint it, I just never believed in God's existance.

 

[todahawk]

It happened naturally for me, as I kept learning things I just eventually rejected the inaccurate magical explanations for rational scientific ones, and the reasons I had for believing in religion sort of faded away. I often found myself thinking about the paradoxes in the bible and the concept of God in general, and many actions by the church (recent and not so much) further fueled my decision to dislike being associated to catholicism in general. I read about semiotics, astronomy, biology, history, logic and it all clicked without the need for belief in any form of paranormal phenomenon; I realized that if I could easily and rationally reject the existence of ghosts, OoBEs, other religions and other paranormal phenomena I was just fooling myself if I kept thinking everything about the religion that was chosen for me was right.

Also, I like to think that it would require a pretty stupid God to create a race in his image, with a brain practically designed for rationality, pattern matching and logical deduction and then pretend they have to believe and act according to a set of often paradoxical and contradictory magical facts and rules that more than once have conveniently acted in favor only of those in power in order for them to not go to hell. Many people around me seem to think God is a merciful force and full of love, but I really am convinced they haven't read the bible thru. The fact that he will sent me to hell for using rational deduction and denying it's existence through logic is enough proof for me that I wouldn't like that kind of God existing at all. A God that punishes suicide, even though it's known to be cause by mental illness? one that punishes homosexuals? masturbation? wearing fancy clothes, tattoos? Everyone is condemned anyway! No thanks.

Final edit: It must have something to do with how people here were raised, but my family is very catholic, and I was "one of them" for most of my life, having only recently confronted myself about it. It's been a gradual process, and it probably started no more than 6 years ago. Right now I'm 21. Also, because of that only my parents and my brother know.

Same here, raised very strict Catholic. Went to Catholic gradeschool and high school and I started questioning things... by the time i got to college and out of the house more I started having some doubts and bigger questions.

I think the big realization for me came when I realized that I felt I needed god, that i really wished there was a god.

it wasn't any one event or book, it was the slow realization that i didn't believe any of it over several years. i mentally couldn't flip that big a switch, i probably would've had a nervous breakdown. hard to understand unless you're raised from birth and it's pounded into you to never question anything and if you do you're a doubting sinner. good thing i'm curious by nature, i just questioned everything else i possibly could.

my mom can't deal with this either, she has convinced herself i just have an issue with organized religion... which i do, but she doesn't understand i'm done with it. she cried on the phone how she's worried that me, my wife and kids are putting our eternal souls in jeopardy. i told her it's none of her concern at this point and if anything, i've changed for the better...

 

[BocoDragon]

It strikes me while reading this thread that I don't know who to trust less about religion: those raised religious, or those raised atheist.

There's too many issues of rebellion/conformity to parental attitudes involved.

I'm not sure if it's good reason to disbelieve religion because Sunday school was dull as a child, or because one rejected the scary and naive way in which their parents lorded their belief over them.

Similarly I don't think it's a good reason to reject religion because one is indoctrinated into blind acceptance of science-as-entire-worldview (one might call it scientism), or general religious apathy.

I suppose the atheist I'd trust the most is a mystic who went into a cave, meditated on existance, and then said "nope, nothing's there after all!" At least he looked for himself rather than just trust hearsay one way or another :lol

 

[Fireblend]

blind acceptance of science-as-entire-worldview

That makes absolutely no sense. There is no such a thing as a belief in science, it stands completely opposite of taking things for granted. It reminds me of the argument that goes "even science has to have some fundamental basic argument to support itself", but that's just false, science is all about accepting that our universe acts according to a set of defined rules, and deducing them through logic; there is no fundamental support, because science accepts the fact that what we know about those rules can change at any second and be superseeded by "more accurate" knowledge. Nothing in science is "rock solid belief", look at quantum mechanics or other fields in which crazy theories sprout up everyday, in the search of a model that accurately reflects the universe we live in.

Edit: Some of the people I love the most and admire are catholics, and if they grew to be who they are partly because of religion, then so be it. Hell, John Paul II was fucking awesome, I loved that guy.

 

[todahawk]

Reading many of the posts in this thread, it seems many people here are:

-anti-clerical
-anti-christianity (more specifically catholicism in some cases)
-anti-whatever-crazy-thing-you-were-forcefully-taught-growing-up
-anti-superficial beliefs and other batshit crazy trains of thought (e.g. scientology, creationism, etc.)

