Religious people aren't clever

The most important thinkers in history are still majority Christian, do you consider yourself to be more intelligent than they are? You, who can't even figure out the proper board to use for a thread like this? Also, no one told me to worship God.

>Earth is relatively small compared to the rest of the universe, so this makes it trivial
Dumb logic.

bro if the amino acids combined each iteration and they were all the correct chirality each iteration and each iteration was also viable to reproduce itself there's a GOOD chance of a protein being made.

>People worship god because they're told to
Some who are forced into it through culture and family might, most do it as a choice.
>they don't think for themselves.
If you read more philosophy you'll realize this doesn't get you very far. Phenomenology, existentialism, whatever it may be it requires belief to function as a perspective and has no conclusive answers to your question for suffering.
If you're a "but muh science is the truth" type of guy, realize that science is just an efficient process of assumptions(hypothesis) and confirmation through belief in their results and tools. This belief has been proven wrong over and over again in time, and scientific community has become more passive about their pursuit of "truth" to avoid mistakes.
If you're an ebin nihilist, go kill yourself.

Poland's population is 90% catholic on paper.
That sounds nice and all.
But when you live here, you quickly realise that people only believe out of habit. They don't even think about it. They worship God just because their parents and grandparents did, and because "it's obviously the right thing".
Most people aren't really thinkers, they're pragmatic.

The point of that pic is that if there is anything like god, we are as note worthy for it as are germs for us.

My biggest gripe with religion is that there are so many people whose only argument is
>bro, you gotta believe us! We are right and others arent
Why would i trust muslims? Jews? Christians? Buddhists? Or mormons? They all have same arguments and ZERO proofs.

How old is the earth again? Million years? If you keep buying lottery ticket for long enough, the chance to win converges to 99%. Also nobody said it was an accident, maybe some meteor brough the life with it. Or some god as people call it.

I was a hardcore atheist, but I felt that something was wrong with the ways of the world and how I thinked about reality, I then started reading Greek philosophy and that inevitable led me to Christianism (not Protestantism).

Say that again when the muslims replace your countrymen, lmao.

Well, for starters - Jow Forums is just counterculture.
So this is just a phase where all the kids listen to Sabaton and watch some deus vult memes to get riled up, meanwhile the rednecks in Murica stop fucking their relatives to preach on the net.
Most of the autists here are 100% certain that God exists and are ready to debate you for hours on Jow Forums over it, but the moment they have to go outside and talk to another human being, they shit their pants and have a panic attack.

dude I was agreeing with you, bro.

the odds aren't in the 10^-900 range or anything.

I know the type. They don't really adopt the belief system outside of some simple moral rules that's easy to follow since modern society's morality is heavily based on religion in the first place. And they also go to church on Sundays, praying about things you want or life events that you want to succeed in, etc.

That's just people though, not specific to religious believers. Liberals believing that ultimate equality will bring us peace and happiness, conservatives believing that ethics and morals we used to have are superior to our current ones.
There's no inherent truth and people like to believe that there is.

If you study religion thoroughly enough, you'll be surprised that it's pretty well thought out and despite faith(assumption) being needed it gives you a pretty fulfilling life.

It's cope by people who can't admit we're inherently worthless and meaningless detritus.
>BUT WE WUZ SIGNIFIKANGS
You are a human, which exists because infinite time gave way to infinite probability. The only significance of your existence will be derived from yourself... hence the prevalence of religion. Any semblance of control, after all...

I was saying that most people are in fact forced into religion, but they don't care. Religion isn't as big of a concern as in the previous centuries, and combine that with greedy kikes making every tradition about money - boom, people do it out of habit and to stay socially relevant.
It's never about religion itself, you're lucky if one in a thousand people know what they're talking about when they say that they believe in XYZ deity/system/religion.

And christianity makes sense because you have dozens of highly educated people throughout hundreds of years explaining every tiny bit of it to fit the grand picture.
Let millions of people make a collective effort for centuries for ANY cause, and they'll make it believable.
I mean, they tried with communism, and you have a generation of dumb fucks in Murica saying that communism is a viable solution.
Lmao.

