Religion

[UnHoly Bible]

^ I would go as far as to say all theists are atheists, and vice versa. Not in the practical sense, but in the sense that in our belief in something there is an implied disbelief in something, and in our disbelief in something there is an implied belief in something. If I can imagine god, I can imagine not god. The content of both arguments is in the structure of logic here. So isn't the belief or disbelief in god no more than a practical preference. It's the acting as if you believe or disbelieve that actually makes any meaning to the argument. Neither is really better or worse, you can cultivate shitty groupthink and behaviors based on either viewpoint with the right moves. You can also do the opposite, with enough wisdom, but there will always be fallout either way when beliefs are involved.

tl;dr, who cares? Donald Trump . Also my stream of consciousness posts previously here, I denounce them as failed thought of the past. I can't always be smart

[shredingskin]

Atheist don't believe in gods not because of faith, but lack of evidence, you don't need faith to not believe unicorns exist, the burden of proof is in the people asserting it exists. Atheism isn't "belief on modern science as total truth" it's a lack of belief on gods (specially religious ones, that have been typified).
Science is not "empirical materialism", it's just that as far as we know there isn't anything that it's supernatural, and as time goes on the models of physics keep getting updated and keep making accurate predictions.

To me it's not the same trying to find out how the universe came to be like it is based on observations, that saying "god did it", because it still leaves the same question open "what created god ?".

If you think that there's something else than the natural, show me. But no one has proven anything, and the more we know, the more they attest to the physics model we currently have going on.

I do think that religions have good aspects, and very bad ones, I think that the good aspects of religion can easily be found on secular mediums.

[UnHoly Bible]

Yes you're right the burden of proof is upon the practicing theist/anti-theist (correcting my terms here, I often use them incorrectly). I was just trying to say that the theist and anti-theist are one in the same, being locked in a paradoxical argument of belief. They are merely taking one conclusion in an argument that has no meaning without their acting on belief/disbelief.

And yes surely there is nothing faithful about doing science, being merely the observation and reproduction of phenomena in the world in order to know it. We may have to take certain scientific research on faith as laypeople, because we're not the ones actually doing the science, such as when we're taking a medication that we really have no idea about. But that's not because we're believing in the scientific process really, we're believing in a specific research that may or may not have been done rigorously.

[shredingskin]

I was responding to the other comment, but I'll address that.

The burden of proof is not on the anti-theist, that's a political/ideological belief, the burden of proof for them is showing that the world is not a better place with religion than without, and it's quite a simple thing to do with just pointing ONE single instance of religious being harmful (it's a quite cheap thing to do, but it's logically correct, because it's not taking about "moral absolutes"). Even though I'm quite an anti-theist I do really try to go the "whatever works" philosophy, but in the case of religions they still have legal privileges around the world that I think they shouldn't have (and in certain occasions above nations and individual rights).

I do agree that both are acting in the same religious framework, and even I'll side with religious people if that was the only case (why the fuck you care about what other people think/believe), but in the current state of things religion permeates legal and constitutional rights that are invasive or at least give them preference over individuals (how I think people should be treated), not only that but it's the first refuge that fundamentalism seeks to have any relevance in the world. I wouldn't care at all if those weren't the case, but if someone is teaching a little kid that I should not live because I'm an infidel, and get to be exempt of taxes for it, it's something I think I have the right to be concerned.

In the case of atheists, they don't have any burden of proof for nor believing something that doesn't have anything more than anecdotal evidence. If I say that I was raped by aliens, you at least want to see my ass covered in green goo

[MiTT3NZ]

Trusting scientists isn't faith, it's science. Do a simple check. Look at your phone. Lights up when you unlock it so you can tell the time. Plays the song you select. Switches the audio signal from inbuilt speakers to earphones once you plug in the jack cable.

All clear evidence that science works. We observe it every day. Constantly. Believing what Mr. Scientist says is not faith. It's a deduction based on logic and reason.

[Mr. Frozen]

^Believing in scientists is pure faith. You have faith in them using logic and deduction to produce their claims. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Faith in the abilities of others is how society works.

Anyway, science and religion isn't mutually exclusive. Scientists who believe in God are the ones who ask "how?" and "why?" to the "god did it" explanation.

[Thief]

Trusting scientists isn't faith, it's science.