I'm all of the above myself. I don't very much like religion as an organization/institution. In that sense, I distinguish between religion/being religious and faith. The former revolves around a set of rules, principles (and scriptures sometimes) that a set of people believe in, leading them to join together around those beliefs in a way that's more or less official. The latter is just what you personally believe in, your profound, unique outlook on life, which you can't even express sometimes (that's my case). Some would call it one's private domain (the French have an expression for this that I think is more apt: son jardin secret, literally "one's secret garden", one's inner belief). To me at least, this is the essence of faith and spirituality. It doesn't have to conform to an established religion, or any religion at all.

I'm not an atheist.

Atheism, as I see it, is a strong claim. A very strong claim. In fact, it's so strong a claim that I don't think I've ever met anyone in my life that I would really consider an atheist, even if they said they were. But that's probably because the notion of "God", for me, goes way beyond the stereotypical "invisible bearded man that is inherently good and has a plan for us" hypothesis. You might as well replace the word with "Chance", "Cosmos", "Wisdom", "Nature", "Life" or even "the Origin/Big Bang". Although I wouldn't directly equate God with science, but that's another topic. Anyway, just as I'm not fond of religion of any kind as a source for personal spirituality, I'm not fond of atheism as described above. The implications of complete atheism are way too heavy (and, in a sense, too pretentious) for me to be an atheist. I'd rather use agnosticism to describe myself and many people who claim to be atheists.

Since the topic at hand is our realization, the only event that sticks to my mind as a turning point is when I was preparing for my declaration of faith — I was raised in a then-catholic family, but we all slowly drifted away from it all. I was once told by this instructor I had — a religious man obviously, but he was all right — that you could believe in God without practising, to which he replied that it was a bit contradictory. I left the conversation at that, but there you go, that's my story. To this day I don't know what I believe exactly. I don't belong to any religion or movement or sect, but I'm not an atheist either, according to my definition. So for the time being, I'm an agnostic, for lack of a better word.

Have you read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins? I considered myself agnostic until i read that (not done yet btw).

There are sub-sets from pure deist to atheist. From 1- 100% sure there is a god to 10- 100% sure there is no god. I'm around a 9. I consider myself pretty open minded... if something occured or new info was discovered or say god decided to show himself one day, i'm open to changing my beliefs based on that new info.

fwiw, i was pretty anti-catholic to start as i was just fighting back against having beliefs rammed down my throat. but it's not just about catholicism for me any more. i have major issues with most organized religions and the way they influence people, government, etc.

i have no issue with the general Christian principles (treat others as you want to be treated, etc.), my issue is with the pretty much the rest of it and what people do with it.

 

[Mumei]

I was 12 and at Christian camp.

 

[todahawk]

It strikes me while reading this thread that I don't know who to trust less about religion: those raised religious, or those raised atheist.

There's too many issues of rebellion/conformity to parental attitudes involved.

I'm not sure if it's good reason to disbelieve religion because Sunday school was dull as a child, or because one rejected the scary and naive way in which their parents lorded their belief over them.

Similarly I don't think it's a good reason to reject religion because one is indoctrinated into blind acceptance of science-as-entire-worldview (one might call it scientism), or general religious apathy.

I suppose the atheist I'd trust the most is a mystic who went into a cave, meditated on existance, and then said "nope, nothing's there after all!" At least he looked for himself rather than just trust hearsay one way or another :lol

science is generally about an idea or theory that you can prove. science is rational. religion is the antithesis of that, it's based purely on (irrational) faith.

 

[Barrett2]

I'm more interested in people's family & friends difficulties stories. I was probably relatively lucky since I had a 'Lake Wobegon'-style mellow Lutheran upbringing so it was very much of a conflict. (My mom sure wasn't happy about it though although she is totally fine with it now.)

How bad was it when your family found out or you told them?

It was really awkward when i was in college, and I had several heated arguments with my parents. Over time it subsided; in large part due to the fact that I am my parent's most 'successful' child. I guess over time it became harder to question my lifestyle when I am the only kid with a graduate degree, decent income, independent of needing help, etc., and the rest of my siblings are basically poor and leech money off my parents well into their 30s.

 

[BocoDragon]

That makes absolutely no sense. There is no such a thing as a belief in science, it stands completely opposite of taking things for granted. It reminds me of the argument that goes "even science has to have some fundamental basic argument to support itself", but that's just false, science is all about accepting that our universe acts according to a set of defined rules, and deducing them through logic.