Yeah, people want to believe in something and delude themselves in attempts to make our miserable life into something special and romantic.
They think something is the solution to all this misery and emptiness, fight against all doubts and implement their ideology, then fail because humans are animals that's incapable of following logic and reason.
But through that process of belief and failure, we make progress. Or at least I'd like to think of it as progress.

Maybe the next iteration of this world will be a better place to live, with it's own flaws but manageable ones and significant improvements.
Maybe the old days are better when Christianity was taken seriously and people did live in good faith in a system that ideologically functioned.

Who knows. I'm here right now and it sucks but I'll go along with it rather than being dead literally or philosophically.
Christianity is just preferable way of living for me rather than agnostics/atheists like the anons in this thread flattering themselves over their superior belief in knowing that things are meaningless and coping with it by poking fun at people who believe in something and choose to live.

That's not true. Some are. You still can't explain how the universe began out of nothing. No scientist can.

Clever people can and often do hold incredible idiotic beliefs. Religious = dumb is a very simplistic way to view it and dare I say, not very clever.

>The most important thinkers in history are still majority Christian
Now this is dumb logic. Also not even correct, most were either polytheists or Jews.

I agree 100%

I never got that logic.

>can't explain how X happened
>can pick from couple of plausible incomplete theories
>fuck it, they are incomplete, sky wizard did it

Attached: 0.png (852x550, 517K)

Suffering is subjetive, homocentrist view of religion it's flawed at it's core, it's just flawed. Our planet is, unironically a living being, natural disasters happens, some of them are also man made. Saying god why did you let this happen? gee i don't know next time don't live in center-north japan so you can avoid tsunamis.
People follow a religion for different reasons, tradition being one of those, but in the end is a utilitaristic cost/benefit operation. I rather have a kid who had religious education at age 12 than a zoomer kid with who already watches porn and spends all day procrastinating watching youtubers/ fortnite videos.

Yeah and those countries population are dying out and have to import savages from less developed nations to be economically competitive.

Is religion a really just a cope? or can serve another function like, let's say, self preservation?

Sounds like a good point on why reincarnation is bullshit.

fuck it, a nothing exploded in the nothing then stars n shiet and here we are eons later shitposting on this board.

People adhere to religions for other reasons, most of them are not aware of these.

You should learn to read classical Greek so you can actually read the primary sources, and the gospels in their original form.

>Couple of plausible theory
Dark matter in the current scientific community is just considered as magic to fit whatever theory they'd like to believe in.
>Sky wizard
You already have preconceived bias and trying to discredit a theory with your minimal understanding of it.

Religion is focused more on how you decide to live with a view of the world. And if you decide to believe that the world is created through a fart that happened magically out of nowhere and we're all carbon based blobs with all the actions in our life coming from the need to shit out more carbon blobs, then go for it.

Only that dark matter has pretty narrowly defined properties, so if it were magic, it'd be a very d&d type of system and not the loose stuff from religions to fit the story and hence still a more refined explanation.

Sky wizard describes the idea of most gods pretty on point. It not like I'd mind an explanation with some higher intelligence beyond our understanding or some of the more spiritual shit, I don't care about stuff outside of my control enough to have a bias, whether it's dark matter or sky man or anything else. It's just the former has a solid basis for the claim.

>Dark matter has pretty narrowly defined properties
Properties defined by the needs of popular theories to explain events that's unexplainable with our current scientific understanding of the world.
No proper observation has been made of dark matter.

Religious explanation for the creation of our universe lacks details, but even if all the details could be laid out it's not something that people thousands of years ago or people nowadays could properly comprehend in the first place(since even now we're only making sense of it by making up assumptions about it.)

There's no basis for either beliefs, I do agree that former has more details tied to its assumptions leading up to the conclusion.
The latter serves a better moral and social purposes, the former serves none.