Doing science is science, trusting in scientists is faith. Definitions dude.

Faith /fāTH/ - noun - complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

[shredingskin]

It's different when talking about scientific theories (that are still in development) and applicable science. No one says "this is the only theory around here", that's why are called theories (even if they match the observations 100%).

By that vernacular definition believing in anything is faith, and that's utterly wrong. You do have evidence, and science is refutable by the same propositions. You can easily grab a fucking ball and check out if the theory of gravity is still valid in that case or not, it can be reproduced. You don't have that in religion.

It's not the same thinking that police enforce the law and having faith that police enforce the law, you have expectations based on observations. You don't have faith that the computer will turn on, or that the earth keeps spinning. But even if you have doubts, you can do your own measurements.

[Thief]

Show me how science has proven the inexistence of God in any way comparable to the laws of gravity. Then tell me that believing in his inexistence is not done through faith.

[shredingskin]

You can't prove a negative.
Science hasn't proven the inexistence of a red elephant with magic powers, do you have faith that a red elephant with magic powers doesn't exist ?

That's what it means the burden of proof, if you say "X exists", YOU have to provide evidence.

i can fucking prove that the religious god doesn't exists using just the bible though (but then it's just quote mining a fucking book), like Epicuro said:
If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not exist.

It's really easy to understand that the burden of proof doesn't relies on the people saying it doesn't exists, but on the people asserting it does.

All you are doing is an argument from ignorance (it's called that, is a typified fallacy).

[Thief]

If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Free_will

See "Responses, defences and theodicies" in the above wiki article for examples of reasonable opposition to the problem of evil.

Anyway, I'm not arguing from ignorance, I'm just stating a basic fact that if one wants to hold a belief in the absence of proof, then one must rely on faith (to at least some degree) to hold such a belief. This is not a controversial claim I'm making. Evidence supports your faith in your belief. The fallacy you're thinking of asserts truth because it hasn't been proven false, or asserts falseness because it hasn't been proven true. Where am I doing that? I'm not talking about truth claims, I'm talking about belief. Remember, I am not arguing that God exists or that God does not exist, I'm only arguing that atheists must rely on faith to hold the belief that God does not exist.

I mean it's great that you read up on fallacies, but it does not apply here.

Do you have faith that a red elephant with magic powers doesn't exist?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have faith that such a red elephant doesn't exist.

[shredingskin]

Do you rely on faith that a red magic unicorn doesn't exists ? Or a brumphtydhonler ?
To stop with fiction stuff, do you have faith that gravity will stop working ? Do you have faith that your house will not dissapear tomorrow ? Stop equating faith with belief.

If by "my beliefs" you mean, "thinking that what the scientific community might be right about their claims" I already responded, it's not blind belief, it's about expectations based on observation/evidence. I don't BELIEVE that the universe came from quantum movements in a 0 energy universe, but it seems the best explanation that I've heard that might explain it.

And then again, when you're saying "doesn't proves that god doesn't exists", then saying 'I didn't mean it to say that god does exists" doesn't matter, it's the same faulty logic. Trying to invert the burden of proof doesn't change that.

About the epicuro's phrase, is just to show how easy can god be disproved quite easily, and I said I didn't want to quoting the bible, but it's just a google search:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/don ... tions.html

God is perfect, the bible is the word of god, the bible is imperfect, god is not perfect.

And that's just doing imperfect, the only way to talk about god is adding more fiction, because there's not any evidence of it existing.

God is a fiction character, there's nothing more to it, If you want to believe it whatever, but let's stop equating the study of the universe with fiction.

[Thief]

Stop equating faith with belief.

They. Are. Synonyms.

Anyway, this is boring now. I hope your faith in materialism brings you happiness in life.

[dbzruler88]

Anyway, I'm not arguing from ignorance, I'm just stating a basic fact that if one wants to hold a belief in the absence of proof, then one must rely on faith (to at least some degree) to hold such a belief.

I fucking hate how you are wording things. Makes me physically cringe. It literally proves that you don't even understand the concept of atheism.

Atheism = the lack of a belief in a god or gods.

That's all it fucking is.

It isn't a belief system. It is saying, show me peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports your belief, and I will consider going to church on sunday.

[Riku Rose]

^As an atheist I find your pic and signature cringeworthy.