How can there still exist people who practise religion even though it has been scientifically proven to be false...

You step on the same ground and listen to the same stories.

Therefore what they did and thought of the same experiences are always relevant, for you in particular.

higher* reasons. Do not presume to be a mind-reader when all you do is read your -own- mind.

lol
You're religious because it appeals to you on an emotional level. That's fine, but it has sweet fuck all to do with any sort of objective fact or any desire higher then not wanting die and cease to exist.

Don't try and pretend that there's anything special about your specific religion that changes this, all the claims are equally insupportable.

>multiversum theory
>theory

How does a theory prove anything you retarded cunt

Depends on what religion you're refering to. Alot of them, such as christianity, make claims which can be proven to be either right or wrong.
However, your assertion reveals that you don't understand the burden of proof. It's up to the claimant to provide evidence for his claim and not the other way around. As it is I know of no religion who has ever managed to provide compelling evidence for it being correct.

>How does a theory prove anything you retarded cunt
You should improve your scientific understanding.
With that being said the multiverse 'theory' is really a hypothesis.

Evolution and gravity are theories too

There’s a million “DUDE ATHEISTS R BRAINLET FEDORAS” threads a day but interestingly you only complain about this one

In my language, theory means how something could be, it doesnt mean that something is a fact. Its like saying the old greeks had a theory of what lies beyond the north (hyperborea) so it must be true.

Calling it a hypothesis just further proves my point.

Sure buddy :)

How did science disprove religion?
Also its quite clear that without religion humanity would die.

you're just some maggot born to die like all the other godless filth that preach the garbage i just read. So don't presume to know me.

There's a different between general usage of a term and the scientific one. In science a theory is as solid as you can get.

Did a magical sky father cause a flooding few thousand years ago that killed everybody except few guys and animals on a boat?
Or did a bearded really turn water into wine just magically?

>its quite clear that without religion humanity would die.
Would you care to explain what you mean by this?

Ah Christians. Always so caring and mercyful :)

Didnt know that. Point about multiverse still stands though.

Thanks for clearing it up user.

>act like a shit that crawled out of a horse
>WHY AREN:T PEOPLE NICE?
Im not christian

No problem mate, and yeah, the multiverse thingy, allthough immensly kewl, is not something we have proof for as far as I know.

Can you prove that it didn't?

When you look at human history most feats can be attributed to religion.
For example do you know all those beautiful works of art and architecture, those are mainly made about religious persons or concepts.
See cathedrals, paintings and arabic mosaics for example.
Also since the abrahamic faiths became dominant humanity understood that the earth was temporary when we found out a way to escape it space travel became a symbol for humanity's future where we spread to the galaxy in order survive the inevitable coming doom.
Even if it won't be god literally destroying the planet it is pretty obvious that we as humans ourselves will destroy it fro short sighted economic gain and power over others.

>How can there still exist people who practise religion even though it has been scientifically proven to be false?
>scientifically
Are you stupid?

You're an arrogant stuck up faggot who thinks he's somehow different or special from the larger mass of humanity. You're not any better then they are and based on how you act towards people engage in very light criticism of your beliefs, you have no basis for your posturing other then your own flatulence.

Don't presume that you're anything other then a faggot.

>>Also since the abrahamic faiths became dominant humanity understood that the earth was temporary when we found out a way to escape it space travel became a symbol for humanity's future where we spread to the galaxy in order survive the inevitable coming doom.
Our understanding of earth as being temporary only really started with knowledge about our sun and the lifecycle of stars in general. All that existed before that was easily refuted fearmongering about the apocalypse.

Dude the sun is probably going to outlive humanity.

Oh I see. You're either mad, using hyperbole or deluded.

>it has been scientifically proven to be false
But modern cosmology supports deism more strongly than ever

Whichever civilization you look at the religious buildings were always the biggest and most complex. Religious architecture challenged contemporary architectural techniques and pushed for innovation.

Well, science has never been the best at promising things and giving hopes or even threatening and, as a result, keeping society from falling apart. Basically, that's nothing like what it does, opposite to religion.
People are not robots. Not only that, but they have cultural identities and religion is a part of them. No matter whether you, me or anyone else likes it on not. So, asking why they still go to church is a pretty stupid question considering its answer is obvious: religion is a part of their reality.
Now, a more important question in my opinion would be: what can be done so that religion can be used in a way to help bring progress as well as preserve the different existing cultural identities. This would be a question worth asking ourselves especially since it would give religion reasons to exist.