We used electricity long, long before anyone ever saw an electron. There is no need to have observations of dark matter to see the theory as plausible, when we see the effects it's supposed to have based on the same theory that predicted other things we can observe. Given gravitational lensing alone, it'd be more shocking if nothing like dark matter existed. The name is just kinda shitty since it implies something more interesting than particles that barely interact with baryonic matter.

Lack of details in religious explanation wouldn't be as bad if there weren't details that go against everything observed or that go against any resemblance of laws of physics. Specially since the believers claim that these are the absolute truths, there is zero room to go wrong; once you do, you lose all credibility. Science steps over it by going with THEORIES, hence leaves room to be wrong without murdering the belief in scientific principle.

>There's no basis for either beliefs
You wouldn't be able to type this and send it over a few thousands of kilometres if science had no basis. Not 100% confirmed? Sure. But no basis is a bit too strong of a statement unless I got it very wrong.

>The latter serves a better moral and social purposes
Clearly not given the suffering it justified and facilitated. Now obviously the misuse of scientific method did it fair share too but misuse would be the keyword. One can't force religion on people without creating suffering and at least based on the record, practicing it without attempting to force it on others didn't work too well so far for most.

>implying free will has anything to do with disease / natural disasters and tons of other bad shit

Of course it does. Can't blame God for kids choosing to die at birth.

>electricity
Bad example since the scope of the matter are incomparable. There is no observable interaction within the realm of our understanding, and the supposed interaction we see are lights emitted from eons ago.

>There is no need to have observations of dark matter to see the theory as plausible
There's definitely a need for an observation. The problem is that science builds on itself and plausibility is considered as enough to be stable grounds to build further speculations upon.
And plausibility is enough to be taken as facts for the common population.

>Given gravitational lensing alone, it'd be more shocking if nothing like dark matter existed.
Like I previously mentioned, the properties of dark matter are not from observation or experimentation, it's out of necessity to answer questions that couldn't be answered with our current understanding of the world. I fully approve of the validity of the question in hand, but answer with the sole purpose of fitting that question needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Dark matter might as well be called aether.

>You wouldn't be able to type this and send it over a few thousands of kilometres if science had no basis.
That's because the ideas and technology went beyond the realms of theoretical science and was able to go through trial and errors and applied into our daily lives.
Same cannot be said about the creation of the universe or dark matter.

>Clearly not given the suffering it justified and facilitated.
Same as the massive amounts of destruction and loss of human lives that was caused by people with misguided ideology or beliefs
Religion was misused and has been implemented properly in the past otherwise we wouldn't have reached the society we have today.
I assume you're talking about the crusades and whatnot but those were political in their true nature, and religion being practiced at the time strayed pretty far from what it was supposed to be due to hierarchy.

>Lack of details in religious explanation wouldn't be as bad if there weren't details that go against everything observed or that go against any resemblance of laws of physics.
Not exactly. This is a rather difficult and heated topic within Christianity, but the bible is mostly written in parables and it shouldn't be taken literally. Like I said previously, religion is for the purpose of social and moral guidance and not a textbook for how the universe is.

A person who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible would say that the world was created in 7 days and all the proofs that we have of the earth's age in the mantle are just because the earth was created that way.
Then there are people who believes in the allegorical interpretation of the bible who might say that it was said that god made the world in 7 days to lead towards our 7-day weekend structure with the purpose of us resting on the final day. Even in the ancient times where everyone needed to work their asses off for the sake of our survival, resting was mandatory on one day of the week. Nowadays we can prove through science that taking breaks is mandatory for a person to put out consistent performance in whatever job they perform.

>Specially since the believers claim that these are the absolute truths
Those are the extremes. Most would say that they have faith in their religion to be the truth.
>hence leaves room to be wrong without murdering the belief in scientific principle.
And historically not everyone who considered themselves a scientists have practiced that.