Of course it makes sense. Don't tell me that people don't "believe" in science.. People use the results of other peoples studies to make decisions all the time. No one is working out everything empirically.

Most people have been indoctrinated into the acceptance of science as an absolute authority by society.

I think science is good and true too.. But from the perspective of a "theory of knowlege" class the way in which I believe it is no better than when society blindly trusted the Bible as an authority. Were basically just trusting our elders on it's value.

If you've empirically determined that science is valuable through study, good on you.. But most people trust science out of a trust in education + the media, etc. People trust science as an authority for bad reasons... Even if I believe, and you believe, that science is good and a method that delivers true results.

 

[Fireblend]

Of course it makes sense. Don't tell me that people don't "believe" in science.. People use the results of other peoples studies to make decisions all the time. No one is working out everything empirically.

Yeah, studies that are properly supported by other studies or facts, proven to be correct by rational thought, experiments, observance and logic, supported in itself by other foundations, etc.

Most people have been indoctrinated into the acceptance of science as an absolute authority by society.

You don't get the point. You can't believe in science. If I tell you gravity's wrong, it can go both ways: Either I'm right and the whole model of gravity changes thanks to my proven discoveries, supported by whichever method is sufficient to prove my claims and I also probably get a couple of medals in the process, or I'm wrong and nothing happens. Science doesn't, at any point, involve belief, at all.

You're arguing that the only way society can be justified to be atheist through its acknowledging of it superseeding magical facts stated in religion is by making every human on earth be some sort of super scientist that knows every single piece of information needed to argue against such magical facts? That's ridiculous. Then you can't believe computers work the way they do, because you don't know all the information required to understand it? I might as well say invisible pixies run them and it's as valid as the assumption it runs on energy.

 

[BocoDragon]

Yeah, studies that are properly supported by other studies or facts, proven to be correct by rational thought, experiments, observance and logic, supported in itself by other foundations, etc.


You don't get the point. You can't believe in science. If I tell you gravity's wrong, it can go both ways: Either I'm right and the whole model of gravity changes thanks to my proven discoveries, supported by whichever method is sufficient to prove my claims and I also probably get a couple of medals in the process, or I'm wrong and nothing happens. Science doesn't, at any point, involve belief, at all.

It's not the adherance to scientific findings and theory that you believe in.

It's the belief in the scientific method itself.

You have chosen it as an authority for decision making.

Here's the thing: you can be indoctrinated into things that (I think) are true and useful, and I submit that's exactly how most people believe in the scientific method.

 

[Alex Dee]

I never really believed, but went through a short christian phase as a teenager when I decided it would be nice to believe in something. I kind of realised how redundant it was the moment I spoke with a christian who came into our school.

 

[Fireblend]

It's not the adherance to scientific findings and theory that you believe in.

It's the belief in the scientific method itself.

You have chosen it as an authority for decision making.

Here's the thing: you can be indoctrinated into things that (I think) are true and useful, and I submit that's exactly how most people believe in the scientific method.

It's a very natural indoctrination then, which sounds like an oxymoron. The human brain is short of wired to find patterns and deduce facts through rational thinking, comparing, observing, experiencing...; at its core, that's what the scientific method is about. I haven't "chosen" it. Babies "use the scientific method" to recognize what is a human and what is a dog, what materials are dangerous and where food goes. Pretty sure they didn't make that decision. If you read about autism for example, you'll realize much of the "sensorial overload" they experience comes from not being able to create abstractions and models that make the world a little more understandable. They are unable to, for example, realize that every frame in a movie belong together, or that each note in a composition create a song when put together. Creating that kind of models that explain what is around us is instinct for humans, blind faith and forced indoctrination, on the other hand, is denying that ability, when it was what gave us the upper hand in evolution.

 

[ultim8p00]

Yeah, studies that are properly supported by other studies or facts, proven to be correct by rational thought, experiments, observance and logic, supported in itself by other foundations, etc.


You don't get the point. You can't believe in science. If I tell you gravity's wrong, it can go both ways: Either I'm right and the whole model of gravity changes thanks to my proven discoveries, supported by whichever method is sufficient to prove my claims and I also probably get a couple of medals in the process, or I'm wrong and nothing happens. Science doesn't, at any point, involve belief, at all.