We don't know how long humanity will last. We could kill ourselves with nukes tomorrow or spread to the stars over the next few thousand years.

What we do know however is that stars have limited amounts of fuel to burn through and once that fuel is depleted enough, our sun will grow into a red giant and earth is perma-fucked. Oh and there will be serious problems before this as some millions of years from now our sun, while still a yellow dwarf, will begin emitting enough excess heat to make all liquid water on earth evaporate. So yeah, we need to be off the planet by then assuming we don't kill ourselves first.

How can there still be people who accept logical positivism on faith alone, yet rebuke others who place their faith elsewhere?

Your "proven to be false" isn't an eternal truth solely because it happens to be the epistemology you hold yourself.

This is a good, reasoned response. Shame today so many people want to beat others over the head with their own personal ideology to validate themselves.

>Assert that nobody needs religion to guide them morally
>Tons of soulless atheists adopt leftist virtue signalling as a way of validating their existence
>Now society supports the idea of allowing children to take sex change hormones, having men allowed into womens toilets if they "identify" as one, the idea that all cultures are fundamentally equal except evil western christian based culture and openly pushing for white males to be aborted because they are the source of all modern ills
T-Thanks Hitchens...

No fucking shit sherlock. Religion have always been of great importance to humanity at large and as such it's really not surprising that power and prestige has been centered around it. To go from that to humanity would die without it is just silly however.

user you're talking about millions of years while I'm predicting doom for the coming centuries.

>agricultural land is decreasing due soil erosion
>sweet water is depleting due to global warming
>world population is increasing
>natural forests are decreasing due to mass deforestation
>general flora and fauna diversity is decreasing due to the reason mentioned above
>underdeveloped countries which huge populations are quickly developing meaning that more resources will be used

All these reasons could be cause for disaster.
Ofcourse there are also political and social things I didn't talk about. Humans may die and countries may cease to exist but if we keep damaging our only habitat before it can fix itself we are going to have a bad time as a species.

The fact that people are gullible idiots is not something that shines positive light on religion.

Science actually proves that Islam is correct, not sure the fedoras can't grasp this

I didn't mean physical death but humanity' motivation to progress generally came either form competition or religion which sometimes caused competition.

Blaming atheists in general for the agitation of marxist ideologues is wrongheaded. I can find all sorts of critiques of the extremes of modern leftism made by various atheists for example. You're also ignoring/forgetting the simple fact that religious institutions are not immune to leftist infiltration and subversion.

All of those things are resolvable without killing off the human species though. Granted, some of them may be resolved in ways that results in lots of dead people.
>underdeveloped countries which huge populations are quickly developing meaning that more resources will be used
This in particular for example. However, none of them are the sort of hard problem that is the inevitable death of the star our planet revolves around.

>The fact that people are gullible idiots
The fact that Christianity was a convenient way to keep the 90% of brainlets who simply aren't capable of creating their own value system from scratch in line means it was a bulwark against something much worse. There is no "atheist utopia", just a dystopia where people are swayed by the most effective propaganda and make decisions based on whatever brings them the most immediate gratification at the cost of their community and greater society.

How so?

If youre into genre fiction, you might like Star's Reach. It's set in North America a couple hundred years after the implosion of industrialized society. There was no single catastrophe, the climate just slowly became more shitty and the environment was more polluted, as industrial production ground to a halt as a result of resource shortages, and the law of diminishing returns in every field, including science, until eventually everything came apart under its own ever increasing weight.

That's a pretty optimistic way of looking at things when you look at the priorities of most governments around the world.

There is such a thing as intuitive, innate morality. Certain values will be present in virtually every society. They can be warped by ideology, but probably not permanently, and simple common sense can guide towards a better future.

>I can find all sorts of critiques of the extremes of modern leftism made by various atheists for example
Yeah but you have anecdotal quotes about how you know some of the "good ones". I have actual data showing that atheists swing very hard to the left and that the extreme left wing fringe is almost entirely atheist. How many of those blue haired pigs pushing for communism are actually religious? Maybe a few wiccan hipsters among them but thats it

Thanks I'll look into it sounds interesting.
But yeah that's basically how everything is predicted to go.
Also forgot to say but sea levels are rising while inland areas are seeing desertification which mean that coastal areas will flood with salt water while inland people will die either from starvation or a lack of water.

religion bad but my spooks good

Those morals were developed through trial and error not because it is in our genes or something.
Look at little kids for example first conflict they will have is about one taking the other's toy.

