Yup xD

good convo though 👍

Yh great talk 👍

@Phobia "evidence and facts aren't relevant here"

Phobes, if the relevant question is "Is there any god?", then that IS a scientific question about reality, and not merely an opinion.

If you have no evidence and facts to support your belief in a god, then that belief is irrational.

It's like me believing in a magical invisible dragon that protects me from all harm... but when I get harmed it was because the dragon knew it was best for me in the long run to get harmed that one time.

That's a pretty inoffensive belief that doesn't affect anyone, but it's still fully irrational.

in a discussion where neither side can prove or disprove their point, nothing is relevant 😉

that's why I say spiritual debates are a waste of time

Why are scientific debates of value?

let people believe what they will, so long as they're not hurting others

Why should they not hurt others?

because science is the study of the physical world

we're talking about issues entirely contained in the mind

So god is an issue of the mind and not the physical world?

correct

So god has no impact in the physical world?

he's not here, he's not tangible

No, and he says as much 😉

if he had an impact free will would be tainted

So why value god?

why value Christianity?

why concern ones self with the personal beliefs of others?

I understand what you're saying

that's precisely why I says it's a waste of time and energy

:)

Because it satisfies me to eliminate beliefs that I deem as irrational.

@Jonathan The Shaman I’m gonna be a manager soon even though I’m gonna be making 8 still

If you want to start with irrational beliefs, I'd suggest starting with statism

😉

kek fair, but there are many contradictions in society beyond just the state

but that's going left side

a fair point

gotta run to the store, be back in a bit!

👍

@Phobia If you care about being in line with reality as much as possible, you would care about this kind of debate.

If truth isn't important to you, then debates like this will seem pointless to you.

But I will tell you this tho:

I used to be a deist. Briefly after I became a pan-en-theist. I didn't arrive to those positions by analyzing the evidence - I just chose to believe them, like you choose what to wear in the morning.

However, after actually researching about this stuff, about religion, atheism and science, I came to a very important conclusion:

When talking about the existence of real phenomena, or beings, in our reality, **only beliefs with EVIDENCE** are rational. Choosing to believe in something does NOT make it true.

Thus, I couldn't believe in any kind of god anymore, because there wasn't (and isn't) any evidence that demonstrates the existence of such a thing.

Deep down, you likely believe that, because you want God to be real, THAT makes it real.

But, if one day, you FULLY understand and internalize the idea that the only valid and rational beliefs related to the workings of reality are those with **evidence**...

You WILL NOT be able to believe in God anymore. Even if you desperately wanted to.

@Larbi I also like to squish superstition whenever I see it

@Neoglitch17 Here's the thing about trying to make a higher power a scientific question.

It's trying to use science beyond its actual boundaries, it's trying to apply science to the metaphysical, which is outside of the scope of science, it's when you cross the barrier from science to scientism.

Do you know what Wittgenstein said about scientism?

What makes the metaphysical worth discussion?

Pretty much the point

You can hypothesize or arguer doubt, it doesn't matter, this is purely from a scientific point of view and remembering what Ludwig Wittgenstein was basing his criticisms of scientism on.

Why be critical of 'scientism' if the metaphysical isn't worthy of discussion one way or the other.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/regulars/ray-monk-wittgenstein

I'm criticising both