Why is religiosity unscientific?

[Clara Tea]

Why is religiosity unscientific? No, God can lift a stone because Atheism is
not a proven idea. Physics must describe the stone and its motion principle.
Hence, to study the invisible God who can take it because Atheism is not a proven idea,
and came after the religious era of Europe.

Songs, books and movies, art exhibitions, ballet, international sport events,
organized education, and the quest for discoveries are an essential part of
humankind's spiritual heritage (spirituality). Spirituality is larger than
Science, but it is the temporary issue of a post-modern scientific community
and not the fallacy of being an inspired scientist or mathematician.

Atheism is lack of belief in God.

Atheism is not necessarily the assertion that God definitely does not exist.

So, when you assert that atheism isn't proven, you are trying to assert that atheists insist that God doesn't exist. Most atheists are not trying to assert that God doesn't exist, they merely won't believe in everything.

Since there are an infinite number of things to believe in (Santa, tooth fairy, Yogi Bear (not the baseball player), Fred Flintstone), it seems better not to believe in anything unless there is proof. Alternatively, we could believe in absolutely everything (I could fly away on my unicorn, at this point, and leave it at that).

Except for ESP (which could be verified by predicting future events), there is no proof that God exists. Even if ESP is used, we have to trust the psychic to believe in God, and the psychic has to have visions about God (and not visions distorted by Satan, that make us think that we have knowledge of God).

Sure, there are statements of the apostles, but there is scant evidence that the apostles existed, and scant evidence that they really wrote their own versions of Jesus's statements.

You claim that atheism isn't proven, but that makes no sense. Atheists don't assert that God doesn't exist. This is much different than asserting that God doesn't exist. So, it is lack of belief, which doesn't have to be proven. Belief, on the other hand, might require proof if you expect others to believe as you do.

Scientists study invisible things quite frequently. For example, electricity, magnetism, gravity, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, etc. But they have good reasons for believing in these invisible things.

 

[Clara Tea]

No, there is the Theorem of Degradation:

If the tendency of losing mind was not stopped when there were more of mind, it will not be stopped ever. Hence, like the Entropy in Physics, the Degradation only can grow in time.

In caveman days, not many made complicated inventions. In modern times, many wild inventions have been made (internet phones, Google, etc). So, it seems to me that we either are smarter today, or we have the advantage of invention of the past (build on what went before, and use accumulated knowledge from books).

 

[Clara Tea]

RE: Lawyers speaking for science. . . They don't, what on earth are you talking about?

Scopes Monkey Trial?

There have been a lot of studies about gender, homosexuality, etc.

 

[Clara Tea]

You're conflating religion with spirituality.

Also, there are religions that are not diametrically opposed to science.

It should also be noted that science doesn't generally try to disprove religion.

Science seeks truth. Science will change if they have good reason to.

Theists often try to tell lies or force evidence to prove their false statements. They are too close to the problem to be objective.

Policemen, who are too zealous, are taken off of cases for fear that they might alter evidence to prove their points. Lets say that they have a cockeyed theory that they know who a murderer is, and they try to prove that he is a murderer though he is innocent. They should merely seek evidence, rather than pin a false rap on someone. Take, for example, J. Edgar Hoover's conviction of the Rosenburgs (death sentence for allegedlly selling nuclear secrets to Soviets, based on planted evidence (torn Jello package, whose ragged edges matched)). When theists attempt to prove that God exists, using what little science they know, they sometimes fudge the proof (and are sometimes caught).

Some theists think that science is out to destroy religion, because they believe that the universe is older than 6,000 years, and they unearth dinosaur bones, and they show that meteors come from God's perfect sky, etc. Some scientists assert that Global Warming could kill all life (but the mammon seeking politicians who support oil billionaires, want to keep warming the globe for profit), so theists deny Global Warming assertions, though they don't have sufficient scientific background to do so. Theists deny evolution, though the DNA evidence is enough to stand up in court.

 

[Clara Tea]

Okay... I suppose that's valid. It's value is that it's given you something to be curious about. I guess if I ever run out of things to be curious about then I'll have good reason to embrace the 'it's all just a simulation' outlook. Until then I'm satisfied just trying to figure out the rules to this how this reality works- simulated or not - function.