>simple common sense can guide towards a better future.
Extremely doubtful. The genie in the bottle is out. Unless you can argue that convincing women that leaving the workforce and going back to raising families is in their and societies best interests then there is no real solution for the decline of the west.

>humanity' motivation to progress springs partially from religion.
You really need to educate yourself better in terms of history.

Yeah, the midwest is pretty much a desert and much of the East coast has been lost.

Somewhat uncommon for the genre, technology has not been forgotten, most of it is just prohibitively expensive.

The story is basically a guy traveling and exploring the society that exists between the Mississippi and the Appalachians.

You're implying that christianity wasn't shaped by society which is blatantly untrue. You're also implying that christian values and norms are at large desirable which I honestly can't see how anyone would actually believe.

>Those morals were developed through trial and error not because it is in our genes or something.
They are universal in all cultures, so it is unlikely that the basis is not biological.

>Look at little kids for example first conflict they will have is about one taking the other's toy.
Kids are mentally incompetent. Their brain is literally unfinished.

>Unless you can argue that convincing women that leaving the workforce and going back to raising families is in their and societies best interests then there is no real solution for the decline of the west.
Why would telling dangerous lies save the west?

>You're also implying that christian values and norms are at large desirable
Why wouldn't they be? I find the Christian moral system much more appealing than modern societies lassaiz faire "do as thou wilt" attitude.

I think we are currently at a local minimum, inbetween post-scarcity utopia and pre-industrial meaningful life. Both would be better for the happiness of the average person, but we can't go back without destroying the world in the process, and it's questionable whether things will last until the future becomes practical. The future is the only chance we have though, so let's hope for the best. We now know that fusion power is a pipe dream. Either the world will have switched to something else, or it will no longer have the capability to exploit it by the time it becomes economically feasible (current optimistic but still realistic projections place that at the beginning of the 22nd century), which is disheartening, because it is questionable whether alternative sources of energy can support a first world life style for everyone, and there's little doubt that the standard of living will equalize in the mid term.

>There is no "atheist utopia", just a dystopia
How much of a brainlet can you possible be? An atheist utopia/dystopia makes absolutely no sense. You can't base a society on the concept of a lack of beliefs in deities. That's a no starter.

Wage stagnation, fertility rate falling below replacement levels and the continual expansion of the welfare state are all direct results of women entering the workforce at large. Traditional gender roles existed for good reason and the feminist revolution did far more harm than good to society.

>Why wouldn't they be?
Because they are silly, petty, anti-social and dangerous. The only saving grace is that they allow for a secular society.

>An atheist utopia/dystopia makes absolutely no sense.
youtube.com/watch?v=4iOGeCLpAY0

Christianity is increasingly irrelevant to today's society (You can only read so far into ancient texts to make them applicable to the modern world without losing what it is) and contains many mental illness inducing memes that we really don't need on top of already heavily mental illness inducing industrial society.

Those are the result of women voting much more than of women working.

Name a single positive thing that has come from the rejection of Christian morality in the west

>Wage stagnation, fertility rate falling below replacement levels and the continual expansion of the welfare state are all direct results of women entering the workforce at large.
And where is your evidence for this bold assertion?
And no, corellation is not causation.

I'll give you a couple:
Freedom of religion, martial prowess, abolishment of slavery, equal rights and eye-watering anal.

>Those are the result of women voting much more than of women working.
First two definitely not. When significantly more women started joining the workforce it flooded the low skilled labor market and suppressed wages. This resulted in the situation we have today where after decades of suppressed wage growth both partners in a relationship need to work full time to support themselves. If both partners are working full time they have no time for kids. That has nothing to do with voting, it's just simple consequence of around 30% of the population who ordinarily would've been out of the labor market competing for jobs.

Because humans see with their eyes that their sight is a part of the brain. Whence come vision?

Science is defined by the peer reviewed consensus of facts based on proofs.

