Anti-religious question

[SakuMemories]

I never said lack of religion leaves a void. You can easily confirm everything else by science right? So why can't you confirm your philosophy on life? People who are religious may use their faith in God or their religion to qualify their philosophy on life. Yet people will say "GOD DOESNT EXIST!" as somehow it's a means to disqualify yet they themselves do not have an answer beyond that statement.

Your second paragraph also doesn't make sense. This isn't about empathy.

You clearly have a philosophy on life because you constantly choose what you do and it is rooted in something. The fact that you make decisions based up your own experiences are indeed a philosophy. Yet you couldn't anecdotally confirm everything you do yet you can do it and have faith in those choices.

No, making decisions based on experience is not philosophy. Google "philosophy" and try to see what it means.

Also literally no one goes around shouting GOD DOESNT EXIST. On the other hand, millions of people go around preaching JESUS SAVES, sometimes in a very aggressive manner. This is what i mean about empathy. Try to understand how others view the world and also start criticizing yourself first instead of complaining about imaginary atheists.

 

[Burning Hammer]

No, making decisions based on experience is not philosophy. Google "philosophy" and try to see what it means.

Also literally no one goes around shouting GOD DOESNT EXIST. On the other hand, millions of people go around preaching JESUS SAVES, sometimes in a very aggressive manner. This is what i mean about empathy. Try to understand how others view the world and also start criticizing yourself first instead of complaining about imaginary atheists.

the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

knowledge and reality are keenly based upon your own experiences. Your level of knowledge will vary but chances are you have philosophies based upon them. I should have worded that better, it's almost 4 AM. My bad.

Again, empathy has no point in this discussion. I understand how others view the world. I just want to know if they realize it's just as "stupid" as they think others are or ridiculous or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Chinballs]

...Try to understand how others view the world and also start criticizing yourself first instead of complaining...

I agree with this statement.

 

[Burning Hammer]

I agree with this statement.

Again nobody is complaining here.

I can criticize myself for a lot of things, but I try to better myself(not that others don't but since it's directed at me). I am just burning time on a forum and asking a question that's pretty straight forward. But people are dancing around the question because they can't criticize their own beliefs. Ironic.

 

[Codger]

You really need to give a good example of this "philosophy on life" or this is pretty meaningless

 

[SakuMemories]

the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

Thank you. So its totally unrelated to what you said. Its not a bad wording, its just a wrong concept you have in your mind.

Again, empathy has no point in this discussion. I understand how others view the world. I just want to know if they realize it's just as "stupid" as they think others are or ridiculous or whatever you want to call it.

You totally don't. There is no life philosophy to be found. You are making another strawman thread because you are mad at atheists.

 

[Dayman1984]

I'm not sure where you are getting the assumption that everyone has a "philosophy of life." There are a lot of people in this world whose philosophy of life is simply surviving to the next day.

Additionally, I'm not sure where you got the idea that everything can "easily be confirmed by science". Scientists themselves will admit that there are things that can't be studied and/or proven. So your argument is based on a false premise. It gives me the creeping suspicion that you don't know much about science.

 

[SakuMemories]

99% chances are, whoever you are and whatever your personal beliefs, you believe in things like paleomagnetism, particle physics, wave–particle duality and Sage's flips, and these things might as well be magic to you but you still believe in them for some reason.

Myth busted, we are all religious.

Were do you guys live? The other dude has atheists running around screaming GOD DOESNT EXIST and now you meet people who religiously believe in particles. For fucks sake man. I hope one day you visit the civilized world where such people are nowhere to be found.

 

[Codger]

Were do you guys live? The other dude has atheists running around screaming GOD DOESNT EXIST and now you meet people who religiously believe in particles. For fucks sake man. I hope one day you visit the civilized world where such people are nowhere to be found.

You just don't get it you do?

Physics and belief in a magical Jew 2000 years ago are the same thing really. In fact we might as well stop teaching physics entirely because it's just a load of beliefs - like religion. You might think you've seen a particle in cloud chamber and inferred its mass by it's trajectory in a magnetic field, but that's no different to believing Jesus fed a lot of people with some fish and bread at the end of the day. You can't really be sure of anything can you? I mean, you might be in a dream right now. Or maybe I am. Who really knows. Certainly not those pointy-headed "scientists" that's for sure. All you need to know is in the bible and that's the end of it.

 

[LilMountain]

Philosophy like... shit happens and then you die? Cause I think Science can confirm both of those things

 

[PorkPiePusher]

And there you go - it IS that same stupid argument as I suspected.

Oh FFS, arguing on SD seems to make people dumber, I really thought that equating Sage and paleomagnetism made it clear - my post is making fun of people equating philosophy and/or science unsubstantiated by scientific principle to religion which is a sui generis intelectual pursuit.