Some believe that there is a God who created it all.

Others believe that there is a God who made a simulation (and that we are all simulations). So, we not only have to believe that there is a God, we have the extra layer of belief that we are in a simulation.

Occum's Razor says that the simplest idea is likely right.

But, sometimes complicated things happen, and the simplest solution is not necessarily correct.

Don't get Occum's Razor near Hairy Krishnas (or there will be a lot of bald people at airports beating drums).

 

[joelr]

Why is religiosity unscientific? No, God can lift a stone because Atheism is
not a proven idea. Physics must describe the stone and its motion principle.
Hence, to study the invisible God who can take it because Atheism is not a proven idea,
and came after the religious era of Europe.

Atheism is the belief that there isn't enough good evidence to believe in any gods of legend. Those beliefs can be proven just by saying one has them. The evidence is terrible and that can be proven.

Atheism did not start after the religious era of Europe. Going to heaven started with the Greeks and Hellenism.
Before that people didn't usually go to afterlife places, the Gods were just there to do favors if they felt like it or to be praised.
A common Roman grave marking,

Non Fui, Fui, Non Sum, Non Curo

N.F.F.N.S.N.C.

I was not, I was, I am not, I care not.

Songs, books and movies, art exhibitions, ballet, international sport events,
organized education, and the quest for discoveries are an essential part of
humankind's spiritual heritage (spirituality). Spirituality is larger than
Science, but it is the temporary issue of a post-modern scientific community
and not the fallacy of being an inspired scientist or mathematician.

Those are sports and art. You can call that spirituality. Has nothing to do with imaginary deities in space or other dimensions.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The Schizophrenia is about 2 % of population. Atheism is about 2 %. Is there a connection?

Not even understand the difference between correlation and causation? And you apparently a scientist. 2% of the population (in the UK) are AB+ blood type. 2% have an IQ so as to get into Mensa. Probably 2% of adult males are paedophiles. So which of these are correlated? None.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Schizophrenia is about 2 % of population. Atheism is about 2 %. Is there a connection?

Spoiler: no.

Not least because you are wildly underestimating the occurrence of atheism with that number.

But way to attempt to distract from the subject matter with thinly disguised insults.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, there is the Theorem of Degradation:

If the tendency of losing mind was not stopped when there were more of mind, it will not be stopped ever. Hence, like the Entropy in Physics, the Degradation only can grow in time.

Oh, it is not that bad.

We can heal from blind faith.

 

[questfortruth]

In caveman days, not many made complicated inventions. In modern times, many wild inventions have been made (internet phones, Google, etc).

Technical progress is not spiritual progress.

 

[Revoltingest]

WRONG AGAIN. Look: Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

Mere ancient laundry.
If religiosity is to be scientific, questions exist.

What is the theory?
What is the prediction?
What is the test?
What are the results?
What is the peer commentary?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Religion is Spirituality, recall the Holy Spirit in Christianity.

No, it's not.

 

[questfortruth]

What is the theory?
What is the prediction?
What is the test?
What are the results?
What is the peer commentary?

These are elementary notions. An elementary notion must be accepted as it is.

 

[Revoltingest]

These are elementary notions. An elementary notion must be accepted as it is.

Not an answer to the questions.

 

[questfortruth]

Not an answer to the questions.

Why?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why?

Lack of any answers.

 

[questfortruth]

Lack of any answers.

There is answer: "These are elementary notions. An elementary notion must be accepted as it is."
The question is: false or true. But there is answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is answer: "These are elementary notions. An elementary notion must be accepted as it is."
The question is: false or true. But there is answer.

Well OK then.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Some believe that there is a God who created it all.

Others believe that there is a God who made a simulation (and that we are all simulations). So, we not only have to believe that there is a God, we have the extra layer of belief that we are in a simulation.

Occum's Razor says that the simplest idea is likely right.

But, sometimes complicated things happen, and the simplest solution is not necessarily correct.

Don't get Occum's Razor near Hairy Krishnas (or there will be a lot of bald people at airports beating drums).

I'm not bothering to argue the validity of the claim. I'm asking what benefit one would derive from accepting it as true. How would possessing this knowledge change my life in any way?