Basically, scientific authority is given to the observer.
If we only observe/perceive the reality in which our brains provide, then it's more fallible than the skepticism or denial, because both skepticism or denial doesn't require a higher proof.

Rather than believe in the convenient reality (the one we observe with our senses), some people would construct a reality where their god reigns supreme.

You can't scientifically prove them wrong; they're right, on the same authority that you're right.

>abolishment of slavery
This was a primarily Christian movement in the US though

>We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples. Nor are they to lend aid and favor to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not humans but rather mere animals, having been brought into slavery in no matter what way, are, without any distinction and contrary to the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold and sometimes given over to the hardest labor…

>We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters

20 years before the emancipation proclimation

please don't ignore the other ones

>This was a primarily Christian movement in the US though
Be that as it may it still goes against christian morality. The bible clearly have no issue with slavery, in fact it supports it by regulating it and telling the slaves to obey their masters. If the christian god could ban the consumption of shellfish he could do the same for owning another person as property.

And here's what the religious in the South had to say:

> The Southern Baptist denomination was formed in 1845 when Baptists split over a question of slaveholders as missionaries. Freed from the sensibilities of their Northern brethren, the Southern Baptists became strong and vocal advocates for slavery as a Biblical institution. As one leader, Dr. Richard Furman, wrote to the governor of South Carolina, “the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” [see the whole text of this speech here]

> Over the years, Southern Baptist deacons and pastors moved in and out of Ku Klux Klan leadership positions. In 1956 the minister of the largest Southern Baptist church in the nation testified before the South Carolina legislature, voicing his support for segregation.

patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2017/06/pro-slavery-history-southern-baptists/

They did went as far as defend it using the Bible itself.

>abolishment of slavery, equal rights
Not that user nor Christian, but these things are heavily related to Christianity values. Iconic Abolitionlists such as William Wilberforce was a pious Christian. Christian hymns such as "Amazing Grace" also becomes one of most popular song among liberated Black slaves.

>eye-watering anal.
That user asks "positive thing", not disgusting degenerated behavior.

>Not that user nor Christian, but these things are heavily related to Christianity values.
You should really read the bible if you think that's the case.
People can hold morals that go against their religions.

So why does a group of Baptists in the south override the judgement of the Pope made 15 years before that? It even says in your quote they deliberately broke away from the North who were anti-slavery. You're not discussing this in good faith if you're going to find fringe examples and hold them up as representative of all Christianity when I can easily find atheist groups who believe worse things and do the same back. We both know neither case is actually representative of either groups morality by and large, so lets not stoop to the level of groping around the internet to find who can find the worst example of the others ideology.

Freeing the niggers was the worst thing we ever did

Which is why we should look to what the bible has to say on the subject.

I'm not one of the previous posters who have been attacking Christianity as a monolithic entity. Among the numerous adherents there are very different interpretation of the Bible, and for the slave holding adherents in the South, slavery was entirely consistent and supported by their literalist interpretation. I'm just saying, the very idea of "christian morality" is ill defined in these cases where people come to different interpretations of the same book, especially when the more literal translation "lost" the morality fight.

Don't be a fucking retard. Slavery was at best a necessary evil.

>People can hold morals that go against their religions
But that's not what William Wilberforce and John Newton thought.

Personally I'm not a fan of Christianity or any Abrahamic religions, but I do believe they possess profound influences toward human societies, including both good and bad.

The Bible doesn't make any judgements on what the laws of man should be, only what the laws of God are. Whether or not slavery should be legal isn't addressed in the Bible at all, it's only mentioned in the context of the era where it was legal. It's more concerned with the treatment of other people than the social and legal relationships between them which change with the times

>But that's not what William Wilberforce and John Newton thought.
Which is fucking irrelevant. Their personal understandings don't have a monopoly on christianity. The fact is that the bible, which is the best source for a set of universal christian morality, clearly supports slavery. Claiming that it doesn't is just ridiculous. As such you are in the position on having to argue why we should take person(s) X's personal beliefs over the bible as default christianity.

>I do believe they possess profound influences toward human societies, including both good and bad.
Well ofc it does. A persons beliefs inform their actions.

That's a dodgy answer at best. Whether or not you treat someone like a slave is very heavily concerns "with the treatment of other people".

