there is something in our brain that makes us want to be religious

Like, take me

this does not mean we should not critisize them ofc

I'm an objectivist

the sense of purpose Cytos! wanting to be part of something "GREATER"

lmao, shiv told me to take her

unfortunaly she is underage

i'm an objectionist! I'm against what you say!

[Rand Intensifies]

I form my morals from philosophy

I do not need religion

And this applies to most people

you do though

The point is, once you reject God, you have to have something else to explain things you can never know

in the way we evolved it that is

not religion,

Purpose!

@RyeNorth Wikipedia

its the same thing kinda

I just clean my room

See this is the thing people seem to assume you need to believe in god for the supernatural

@RyeNorth No i don't,

I know its not god, what it IS i don't know, but i know theres a scientific way to explain it 😉

And that is not the cse

BUCKO

we subsribe meaning and rythem to systems we observe, even those we can not explain, even on a subconscious level

The key is ACCEPTING that you won't know until you get there.

which is the religion aspect of inate human cognition

beliving in god helps Mallic,

Cuz people who don't believe in imaginary sky-people tend to not believe in imaginary superstition either

you can not reason everything, you gotta have faith in somethings to remain the same

Here's my opinion about the supernatural. Nothing is true until there is empirical evidence

our brain cant handle the cognitive effort to reason it all

which can be shown in repeatable models

that which we trust in to be the case over and over without cognition, that is our religion system

and everyone has one of those

But then youbwould just label it as natureal

does not involve a god or anything

yes we can Cythos

People just want purpose, they don't care about how solid the explanation is

They just wanna be part of something greater, its ain instinct meant to keep us together so we'd mate and continue the species

shyv have you read any Kant?

I am open to considering theories, but i refuse to accept them until empirical evidence comes up

Basically, what Shiv said.

I heard evidence is racist guys ...

Sure, reincarnation *could* be a thing.

because its essentially the philosophical predecessor to the pragmatists that led to objectivism

Same with something like the Big Bang, or the multiple theories about the origin of the universe

Like those police body cameras

in the sense

But on the other side of death, there's no way of knowing.

did you not accept the sun would come up every day, before you even know the model of the solar system?

do you not accept your car to start when you turn the ignition

nobody rejected the sun coming up Cytos

People rejeced that we circle around the sun, instead of the sun around us

you cant pull up a chair to a table, without assuming when you plant your ass, it will hold you

Honestly I will take any thing over just ceasing to exist

Now, as per the key to avoiding Nihilism, you have to accept the moment you're in.

you obviously never sat on a childrens plastic chair as an adult 😄

that the pragmatists looked to answer the problems that Kant brought up with both the reality of feels and reals

im just saying that the "i only believe things empyrically proven" thing is a lie

no its not 😮

how even perception is flawed just liek how emotions are

there are things you can not have seen the proof for, that you do use

because that proof does not yet exist

If you live a life to reduce the suffering of others, up until the day you find out what happens on the other side of death

Peace

What have you really lost?

im not saying you cant maximise this.. edict

proof of existance doesn't equal proof of outcome Cytos

I don't need to test my car to believe it will work next time i turn the keys around

@>Cytos, de lieve goede synth Dude, I do not need to understand how an engine works to accept that a car can turn on

how about a lamp

I mean isn't there some sort of unprovability theorum or something?

even then, five minutes on wikipedia

FIVE

well you do need to have an understanding to the point that you know how to turn a car on

you cant learn mechanics and physics and chemistry involved in a car in 5 minutes lmoa

You can learn how an engine operates

but even if you could

which is still an understanding hof how a car works, regardless of how low resolution and incomplete it is

🤔

the basic principles

you can actually

Just gotta know the concept of physics, chemistry and energy transferance

you cant do it for everything you do take for granted

but this actually relies on teh faith you have that it will work either way

there is too much proof, and not enough time

there also is not enough proof, in theory, for a being with infinite time

energy transference was explained to me in highschool as "Leprechauns with energy globes running through a track of wire"

Nah, most of them operate on the same principles

False equivalency, Cytos

I don't recall general becoming shitposting but then again I'm new here kek

That's another thing that gets me why are soft sciences like psychology considered the same as pseudosciences?

General is a wildcard

this issnt really shitposting tbh

@Mallic Literally who

They aren't, only portions of them are

You are lol

Unless you're talking about people who call JBP a pseudoscientist

which is hilarious

Plenty considering it's harder to get empirical evidence regarding human behavior then it is for hard sciences like.physics

@Vesdii there have been several cases where Shitposting was used as a news-page in the past, just roll with it

Nah a lot of early psych absolutely was pseudoscience

Like Freud

And crackpots like to hide behind psych

Freud was on a lot of shit man

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ONTOLOGY OF FAITH AND THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF EMPIRISISM