Saying that religion is bullshit, and not choosing to believe in a god are not the same thing. Religion not only exists, but it gives people fulfilment. You cant call religion bullshit because that is a blanket statement. One would have to have examined alll religions and determined that they are bullshit, which is also subjective. Its dismissive and disrespectful to millions of people whos lives are fuller because of their faith. Some people are just overly skeptical, too left brained, and cannot have faith in anything, and the rates of suicide, dying alone, drug abuse, among people with little faith is a tell of something isnt it? Faithful people are better people. They may be more gullible, but they will give you the benefit of the doubt. Thats what faith is. We want to marry a faithful person, not a skeptical person. There are also religions which are highly logical such as Illuminism. Tell me that is a bullshit religion. No one will, because they are instead focussed on literal interpretations, too far left brained that they dont have the imagination to understand allegory, poetry and myth.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Most people who claim mainstream religions dont even truly understand them. But some of us have gnosis. If anything I respect agnostics, because they are not so full of shit and unreasonable. They just say that they dont know. Atheists insist that there is no god, which is just as unprovable as those who say there is one. They are just miserable fucks.
You have to realize that highly scientific types are destructive by nature. The scientific method itself is about trying to disprove things. It is highly skeptical and destroys things. This is not a good mind to have, and this is why those types are more likely to die alone, have drug and drinking problems, suffer higher rates of depression and commit suicide. They are generally more miserable people. Now that is what I call some bullshit.
(Apologies in advance for the wall of text...this is a long reply).
There's a difference between asserting "There is no god!" and asking, "Where is the proof for the god you believe in?". Claiming there is no such thing as a god would be silly, because it's impossible to know for certain. That's Agnosticism: a lack of knowledge. "Does God exist? I don't know."
Atheism, on the other hand, is a belief claim. "You believe a god (or gods) exists? What proof convinced you?" Requesting proof is not the same as declaring a believer is wrong or that there is no God, it's just laying the burden of proof on the one making the positive claim.
Richard Dawkins, one of the most vocally outspoken atheists of the modern era, proposed a 7-point scale in his book The God Delusion. If 1 was "Absolutely certain without a shred of doubt that a god exists" and 7 was "Absolutely certain without a shred of doubt that no gods exist", Dawkins ranks himself at a 6. That's important: Dawkins isn't saying there's no such thing as god, he's saying the evidence for the existence of a god is inadequate to convince him. Dawkins, like any good scientist, is willing to change his mind, he just lacks the proof required for him to do so.
The scientific method is not about disproving things, it's about testing claims which are testable in a manner others can replicate to rule out false positives. I have a hypothesis, I make a prediction, I test my hypothesis multiple times, and when I am satisfied I have come to the right conclusion, I publicize the results so others can repeat my experiments, examine my results and theirs, and refine the conclusion as needed. It'a s self-correcting process, guaranteed to ensure the best conclusions are drawn from the best evidence.
Skepticism is healthy, not destructive. A skeptical person simply wants to believe true things. There's a difference between 'skepticism' and 'being close-minded'. A skeptic, when confronted with a person claiming the ability to turn lead into gold, says, "Really? Can you show me?" and will proceed with belief claims from there. A close-minded person, on the other hand, would call bullshit without waiting for the evidence. That isn't to say the close-minded person is automatically wrong, but a skeptic is at least willing to lend the benefit of the doubt, weigh the evidence, and see where that takes him or her.
Finally, socially-isolated individuals, no matter their belief or non-belief in a deity, tend to have higher rates of depression, substance abuse problems, and chances of dying alone. Atheism alone is no predictor of these things, since many non-believers lead highly productive and enjoyable lives, but atheists who go public with their beliefs often suffer heavy losses to their social support groups like family, friends, and (obviously) church as a result. We see similar problems when people convert from one religion to another; leaving one group to join another makes for a less-distressing overall change since it's exchanging one safety net for another, but just ask a former Jehova's Witness or Mormon about the cost of conversion even to another Christian religion: being cut off from one's parents, siblings, or children is no joke. Muslims who convert to any other faith (or no faith at all) literally risk death in some parts of the world. Losing one's safety net in general commonly results in depression, suicide, and substance abuse--one's religion or lack thereof plays little part in this aspect of human psychology, but belief isn't a switch one can turn on and off at will. If a person loses faith or belief in anything, it can be shattering. Take away the community's support or the way of life they have always known and it is literally life-threatening if they can't find shelter somewhere. Anyone would be miserable under those conditions, theist or otherwise. :)