What matters is the actual observable scientific facts
This is a centuries old debate about empiricism vs rationalism. Take some time to learn about it.
Ultimately though, science has limits. One thing I often hear is that science can’t prove anything; it can only disprove things. The point I’m making is that we can’t prove religion is not real, nor can we prove it is real. Yet, people believe it to be real. Likewise, you can show measurable things like deaths caused by cars. However, that does not justify imposing your will on other people. What are you measuring those deaths against? Given that almost every person owns a car and drives daily, is the issue moot? Am I wrong for driving a vehicle if another person gets into an accident?
The internet is one of the biggest tools used by sex traffickers and pedophiles. Should you smash your computer? Does it make it okay for you to smash another person’s computer who has nothing to do with any of that?
Science has limits. It can’t solve questions that do not have measurable or empirical evidence. It can’t provide answers to moral, ethical, and existential questions that are deeply personal and subjective. These questions often require us to draw on philosophy, religion, and personal values to find meaning and make decisions.
Things that are not measurable or lack empirical evidence are not necessarily any less real than anything else. You can’t prove why two people are in love. You can measure process and hormones in the brain and body. You can’t scientifically explain why. You can’t measure consciousness so is that not real? Are we just brains inside a jar floating in space hallucinating all of this?
Hell trusting that science is the be all end all is a belief itself.
All that to say that taking the position that you have a right to tell others how to live is an asshole position. Sometimes its necessary but its easy to go too far even if you think you’re doing good.
All that to say that taking the position that you have a right to tell others how to live is an asshole position.
Yeah no not at all when they literally only exist to endanger the lives of others. This is like saying it’s an “asshole position” that neo-Nazis and the KKK can’t rally and fire guns in public spaces because they have a right to live how they want. After all, they totally aren’t a danger to literally everyone who’s not a right-wing white guy, they’re just living how they want. Although you apparently listen to Joe Rogan so I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a neonazi collaborator.
“Science has its limits” is no reason to entertain seemingly schizophrenic beliefs in the divine. We have actual facts, they have their fake God.
If you think “communication devices can be used by pedophiles” is anywhere comparable to “this specific type of vehicle is literally killing thousands of children and polluting the environment and is one of the greatest threats to you in your everyday life” then you’re unable to be reasoned with. They have a choice to literally just use a sedan or even a van or something that isn’t superbly effective at murdering pedestrians, but they choose to blow a hundred thousand on a fancy orphan-crushing tank.
Also…
You can’t prove why two people in love… You can’t scientifically explain why.
YOU LITERALLY CAN DO EXACTLY THIS. This is a matter of technological advancement and the fact that human brains have an inconceivable amount of complex data in them for our current observation methods and have a lot of plasticity, not whether it’s possible. You can already use biochemistry/neurology to accurately predict this kind of stuff, even exact responses to environmental stimuli, in some simpler creatures. It is scientifically possible to do the same thing for humans, it is just physics/chemistry. You’re gonna need a lot better argument than “[obviously complex thing in science] isn’t solved yet so science and religion are equally as rational”. It’s like saying we shouldn’t trust mathematics because we haven’t solved the Riemann Hypothesis. We already have real, reproducable proof that physics, chemistry, and all that are objective and accurate to reality and can be used to accurately tell the future, even if we haven’t completely solved them. There is no such thing for religion.
You also can’t measure “consciousness” because “consciousness” doesn’t mean anything. It’s a completely subjective word that wildly changes based on who you ask. There is no “having consciousness” or “not having consciousness” or “having 50% consciousness” or something. It’s a ways we try to think of our perception/responses to the environment, which you can measure.
“Rationalism” doesn’t mean believing in shit some guys made up vaguely based on other shit guys made up a long time ago and saying it can’t be any more absurd than science. You wanna know what Rationalism is?
a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
And you wanna know what empiricism is?
view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.
Neither of these are fond of religious garbage. They are both ways of interpreting science, and they aren’t a complete dichotomy because scientists use both. Religion is just emotional, illogical, completely subjective, and not based in reality.
Schizophrenic people may often believe the delusions in their head are real. It’s excusable because it’s not really their fault, but I can’t excuse religious people for the same thing because they choose to believe this garbage, sometimes even well into adulthood. It is irrelevant that you think it is real or that schizophrenic people and people with dementia think their delusions are real. Or that children think the tooth fairy and santa are real. That doesn’t make it any more up for consideration to actually rational people. The logical conclusions from data are far more important than the make-believe of the Pope.