You're arguing that the only way society can be justified to be atheist through its acknowledging of it superseeding magical facts stated in religion is by making every human on earth be some sort of super scientist that knows every single piece of information needed to argue against such magical facts? That's ridiculous. Then you can't believe computers work the way they do, because you don't know all the information required to understand it? I might as well say invisible pixies run them and it's as valid as the assumption it runs on energy.

Not true, as everything involves belief at some point. To believe is to accept that something is true without proof. That is essentially why science changes, because there are some assumptions science makes without knowing what things are in actuality and when a new discovery is made, things change. It is impossible though to do get anything done without some form of belief at some point. In the far future we might discover something that totally fucks with the model of gravity, or even evolution. The difference between science and religion is that science does not claim to know everything and it changes, whereas religion does the opposite. Science is testable and logical, religion is not testable and many times illogical.

 

[Dan Yo]

That's something that puzzles me. It seems to me like every believer pretty much has their own set of beliefs surrounding the main concept. They somehow pick and choose and sometimes this spawns new offshoots of religions. The only reason their personal beliefs gain strength in their mind is because there's this overarching entity that believes similarly enough. However ultimately they themselves choose what they want to apply to their daily lives, it is not god or the teaching of jesus they follow. What puzzles me is why they don't realize this?

As someone with low confidence I can say the thought of saying "well supreme authority X condones Y / Z so it must be the right way to go." seems like a comfortable thought. I also think people in general are affraid of being wrong and taking the wrong actions. I think people with strong selfreflective capabilities have trouble believe in the concept of God.

To be fair, I don't think I've ever met any religious person, Catholic or otherwise that claimed to know the location of Heaven. Heaven has always been portrayed in art as in the clouds because this is an image that we can comprehend, I think people that take that image too literally are unfamiliar with religion and putting too much credence into that portrayal.

As for what God condones, in the Christian faith the main factor for getting to heaven, or pleasing God for that matter, is to be a good person. You can ask a priest about whether or not this guy or that guy is going to Heaven, and he will tell you that only God judges. He won't pretend to know exactly what gets you to Heaven, but uses the 10 commandments as a basis.

I understand some religious fanatics go around pretending to know, and will shout down to you, picket out front of places, and generally be an annoying asshole, but from my experience with actual Christians, they're not quite as close-minded and strict in their beliefs as some people around here make them out to be.

 

[BocoDragon]

It's a very natural indoctrination then, which sounds like an oxymoron. The human brain is short of wired to find patterns and deduce facts through rational thinking, comparing, observing, experiencing...; at its core, that's what the scientific method is about. I haven't "chosen" it. Babies "use the scientific method" to recognize what is a human and what is a dog, what materials are dangerous and where food goes. Pretty sure they didn't make that decision. If you read about autism for example, you'll realize much of the "sensorial overload" they experience comes from not being able to create abstractions and models that make the world a little more understandable. They are unable to, for example, realize that every frame in a movie belong together, or that each note in a composition create a song when put together. Creating that kind of models that explain what is around us is instinct for humans, blind faith and forced indoctrination, on the other hand, is denying that ability, when it was what gave us the upper hand in evolution.

Personal trial and error is NOT science. It's a series of uncontrolled experiments, and it gives bad data. That baby might be completely wrong about the difference between a human and a dog... He might enjoy the food that is long-term poisonous, and shun vegetables. His answer is not scientific in the slightest.

"I have a rock that keeps away tigers, and so far I've seen no tigers, so the rock works!" as an example. Personal experience is what leads to gods and superstitions.... science is divorced from personal experience. Science goes counter to the usual reasoning process... it's just that lately we've indoctrinated our children into accepting it, because we've slowly and surely learned that it gives us useful results. It seems obvious now.

That you've tried to portray science as innate to human reasoning seems to confirm to me that you have an underlying assumption about science that you've never examined before...

Take a theory of knowlege class... you'll see pretty clearly that whatever we believe, eventually we've made an assumption on what authority to choose at some point in the chain of reasoning... and given the way our society pushes science aggressively through parenting, the media and education, it's safe to say we've simply listened to our elders at some point. Now, listening to elders about what authority of truth to believe.... that's something I would claim is innate to humanity....

My original post was about how I think those raised religion AND atheist are both terribly biased. The conclusion, then, is that only someone who admits that all his authorities can be traced back to an assumption can be trusted... he will re-build an honest chain of logic for what he believes in, rather than simply assuming a chain of reasoning adopted from his elders (be they parental or society-at-large elders).

