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

I believe both are not worth wasting time over

and Here's a link to read

for all parties if they wish

Actually, replace believe with "THINK"

Sorry

Then if you don't want to waste your time, perhaps you should not hold ideas that you'd waste time arguing over. They aren't value bound; people can't argue over their worth to a certain value, nor are they goal bound; people can't argue their worth to a certain goal.

In the same way I don't base beliefs around the tooth fairy, why should one hold beliefs about god?

Pretty much the eternal conundrum in that regard.

And I'm not disagreeing with you on that Romerlin.

Why do you not believe in the tooth fairy?

Why do you not worship Thor?

Is there some quality to the Bible, Quran and Torah that make them greater than the gospel of the mysterious tooth fairy?

If they are equal in value, this matters not if the value is 0. If they are equal in value and greater in value than 0 then you should hold all beliefs including the contrary; to which you bump into contradictions and should dispel these ideas to avoid contradictions. If they are equal in value and lesser in value than 0 then they all harm you and you should dispel them.

If you do not dispel these beliefs that must mean there is a value to them associated to you not equal to another, which I then question: why does this arise?

It must be socialised, perhaps it even contradicts with certain values and goals held as desirable by some of those with faith

And I of the antithesis will conflict in favour of my values of which in turn conflicts with the value-conflicting nature of these faithes.

@Wes The Savage There is no such thing as the "metaphysical". If it is part of reality, then we call it physical, and that's that.

If you want to toy with the idea of a "higher realm" that supposedly exist, that would still be physical, even if it follows physical laws different to the universe we are used to.

And if you say science cannot answer something, it is much more honest to say "we don't know", instead of just making stuff up, which is what all religions and "metaphysics" is about.

Issue is it doesn't even make stuff up consistently and bind it to goal or value which is what could validate it.

Instead it's peers try to either bind it to a false notion of 'common good' and 'morality' or try to bind it to the objective nature of the universe through the existence of a deity.

@Neoglitch17 Again, asserting something that's beyond sciences' reach is still invalid, that's not science, that's scientism, but beyond that, I don't disagree with your arguments.

Again, I'm playing neutral party here