This is a centuries old debate about empiricism vs rationalism. Take some time to learn about it. Ultimately though, science has limits. One thing I often hear is that science can’t prove anything; it can only disprove things. The point I’m making is that we can’t prove religion is not real, nor can we prove it is real. Yet, people believe it to be real. Likewise, you can show measurable things like deaths caused by cars. However, that does not justify imposing your will on other people. What are you measuring those deaths against? Given that almost every person owns a car and drives daily, is the issue moot? Am I wrong for driving a vehicle if another person gets into an accident?
The internet is one of the biggest tools used by sex traffickers and pedophiles. Should you smash your computer? Does it make it okay for you to smash another person’s computer who has nothing to do with any of that?
Science has limits. It can’t solve questions that do not have measurable or empirical evidence. It can’t provide answers to moral, ethical, and existential questions that are deeply personal and subjective. These questions often require us to draw on philosophy, religion, and personal values to find meaning and make decisions.
Things that are not measurable or lack empirical evidence are not necessarily any less real than anything else. You can’t prove why two people are in love. You can measure process and hormones in the brain and body. You can’t scientifically explain why. You can’t measure consciousness so is that not real? Are we just brains inside a jar floating in space hallucinating all of this?
Hell trusting that science is the be all end all is a belief itself.
All that to say that taking the position that you have a right to tell others how to live is an asshole position. Sometimes its necessary but its easy to go too far even if you think you’re doing good.
Yeah no not at all when they literally only exist to endanger the lives of others. This is like saying it’s an “asshole position” that neo-Nazis and the KKK can’t rally and fire guns in public spaces because they have a right to live how they want. After all, they totally aren’t a danger to literally everyone who’s not a right-wing white guy, they’re just living how they want. Although you apparently listen to Joe Rogan so I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a neonazi collaborator.
“Science has its limits” is no reason to entertain seemingly schizophrenic beliefs in the divine. We have actual facts, they have their fake God.
If you think “communication devices can be used by pedophiles” is anywhere comparable to “this specific type of vehicle is literally killing thousands of children and polluting the environment and is one of the greatest threats to you in your everyday life” then you’re unable to be reasoned with. They have a choice to literally just use a sedan or even a van or something that isn’t superbly effective at murdering pedestrians, but they choose to blow a hundred thousand on a fancy orphan-crushing tank.
Also…
YOU LITERALLY CAN DO EXACTLY THIS. This is a matter of technological advancement and the fact that human brains have an inconceivable amount of complex data in them for our current observation methods and have a lot of plasticity, not whether it’s possible. You can already use biochemistry/neurology to accurately predict this kind of stuff, even exact responses to environmental stimuli, in some simpler creatures. It is scientifically possible to do the same thing for humans, it is just physics/chemistry. You’re gonna need a lot better argument than “[obviously complex thing in science] isn’t solved yet so science and religion are equally as rational”. It’s like saying we shouldn’t trust mathematics because we haven’t solved the Riemann Hypothesis. We already have real, reproducable proof that physics, chemistry, and all that are objective and accurate to reality and can be used to accurately tell the future, even if we haven’t completely solved them. There is no such thing for religion.
You also can’t measure “consciousness” because “consciousness” doesn’t mean anything. It’s a completely subjective word that wildly changes based on who you ask. There is no “having consciousness” or “not having consciousness” or “having 50% consciousness” or something. It’s a ways we try to think of our perception/responses to the environment, which you can measure.
“Rationalism” doesn’t mean believing in shit some guys made up vaguely based on other shit guys made up a long time ago and saying it can’t be any more absurd than science. You wanna know what Rationalism is?
And you wanna know what empiricism is?
Neither of these are fond of religious garbage. They are both ways of interpreting science, and they aren’t a complete dichotomy because scientists use both. Religion is just emotional, illogical, completely subjective, and not based in reality.
Schizophrenic people may often believe the delusions in their head are real. It’s excusable because it’s not really their fault, but I can’t excuse religious people for the same thing because they choose to believe this garbage, sometimes even well into adulthood. It is irrelevant that you think it is real or that schizophrenic people and people with dementia think their delusions are real. Or that children think the tooth fairy and santa are real. That doesn’t make it any more up for consideration to actually rational people. The logical conclusions from data are far more important than the make-believe of the Pope.