If god thought it important enough to ban things such as the consumption of shellfish and the mixing of fabrics in clothing you would think that he would've also banned slavery if he was against it. As it is it's instead regulated, which as I said earlier is a clear signal of support, and slaves are even told to obey their masters.
You're fooling yourself if you don't think that the bible is pro slavery.

Not really. You're just reading into it that because slavery was legal and common at the time the letters of the NT was written that it's a condoning slavery. It's not. It's making a point that you treat all other people with love and servitude whether that person be a friend, a subordinate or a master, whether they be just or unjust. Because slavery occurred at the time it was used as an example. But the point can be equally made by using the modern example of an asshole boss and a worker, saying even if you have a boss who isn't very pleasant don't stoop to their level, keep respectful and do your job.

Again, I need to make the point that the laws of the land which we subject each other to are not addressed in the bible at all. If people want slavery they can have slavery, if they don't, they don't. The point is that earthly matters are left to the custodians of the earth while spiritual matters are left to God. There are always going to be a poor oppressed class of people in any age. Just because slaves were used as a topical example at the time doesn't mean that the message was "Slavery is a-ok guys", the message is that all people are held to the same level of conduct no matter their circumstances, slave or slaveowner, king or serf, executive or janitor.

Finally I want to point out that there are many passages referring to the fact that Jesus chief concern is the poor and oppressed.

>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed

His message was simple. If you're treated badly on earth, endure, you'll be rewarded later and the unjust will be punished. If you're taking away a pro slavery angle from the new testament then I question how you're reading it because it specifically deals with the spiritual liberation of the oppressed and making all men equal before God

I'm reading into it? At face value the OT has many references to people taken as slaves (and there were no implication of it being wrong most of the time), and in the NT there was no explicit command to free slaves. A literalist interpretation will naturally arrive at the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with slavery in God's eye.

The anti-slavery angle can only be reached very implicitly through the NT's heavy insistence on the "love your neighbor" command, as one shouldn't treat as property someone they love. This implicit interpretation is what eventually prevailed, but not for a long time and sometimes only after bitter fighting.

Okay now you're just coming across as desperately trying to spin something.
Comparing being own to having a shitty boss is just pathetic desu.

>Again, I need to make the point that the laws of the land which we subject each other to are not addressed in the bible at all.
Wew lad

>If you're taking away a pro slavery angle from the new testament then I question how you're reading it because it specifically deals with the spiritual liberation of the oppressed and making all men equal before God
Way to dodge the question. Equality before god has nothing to do with equality amongst fellow humans. The bible is clear on which side it's standing regarding slavery. If you were intellectually honest you would've acknowledge that if you have read the bible.

>Equality before god has nothing to do with equality amongst fellow humans
I agree, but the point you're missing is that the Bible says literally nothing about how people should organize or what the social hierarchy should be. That's deliberate. The indisputable interpretation of the New Testament is that you should treat all people as your equal, or even be subservient to them. All it says is that if you find yourself at the low end or the high end of whatever social hierarchy people have set up how you should behave towards others. That's it.

Equality amongst humans is a human issue and the Bible says nothing about it because if we want equality among humans any time we so please, it's up to us, that's part of our free will. However spiritually we're all equals and it's fairly obvious that the general attitude expected of Christians is one of humility and placing others before themselves.

>The indisputable interpretation

Some people would beg to differ. Many believe the message is that either you believe, or fuck you for eternity, regardless how humble and loving you were.

>in the NT there was no explicit command to free slaves
There was no explicit command to keep slaves either. Like I said the Bible keeps out of matters of how people should organize themselves and what form society should take. Democracy, feudalism, tyranny, it's literally irrelevant.

>Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.

I think it's worth noting that 80% of african americans are still devoted Christians, which is the highest of any demographic in the US. This is because Christianity is specifically a religion that gives hope to the oppressed and promises justice to be carried out against oppressors. You're talking about it like it should be a complete guide to how humans should govern themselves which is stupid. That's our job, all we need to know is what God expects of us with regard to how we treat each other.

Religion claims book to be infallible divine word of god
Science proves some claims in book to be impossible
Book is fallible
Religions claim is falsified
Religion tears itself apart because it hinges on being infallible

Sure, that's your interpretation and really I have nothing against it, but there were and still are many interpretations, including some that demanded people be kept enslaved.