Do you believe in God?
Tell me people do you believe in God?
Your belief also precludes all other belief systems just like mine. Mine however represents the vast majority of humans who have ever lived and yours is held by medicated westerners almost exclusively. Check the data for yourself. But that's the least of your problems.
I'll try to explain more clearly.
S(you) object to P(theists) because adherents to P disagree among themselves at a high rate, or something along these lines.
S believes in X(atheism)
X is agreed to be false by all adherents to P.
S n
The objection is they disagree ABOUT SUPERNATURAL MAGIC CLAIMS ... which clearly are just made up and made up and made up, over and over by so many cultures. By your apologetic, lightning (and a million other things) once nearly unanimously attributed to God, all exclude the "beliefs" of people like Benjamin Franklin, and so Benjamin and Tesla and Edison etc. are the ones with the "problem." Sorry, but LMAO. My beliefs are natural and demonstrable, yet your tack is to smuggle in the legitimacy of supernatural beliefs based on popularity. That's not to say I don't accept any non-standard versions of reality, even spiritual ones, but it is to say when you make up a thousand religions there is an inherent problem there with respecting reality or even caring about it. They tend strongly to be poetic, not metaphysics.
The point about the different religions is to point up that each group is presuming theirs is "the true one," and they need to fully realize that they are merely indoctrinated in that blind orientation. They mistake their doctrine for reality, the two are interchangeable in their thinking. But they aren't in reality.
ATHEISM ftw
I reckon the majority of people who believe in heaven/afterlife just sort of convince themselves that it's real as the idea of there being nothing after death is pretty terrifying.
Which I don't blame them for of course, but I can't convince myself of it so I guess i'll just have to continue having a fear of death 😀
Along these lines I just finished Tolstoy's "A Confession" last night. And, after enormous consternation seemingly well beyond that in Ecclesiastes, he arrived back at the position of simple faith and simple life is the great placebo for such existential angst about meaninglessness and death. He didn't use the word placebo, but it seems to be that, that it helps tremendously regardless of whether it is true/real. Great read and very short (70 pages). PDF on line.
Look up how they drilled to the deepest part of the Earth, before or after..... and they either lied, or they drilled to hell. Can someone explain those youtube videos to me? Like, where can we get, "They didn't drill to hell."??? lmao. I'm too clouded for this. So, they drilled to hell and nobody talks about it. Nice.
god is a poo poo face
Yes.
I am oversimplifying and being deliberately pithy given the venue.
However, there is no denying the foundation upon which science advances is objective evidence that is assembled and verified by experiment.
I would say that there is also no denying the subjectivity that underlies, rather that IS, the nature of existence. To the extent that science disregards or poo poo's this fact -- the fact that the only thing we know for sure is that we are a subject -- it is a caricature of a rational scientific method. Yes science tests for repeatability and verifiability toward an understanding of the natural world. It is not the essence of life. And when it disregards and discounts this essence, this fact under all the other facts, it loses its bearings as to what is what.
And so when you experience something and science says in effect, "Repeat it or it didn't happen, repeat it or it means nothing" ... it has lost its place, lost its rational intent. Underneath all the objects is the subject, even the subjective experience of those objects. This is more important than, say, the atomic mass of helium (or any other testable fact).
There is much discussion that Popper's falsifiability standard is oversimplified and often mis-applied. Sean Carroll has discussed this. Science is a method and a tool: not an ultimate arbiter of what reality is. So, to the extent that the scientific method struggles with matters of subjectivity, that doesn't counterfeit the experiences of subjectivity/subject but rather is a limitation of the scientific method.