 

[Fireblend]

Not true, as everything involves belief at some point. To believe is to accept that something is true without proof. That is essentially why science changes, because there are some assumptions science makes without knowing what things are in actuality and when a new discovery is made, things change. It is impossible though to do get anything done without some form of belief at some point. In the far future we might discover something that totally fucks with the model of gravity, or even evolution. The difference between science and religion is that science does not claim to know everything and it changes, whereas religion does the opposite. Science is testable and logical, religion is not testable and many times illogical.

Ok I've done some thinking and here's a thought. The following statement, more or less, is the "core belief" of science:

"It is possible to arrive at a consistent and complete model of the universe through the scientific method"

Then I propose that statement isn't a belief. It's a theory. Everything implied from that statement, such as the fact that 1+1=2, the theory of gravity and the fact that most brains behave the same are arguments supporting that theory, which differs from a belief because it is not being accepted blindly, but there's a constant stream of "arguments in its favor" creating the "proof" that well, proves it.

The thing is that the only way to prove it completely is presenting the model of the universe it claims exists, and that is an ongoing project, science itself. Therefor, science's objective is proving that statement, proving itself. I'm going grossly off topic here, and that's the last I'll say in this thread

 

[YoungHav]

Raised Baptist and my mom's side of the family is religious. Went to Catholic school from grades 3-12. I would say I gradually started disbelieving from age 12-14 and stopped going to church at 17. The reasons it started hitting me:

a) Death of my uncle at age 12. First death in my life, makes you wonder wtf is the point of life etc...

b) Puberty! ... train of thought was along the lines "if sex before marriage is a sin that I could go to hell for, why the fuck has God made me so horny all the time?". Worse yet, my uncle died around the time I started jerking off, so I wondered whether God was punishing me somehow LOL.

c) Some family members. A bunch of holier than thou people who were also a bunch of violent, angry abusive assholes at times. At some point I realized, wtf these dickheads sin more than me but they're the "holy ones?".

d) Other "religious kids". Who used to troll me for not going to church on Sunday... but that was the ONLY day they bothered following God's word.

C & D pretty much convinced me that no one actually believed this stuff, and just kept that Jesus card to play while on their deathbeds just in case!

e) Biblical God being irrational, angry, selfish, jealous, and basically having bad human traits.

After all that, I just realized this is some made up shit!

 

[teh_pwn]

Last couple of years of high school I quietly became an agnostic. Religious right's views on science, homosexuals, and women made me reevaluate my beliefs. Not an atheist though. While it's very unlikely there's some sort of god like figure controlling the universe, we know jack shit about what the universe is and the laws of physics behind it. So I'm sort of an agnostic with shades of weak atheism. I just don't want to be bothered into debating this nonsense with people.

 

[BocoDragon]

Then I propose that statement isn't a belief. It's a theory.

Is that a theory you think is crappy and not worth using to get results?

No... you trust it. You "believe" it. Spin it however you want... but you have adopted science as a criterion of truth. You might say that it's from the good results you've gotten from it... but I'd say you have adopted it because of the good results other people have gotten from it, and you've trusted their word as an authority.

 

[ultim8p00]

Ok I've done some thinking and here's a thought. The following statement, more or less, is the "core belief" of science:

"It is possible to arrive at a consistent and complete model of the universe through the scientific method"

Then I propose that statement isn't a belief. It's a theory. Everything implied from that statement, such as the fact that 1+1=2, the theory of gravity and the fact that most brains behave the same are arguments supporting that theory, which differs from a belief because it is not being accepted blindly, but there's a constant stream of "arguments in its favor" creating the "proof" that well, proves it.

The thing is that the only way to prove it completely is presenting the model of the universe it claims exists, and that is an ongoing project, science itself. Therefor, science's objective is proving that statement, proving itself. I'm going grossly off topic here, and that's the last I'll say in this thread

Sounds interesting. Makes sense to me in a way.

 

[BocoDragon]

Sounds interesting. Makes sense to me in a way.

It sounds to me like circular reasoning though.

"Science is true because science proves that its true."

 

[Fireblend]

"I have a rock that keeps away tigers, and so far I've seen no tigers, so the rock works!" as an example. Personal experience is what leads to gods and superstitions.... science is divorced from personal experience. Science goes counter to the usual reasoning process... it's just that lately we've indoctrinated our children into accepting it, because we've slowly and surely learned that it gives us useful results. It seems obvious now.

