“Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James 5%3A1-6&version=NIV
I never said science treats the unknown as an enemy, science pokes at the unknown via the scientific method to turn it into known. You do not see scientists embracing Lord of the Rings as history.
Religion is as of now unproven. Atheism is the default stance, once a religion is proven then atheism will be no more. Atheism is the default stance because it is the absence of unproven claims.
No, I believe my family is religious because they were brought up religious, and the outcome of this is opression of trans people and women.
Technically-minded meaning trained and educated on technical or other scientific topics, as opposed to business, marketing, accounting, etc.
Really? You’re not really thinking about what it is you’re actually saying, are you?
I guess it’s no mystery why the atheism expressed on here sounds so downright liberal - the unknown can only make sense to you once it’s dead.
Religion requires no proof. It hasn’t required any proof since the glaciers retreated, and it won’t require any proof as long as humanity exists.
Atheists have been attacking religion at it’s strongest point for a few centuries now (as you just did)… it seems even the oldest method of scientific rigor - trial and error - completely escapes atheists. Can we trust you with something as complicated as a Bunsen burner, then?
Your religion is failing you - it requires proof, remember?
But then, again… I’m not an all-knowing technocrat - oops, sorry, I meant to say ,“technically-minded person”. I could be wrong - there could very well be evidence for these “default atheist” communities and societies in anthropology if that truly is the “human default” as you claim.
Can you provide such?
So you are claiming that people get nothing from religion? They are merely automatons who follow their (constantly alleged) “brainwashing?”
No, I never once took the strawman claim you’ve been claiming I have, intentionally or unintentionally on your part. Science seeks to understand the unknown, it isn’t about accepting unknowns as knowns. Hence the scientific method.
Science isn’t liberal, it’s very leftist: the search for explanations and known laws of material reality. That’s Materialism! Material conditions guide people’s behaviors and science in general, not vague ideas.
If “Religion requires no proof” is the crux of your argument, then it’s the same as saying “Religion is a fairy tale,” without proof it cannot be known to exist, and is thus a hypothesis without much weight. I never suggested trial and error was a problem, but if you’re claiming Religion itself is mere trial and error, as though scientists dream up absurd claims and test them, rather than building upon previous knowledge, that is also absurd.
Being aware of the scientific method is not technocracy, but education. That’s it. Stop playing the elitist card, it isn’t working.
A child raised without religion will call no god. Religion is taught, thus atheism, the lack of religon, is the default.
I believe my family is religious because it is both all they have been taught, and is convenient for them to believe, as they would face ostracism from their own family members and people like you for questioning it. I speak from personal experience, thank you.
So far, that’s the only strawman argument applied here… and it’s purely yours.
No, science isn’t liberal… or leftist. Neither is materialism - there is no rule that says a right-winger cannot apply a materialist analysis. We even have a term for that - it’s called “Vulgar Marxism.” And, as atheism is thoroughly anti-scientific, your attempt to reframe the conversation in this manner is inane.
And? Do you now have a problem with fairy tales, too?
Me telling you something you should already have known isn’t the crux of anything.
No you didn’t. I suggested that your brand of atheism has demonstrated a fundamental weakness in applying it - and you certainly don’t seem to be improving in that regard.
Again… no I didn’t. As I’ve tried to explain to you before… science is not religion. Why would religion require trial and error?
This you?
I could have sworn that was you…
Oh? And how certain are you that such a child would not merely invent one? It’s very easy to check - if what you say is true, anthropology books will be full of examples of such.
Or perhaps you think anthropology is beneath a “technically-minded person” such as yourself?
That’s it? That’s what people have been doing for thousands of years? You sound neither certain nor knowledgable about the reasons - are you sure these vague hypotheses of yours has any weight?
No, you have pretended I said Science hates the unknown and treats it like an enemy, which is of course a strawman.
Not believing in fairy tales is scientific. Applying the scientific method to better understand the world is scientific. Materialism, over idealism, is scientific. Atheism is in line with all of these, it is the lack of a belief in unproven hypothesis until proven, whereas Religion is in conflict with this.
Fairy tales are great stories often time, just like religion, but treating them as reality without basis is anti-science.
I wasn’t being elitist when I said my family isn’t technically minded, I was pointing out that they have not studied science nor have they practically applied the scientific method. That’s like saying trusting climate scientists over climate change deniers is elitist. Learning and education is the foundation of which new knowledge can be found.
If a child invents a god, as you say, why would you assume it to be fact? Children also make imaginary friends, and lose them over time. This does not make these imaginary friends material reality.
More strawman bullshit claiming I think myself above anthropology, you can only cling to strawman because you have no logical footing. I never even claimed I myself was technically minded, why do you assume I believe myself to be the arbiter of the scientific method? Because you seek to slander.
Yes. That is indeed what people have been doing for thousands of years, and is why religion falls out of favor and fervor over time, as we learn more about the world.
You clearly only wish to lie and slander, and have no arguments, at all, outside of such, so you can kindly stop bothering.
LOL! Need some help getting out of that rabbit hole you’ve dug for yourself?
Ooooh… Trotsky must be so proud.
Good thing you told me… your discourse certainly wouldn’t have.
I guess treating false binaries as incontestable truth based on pure assumption is a regular thing with you atheists, huh?
Then why did you bring it up?
I didn’t, genius - you were the one who precluded the possibility that the hypothetical child in your hypothesis would shoot your hypothesis in the foot… I merely pointed it out.
Then why are you afraid of proving your hypothesis? If humans are so terrible at inventing gods as your hypothesis requires us to be, it should be historically evident, shouldn’t it? In fact… I’d go so far as to say that the existence of religion itself should be impossible - if your hypothesis has any weight to it, that is.
Oh, thank goodness for the “enlightened atheists!” Thousands of years navigating existence means nothing now that the armchair geniuses has shown up to show us the correct way of doing so!
LOL!
Your atheism doesn’t just smack of liberalism - it’s starting to sound downright white.