11mo ago

Why in the year 2024 and with all the knowledge humans have now do people still believe in religion?

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

282 comments

You can’t explain logic so I’m not sure you have an understanding of the arguments you’re attempting to make. I’m not seeing any justification other than “I think it’s it right.” I’ve seen no counters to the quantitative philosophical propositions and a general lack of understanding of any of the things that underpin your belief system. You still haven’t explained why your system is right.
- You still haven’t explained why your system is right.
  You're asking me to explain why evidence (rather than faith) is required to substantiate a claim? Are you trolling?
  
  If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else. You don’t know why you believe what you believe and you’re completely incapable (so far, based on the evidence you’ve provided) of doing anything beyond “James Randi says it so it must be true.” You seem to blindly believe anything anyone in a position of authority states (courts, insurance always right provided they have a modicum of evidence to support their claim). You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.
  You remind me of the evangelicals I’m also not a fan of.
  
  If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else.
  Why evidence based truth is better than no evidence faith? Again, are you trolling?
  What makes you believe the messages you send are being received? Faith?
  You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.
  I'll assume you aren't trolling.
  If I make a claim, there are pretty much three options:
  I can either substantiate that claim, often with evidence.
  Or, I can say that "The claim is true, and while I can't prove it, I have faith".
  Or, I can say " I'm not sure if the claim is true or not, but I will gather enough evidence, data, test the claim, repeat it, and see if it still holds true (a distilled version of the scientific method).
  Only 1 and 3 will validate the claim, while 2 doesn't even try.
  From what it sounds like, you believe that option 2 is as valid as options 1 and 3 for validating a claim and finding what's true.
  What makes you think that?
  You keep saying that I haven't explained why options 1 and 3 are right. I'm saying they are the best options we have.
  Absolutely, 100% better than option 2, which is lazy and completely disregards any truths.
  
  Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong? You don’t seem to realize any of the foundation you’re building on and you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.
  Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple. But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough. We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.
  So why are you right? Why is your frame correct?
  
  Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong?
  Why aren't they correct?
  And why isn't 2 wrong?
  you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.
  I'm saying that providing evidence is better than not providing evidence, if the objective is to verify/confirm/support a claim.
  This is universally accepted and applied to just about every aspect of life. It's how you make daily decisions, too. I'm sure you've based 100 decisions on this method just in the last day.
  Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple.
  Sorry, but you don't have irrefutable proof that the sky is purple, but you can say that the sky appears purple from inside that room. You haven't been able to explain why it's purple, you've only made an observation.
  Science has already explained why the real sky appears in colours, and it was done through more than believing the lie of a single person.
  From everything you said, it would be just as right to believe (the lie) without any further investigation. Or even worse, you'd make up a story about the gods being upset with you, and they turned the sky purple.
  But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough.
  That makes no sense. Going outside to get a different perspective, realize that the sky does not appear purple, and enter a line of further inquiry and investigation is exactly how you'd get answers.
  The more evidence you gather, the closer you get to the truth. And when you have enough evidence, you'll be able to prove and test your claim with mathematical precision.
  We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.
  With evidence to support that hypothesis, you would be as close to right as you can be.
  It would surely be better than blindly believing the liar, no?

282 comments