Well, then it's a matter of relation not implying causation. That's a case of not knowing how to use the scientific method or using logical reasoning. I don't think a dog, incapable of using or knowing the scientific method would rely on a rock for protecting him against lions even though he's never seen the two together. Can you elaborate on " Science goes counter to the usual reasoning process"?

That you've tried to portray science as innate to human reasoning seems to confirm to me that you have an underlying assumption about science that you've never examined before...

I haven't done that. I've said it comes naturally from our brain's capability of recognizing patterns and creating models that reflect the universe around us.

Take a theory of knowlege class... you'll see pretty clearly that whatever we believe, eventually we've made an assumption on what authority to choose at some point in the chain of reasoning... and given the way our society pushes science aggressively through parenting, the media and education, it's safe to say we've simply listened to our elders at some point. Now, listening to elders about what authority of truth to believe.... that's something I would claim is innate to humanity....

Can you recommend me a book on the subject? It's not like I'm not open to differing views.

No... you trust it. You "believe" it. Spin it however you want... but you have adopted science as a criterion of truth. You might say that it's from the good results you've gotten from it... but I'd say you have adopted it because of the good results other people have gotten from it, and you've trusted their word as an authority.

You're losing me again. The results they've gotten are the same ones I would get! It's ridiculous to expect me to get to all that knowledge by myself in order to justify my trust in science. I believe in it because the truths I've arrived at by myself fit it, and it's the only way of gaining knowledge I know.

It sounds to me like circular reasoning though.

"Science is true because science proves that its true."

It is indeed

 

[Calantus]

I didn't grow up religiously, god was this abstract idea that i vaguely understood. I never really believed in it.

 

[Jzero]

 

[phisheep]

Ok I've done some thinking and here's a thought. The following statement, more or less, is the "core belief" of science:

"It is possible to arrive at a consistent and complete model of the universe through the scientific method"

Then I propose that statement isn't a belief. It's a theory. Everything implied from that statement, such as the fact that 1+1=2, the theory of gravity and the fact that most brains behave the same are arguments supporting that theory, which differs from a belief because it is not being accepted blindly, but there's a constant stream of "arguments in its favor" creating the "proof" that well, proves it.

The thing is that the only way to prove it completely is presenting the model of the universe it claims exists, and that is an ongoing project, science itself. Therefor, science's objective is proving that statement, proving itself. I'm going grossly off topic here, and that's the last I'll say in this thread

Doesn't work for me. I think this is just a straw man.

Reason being, if it turns out there is some aspect of the universe that is not susceptible to scientific explanation, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the rest of science.

This may be an aspiration of science, but it seems rather a stretch to label it a 'core belief' - I imagine you'd be fairly hard pressed to find more than a handful of scientists who actually believe it in anything like a strong form. Now, it is likely that the main reason for it not being believed is the weakness of human intellect and tools, rather than anything inherent in the universe, but really that's just as valid a reason for not believing it as any other.

 

[Shanadeus]

Had to.

:lol

 

[BocoDragon]

Well, then it's a matter of relation not implying causation. That's a case of not knowing how to use the scientific method or using logical reasoning. I don't think a dog, incapable of using or knowing the scientific method would rely on a rock for protecting him against lions even though he's never seen the two together. Can you elaborate on " Science goes counter to the usual reasoning process"?


I haven't done that. I've said it comes naturally from our brain's capability of recognizing patterns and creating models that reflect the universe around us.


Can you recommend me a book on the subject? It's not like I'm not open to differing views.


You're losing me again. The results they've gotten are the same ones I would get! It's ridiculous to expect me to get to all that knowledge by myself in order to justify my trust in science. I believe in it because the truths I've arrived at by myself fit it, and it's the only way of gaining knowledge I know.


It is indeed

I'm on an iPhone ao I can't format this response properly hopefully you can guess what parts I'm responding to:

1. The normal ways of human learning are
a. Trial and error personal experience
b. Knowlege passed on from other people

science is far more radical, and less obvious, than these normal ways of learning. It's actually saying, disregard experience (a), disregard hearsay (b).. Were going to build a body of knowlege through controlled experiments. I'd say there's nothing innate about it.. It runs counter to way people made decisions for eons. The natural way of finding patterns is what can lead people to find gods in their soup

But the reason science is widely accepted is due to reason "b"... It's just hearsay. Most people aren't scientists or philosophers. They're just listening to other people, trusting them as an authority.