I don’t worship God because I was told to, Ive had experiences that I know and believe to be from him, that encourage me to worship him. The needless suffering is not HIS fault (that’s what people don’t understand) it’s all ours since humanity has made the world the way it is, Then you may raise the question, why was it allowed? Well wouldn’t you want JUSTICE for sin? Sin wasn’t allowed to happen rather began by the tempter who was an almighty spiritual being with power [like] God’s..
There’s always going to be a philosophical debate on Predestination and Free-will, yet Both may exist simultaneously it’s quantum physical outside of our knowledge comprehension and Beyond Us..
this isn’t adv unless you’re looking for a reason to believe or not believe

>The problem is that science builds on itself and plausibility is considered as enough to be stable grounds to build further speculations upon.
Where is the problem here?

>Dark matter might as well be called aether.
I don't recall aether having any support based on a theory, it was more of a placeholder than dark matter ever was. The DM is closer to QM concepts or gravitational waves that were hinted by the math but lacked means to be observed.

>technology went beyond the realms of theoretical science
They are just practical applications OF theoretical science. The same theory that predicted how your RAM works predicts dark matter. The same theory that predicts most of our reality accurately, suggests how the universe was created. It's hardly some absolute truth but a pretty solid basis to work with; unlike religious ideas that conflict with almost everything we appear to know about reality and fail to provide any prove-able insights.

>otherwise we wouldn't have reached the society we have today
Big claim, where is the proof?

>religion being practiced at the time strayed pretty far from what it was supposed to be due to hierarchy
And it served to legitimate the hierarchy in the first place. Plus is creates hierarchies, whether it's some men-women shit or believers-unbelievers. Crusades pale in comparison to the inherent limitations of freedom especially abrahamic religions preach.

>religion is for the purpose of social and moral guidance and not a textbook for how the universe is.
That'd be philosophy. Religion claims it legitimacy from the claim that it has a deeper understanding of the universe. The parables rely on a higher power, which relies on reality being very different from out observations.

>that taking breaks is mandatory for a person to put out consistent performance in whatever job they perform.
And the breaks have to be more frequent and longer. A pretty simple example how religious teachings clash with science.

>The needless suffering is not HIS fault
Tolerating it is hardly a great look either. If you see some kid drinking bleach and don't do shit about it, despite it being absolutely in your power and would take minimal effort to stop it ... shit might be not your fault, but you're still quite the piece of shit.

God existing isn't completely impossible but a loving one? Nah.

My concept of God leans towards supreme benevolence more than omnipotence. This is not a new concept.
We're supposed to be what makes God and these higher ideals potent. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Our lack of faith in God is an extension of our lack of faith in ourselves and our community. American citizens feel as if they are trapped in a real life Gotham, because a society which takes a legal monopoly on violence (let's look at examples like drug dealers and women beaters being chased off or killed outright by a mob) needs to ensure law enforcement is dependable and trustworthy. We've done neither.

>Where is the problem here?
Inaccuracy and errors. You are admitting that the scientific method isn't perfect so I suppose that's irrelevant.

>it was more of a placeholder than dark matter ever was
That's the comparison that I'm making. It's a placeholder for the gaps of our understanding of the universe that couldn't be proved.
I'm not discrediting the question, just the ethics of the credit we give to a theoretical answer for the sake of convenience.

>They are just practical applications OF theoretical science.
Which is what I was saying. It stopped being purely theoretical and became something we could observe and experiment with. Not all theories that science hypothesizes comes to that.

>Big claim, where is the proof?
You could go on about the "what if" scenario about the world without religion and say that we would've reached the same kind of structure in our society or that our society would have even better ones, but there's no evidence that could support that since every civilization started and grew with a religion or some kind of a belief system.
There's undeniable influences of religion in our justice system, family structure, and general consensus of morals and ethical values.

>And it served to legitimate the hierarchy in the first place.
Humans use anything and everything they can use to legitimize hierarchy. People have used science to come up with eugenics to create hierarchy between race, philosophy to come up with political systems that legitimizes hierarchy.

>The parables rely on a higher power
"If you do dumb things then you'll have to face your consequences" does not rely on higher power.

>A pretty simple example how religious teachings clash with science.
The religious teaching here is "Take a break one day a week."
I'm guessing you're stretching it for the sake of your argument to say that the teaching is "ONLY take a break one day of the week" but no, the science ends up support the idea of taking a day off in your week.