 

[Codger]

Oh FFS, arguing on SD seems to make people dumber, I really thought that equating Sage and paleomagnetism made it clear - my post is making fun of people equating philosophy and/or science unsubstantiated by scientific principle to religion which is a sui generis intelectual pursuit.

So you were being sarcastic?

 

[Andy Capp]

You just don't get it you do?

Physics and belief in a magical Jew 2000 years ago are the same thing really. In fact we might as well stop teaching physics entirely because it's just a load of beliefs - like religion. You might think you've seen a particle in cloud chamber and inferred its mass by it's trajectory in a magnetic field, but that's no different to believing Jesus fed a lot of people with some fish and bread at the end of the day. You can't really be sure of anything can you? I mean, you might be in a dream right now. Or maybe I am. Who really knows. Certainly not those pointy-headed "scientists" that's for sure. All you need to know is in the bible and that's the end of it.

It took me a moment to realize you were being sarcastic but your post makes the same point I have been trying to make.

I can recreate any of those results with the correct equipment. Scientific results, to be valid, must be reproducible. Most of the posts ITT agreeing with the TS seem to have very misguided notions about how science works.

Philosophy cannot be proven any more than God can be proven to exist. It's not science. You can have all the philosophies you want, religious or not; it doesn't invalidate observations of scientific phenomena.

Please stop conflating scientific knowledge (i.e. obtained via observation and experiment) with religious (or philosophical) belief because it's nonsensical. The two can inform each other to a degree, but they are totally different. The OP assumes there is science behind philosophy and there just isn't any.

 

[HelloJapan]

Its a meaningless question because there isn't a replacement for religion. Lack of religion does not leave a void. You don't need to replace it with anything, philosophy or not. Therefore you don't have anything to apply this "confirm by science" rule.

Religious people usually have problems empathizing with non-religious people. They think religion is replaced by "atheism" or some kind of "life philosophy". Its not.

I know you will just repeat your initial statement but please take the time to re-read what I said before doing so.

Also nobody has a life philosophy anyway, whether he is religious or not. OK maybe such people are like one in a thousand, and a further one in a thousand from them actually live by their philosophy. So its a pointless question.

Good summation imo.

 

[Bagatur]

why must there be any philosophy of life? or meaning and purpose of life for that matter?
what is the philosophy of life of a fly? just because we are more advanced than flies doesnt mean there is more to our lives that to a fly's, on the grand scheme of things of course.

 

[klimt]

When it comes to questions like these, that have been addressed with great simplicity, clarity, thoroughness and command, the best recommendation I have is to read a few books on the subject.

If you are asking such basic questions as these, I'm afraid to say that it's rather obvious that you haven't explored the topic much.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

What is your philosophy on life? Can it be confirmed by science? If not, aren't you religious?

I have a philosophy of life, yes.

Thanks for asking.

 

[anomynous]

it looks suspiciously like the tedious "faith" = "belief" = "having any belief" therefore if you hold any belief about anything at all, you're religious. This has been used very recently on this very forum to claim belief in science is essentially the same as believing in Christianity.

supposedly parallel to belief in a supernatural superbeing, as opposed to any other belief such as "I believe the sun will rise again tomorrow"

And what's wrong with this argument anyway? Seems a legitimate point to me.

explain what "faith in the unknown" these atheists have.

I'm not the original poster, but surely you would concede that modern science does not know everything, right? I mean, you surely wouldn't maintain that no major advances in knowledge are yet to be made, correct? Because, if you do, it seems to me a concession that you believe that things that are currently not known will be known in the future. Which looks a lot like faith in the unknown.

 

[Andy Capp]

And what's wrong with this argument anyway? Seems a legitimate point to me.

I'm not the original poster, but surely you would concede that modern science does not know everything, right? I mean, you surely wouldn't maintain that no major advances in knowledge are yet to be made, correct? Because, if you do, it seems to me a concession that you believe that things that are currently not known will be known in the future. Which looks a lot like faith in the unknown.

I explained already the what's wrong with it.

I can recreate any of those results with the correct equipment. Scientific results, to be valid, must be reproducible. Most of the posts ITT agreeing with the TS seem to have very misguided notions about how science works.

Philosophy cannot be proven any more than God can be proven to exist. It's not science. You can have all the philosophies you want, religious or not; it doesn't invalidate observations of scientific phenomena.

Please stop conflating scientific knowledge (i.e. obtained via observation and experiment) with religious (or philosophical) belief.

The expectation that there is more to be learned about the universe we live in does not equal faith. It equals the ability to understand that our picture of the universe can change when new discoveries are made but they don't make previous results invalid. Science is about building upon verifiable knowledge while religion is about taking things on faith without proof.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Was raised a Catholic
An atheist now
However, the principles of Jesus are solid, so I try to live by them for the most part.
Philosophical Christian minus the religious/spiritual claptrap