2." Theory of knowlege" is just philosophy 101.. A first year philosophy class. It's a fun class to smoke a joint before you go in

I'll sum it up though: "dude it's almost that we don't, like, know anything for certain!" (the flipside of which is "well you've got to start somewhere..")

 

[Nocebo]

I understand some religious fanatics go around pretending to know, and will shout down to you, picket out front of places, and generally be an annoying asshole, but from my experience with actual Christians, they're not quite as close-minded and strict in their beliefs as some people around here make them out to be.

Exactly my point. They are not strict in their beliefs. They are not strict with the supposed word of god. It's as if the bible is not the source for their beliefs at all, it is just used to affirm those opinions.

I'm on an iPhone ao I can't format this response properly hopefully you can guess what parts I'm responding to:

1. The normal ways of human learning are
a. Trial and error personal experience
b. Knowlege passed on from other people

a: you mean like umm experimentation?
b: :lol this really isn't different from science at all huh?

 

[Like the hat?]

I wasn't raised in a religious house, so I never believed.

 

[goldenpp72]

I'm not what i'd refer to as an atheist, I don't think it's TOO unbelievable that some greater entity could perhaps exist on some level, perhaps if not a 'god' than something else, I suppose since I have no better way to explain why the universe exist and no way to prove or disprove, I leave it open on that level.

However, I do dismiss religion entirely, it's too easy to pick apart and destroy religious arguments once someone with good history knowledge comes in, basically requiring the religious people to fall back on faith. Religion seems to be something the weak fall on either at birth (brain wash) or at times of crisis, I can't count how many times people accepted Jesus in their lives due to some horrible event in their life.

As is, I consider religion a primary obstacle to the voice of reason, evolution and general progression for humans, it seems to be a large fuel for why people do horrible, stupid things in society, and hopefully one day the evolution of humans weeds it out entirely.

 

[BocoDragon]

a: you mean like umm experimentation?
b: :lol this really isn't different from science at all huh?

Trial and error experience is not a controlled experiment. It often gives bad conclusions. That's why someone might cone to believe in placebos, superstitions and such.

And getting knowlege from other people because of their authority may give bad results. The village respects the shaman, but we may now think he never had any good knowlege at all.

Science is neither of these two traditional ways of thinking. It's a recent, radical invention. It's not innate to human thinking. People in this thread who assume the scientific method is "just basic human reasoning" only think so IMO because, as my original point stated: they've been indoctrinated into science by modern society. (primitive knowlege method B) It seems obvious to them, but it isn't.

 

[Pancakes]

I can't recall the exact moment but remember watching a news story when I was 16 depicting the victims of a suicide bombing and thought to myself:

"why would god let things like this happen?"

Evetually I just stopped believing and never looked back. I still have to hide my lack of faith , at least until I move out, since "coming out" in a Muslim household would go poorly for everyone involved.

 

[dasein]

I was walking down the street and almost tripped over evidence of God's nonexistence. I put it in my pocket.

Now I take this evidence wherever I go.

 

[Arnie]

In response to some people a couple pages back, the discovery of bones as a species has evolved to adapt to its habitat and eco-system is as much proof of evolution as we are ever going to get unless we filmed them for millions of years. This theory of evolution which involves humans evolving from primates directly contradicts Christianities belief that god created Adam and Eve and placed them in his created world. No matter what your belief on this theory there is more proof for it than there is for in this specific example Christianity.

So I ask you, why believe and base a lot of your life on something that has zero proof and evidence for its existence. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[teh_pwn]

So I ask you, why believe and base a lot of your life on something that has zero proof and evidence for its existence. It doesn't make any sense.

lalalallaalalala, there is no evidence for evolution, hitler was an atheist, you all are demanding that we can't participate in discussions, society is better with sky gods, and angry fake smiles, heheheheh, again no evidence. NO EVIDENCE. Heheheheheh

 

[Neuromancer]

One day when I was maybe in the 2nd or 3rd grade, my parents just stopped going to church and taking us with them, which was awesome. I never actually remember a time where I believed in God.

 

[Joey Fox]

For me, I've always been interested in things like biology, evolution and the origins of the universe. I read a few books by Richard Dawkins as well as "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley. But religion was never really on my mind, I guess you could say I was agnostic, or one of those Christians that doesn't give a shit.

Religion just never resonated with me. If we had a creator, he wasn't doing anything to influence our lives, so I ignored it. But then I came across Dawkins' newest book, "The God Delusion", and started reading it. He was my favorite science author after all. And man, it just made sense dude. I was writing a paper at the time, and I decided to change the topic and make it about "The God Delusion" instead. That meant that I needed to really study atheism and how it is perceived by different groups. This was college level writing, so I really got into it to get the grade.

All the science I read about makes sense in a way that religion never could. For example, Dawkins references island tribes that start religions that worship cargo, so called cargo cults, which comes from English seamen that visit their islands in the past. If people can worship people we know to be normal, then how can we logically derive that any religion is correct.

Look at this list of strange religions. http://listverse.com/2009/09/10/10-extremely-weird-religions/ This details one of the cargo cults I referenced above, but I'll point out another. For one, how can people believe in Scientology? It was invented by a Science Fiction writer, and it's also ridiculous, but hey, celebrities are endorsing it. All other religions seem to have dubious beginnings. If there is a God, we don't know who or what he is, because too many people have come to too many different conclusions on who or what we should worship.

 

[Jintor]

Trial and error experience is not a controlled experiment. It often gives bad conclusions. That's why someone might cone to believe in placebos, superstitions and such.

And getting knowlege from other people because of their authority may give bad results. The village respects the shaman, but we may now think he never had any good knowlege at all.

Science is neither of these two traditional ways of thinking. It's a recent, radical invention. It's not innate to human thinking. People in this thread who assume the scientific method is "just basic human reasoning" only think so IMO because, as my original point stated: they've been indoctrinated into science by modern society. (primitive knowlege method B) It seems obvious to them, but it isn't.

So from what I can understand, because of an inherent trust in authority ("Scientists"), you consider 'scientific thinking' to be just as faith-based as religion?

 

[astroturfing]

I'm going to say a prayer for all of you atheists. Hopefully you'll all come around at some point in your lives and avoid eternal damnation.

serious??

 

[Erigu]

I'm going to say a prayer for all of you atheists. Hopefully you'll all come around at some point in your lives and avoid eternal damnation.

I dunno, man. Maybe there is a god, he does accept people at his table after they die, and he'd rather not bother with religious zealots. Something to consider!

 

[RefigeKru]

Doing bible studies as a child I thought to myself that what they were telling me was complete bullshit and boring beyond comprehension.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Reading Dune in the 7th grade. It made me realize and consider how a messiah is created. Also, at the same time I was going through catechism class for a Lutheran church. So, it was a steady diet about how awful the Catholic church was/is and it really turned me off on all organized religion. My parents were cool and they said I could do whatever I wanted once I finished catechism classes. It was kind of odd to have had this revelation at the same time I was swearing an oath to an idea I didn't believe in.

I was a pretty hardcore atheist until I was about 24. Now I respect all people and what they may believe as long as they are not proselytizing to others.

 

[zoku88]

Trial and error experience is not a controlled experiment. It often gives bad conclusions. That's why someone might cone to believe in placebos, superstitions and such.

And getting knowlege from other people because of their authority may give bad results. The village respects the shaman, but we may now think he never had any good knowlege at all.

Science is neither of these two traditional ways of thinking. It's a recent, radical invention. It's not innate to human thinking. People in this thread who assume the scientific method is "just basic human reasoning" only think so IMO because, as my original point stated: they've been indoctrinated into science by modern society. (primitive knowlege method B) It seems obvious to them, but it isn't.

Recent as in, thousands of years old?

Please keep in mind, scientists, mathematicians, etc were all called philosophers until a couple of hundred of years ago.

The scientific method is simply an application logic. Logic that people many, many years ago used. They just used it for different purposes.

 

[siddx]

I grew up with parents that never pushed religion on me. And I moved from country to country living in social circles that never pushed religion on me either. My friends would be christian, jewish, mulim, hindu, buddhist and on and on and on. I never had one overwhelming religious group in my life that made me feel like I had to believe as well to belong.

I was left to figure out religion on my own. Which let me see just how completely idiotic all the various religions I encountered growing up were. Even as a child I saw it as occasionally entertaining fairy tales. When I got to the US and suddenly my religious beliefs mattered to other people, I had to start thinking more about god and religion and came to the same conclusion I had as a child. Its silly, childish and unrealistic. But it leads to some amusing stories.