Which is more beneficial to society? Atheism or Religion

[Enadail]

Endorsing something that can't be proven is the type of thinking which caused people to place down imaginary monsters? Really?

Yes. Saying "You can't prove God exists, therefore he must not" is pretty much the same as saying "They didn't come back, so /something/ must have happened to them, ergo sea monsters".

It's the same bullshit fallacy with a different label on it.

No, no its not.

Your second statement is "They didn't come back, so something must have happened to them. There have been stories of monsters in the deep waters, so it must have been the monsters." Even today, we make assumptions based on the information at hand.

However, the God claim is not falsifiable, thus is not scientific, and can be ignored. The claim of monsters is falsifiable, and can be proven wrong.

[The Black Forrest]

Which is beneficial to society?

How about not caring who follows either?

[Death Metal]

It's thinking like this that lead the people of the 13th century to think the earth was flat and There Be Monsters Over Yon Horizon.

If you just dismiss things from the start because you "can't prove them" then you ignore the very point of scientific endeavor.

Actually, as you prove a positive, not a negative, if something is inherently unfalsifiable, then it is out of the scope of science. If someone makes an unfalsifiable claim, the scientific thing to do is point, laugh, and walk away... ok, maybe that's what I'd do. The scientific thing to do would be to ignore it.

Well, there's two ways to go with that.

One: Religious beliefs are inherently unfalsifiable and thus are out of the scope of science, thus to "scientifically" disprove the existence of a God is a fallacious endeavor.

Two: In the end, what is unfalsifiable? One could say that, at one point, the idea of a round earth was unfalsifiable because nobody was able or willing to make very long naval voyages. Therefore, in the time of Caesar for example, the notion of a round earth would be unfalsifiable. So if something cannot be proven, who is to say that it cannot later be proven?

Either way, I submit that there's no real such thing as impossible. Just not able to be proven possible yet.

[Great Nepal]

Its beneficial to keep religion (or lack of thereof) indoors while making law, and science totally independent of offending some people's believes.

[Death Metal]

The claim of monsters is falsifiable, and can be proven wrong.

Is it truly? We're discovering new species all the time. Scientists agree that we have absolutely no idea how many different species there are. The "monster" could have just been a perfectly mundane creature we are currently unaware of.

[Xathranaar]

The claim of monsters is falsifiable, and can be proven wrong.

Is it truly? We're discovering new species all the time. Scientists agree that we have absolutely no idea how many different species there are. The "monster" could have just been a perfectly mundane creature we are currently unaware of.

Not really a monster then, is it?

Besides, we're not going to discover the snake-haired woman that turns people to stone, and anyone who knows anything about science knows why.

[Dilange]

Religion, we have legitimate reasons to take off from work.

[Death Metal]

Is it truly? We're discovering new species all the time. Scientists agree that we have absolutely no idea how many different species there are. The "monster" could have just been a perfectly mundane creature we are currently unaware of.

Not really a monster then, is it?

What is a monster but a hypothetical predator?

Say people in some village in, I don't know, Serbia... attributed some gruesome deaths to a giant man-wolf, and investigations into this lead to the discovery of a new, particularly large species of wolf.

Sure, the hypothetical image of the predator may not be the predator that is eventually discovered, but what was discovered, in the end, is still the predator that people were afraid of.

[Xathranaar]

Not really a monster then, is it?

What is a monster but a hypothetical predator?

Say people in some village in, I don't know, Serbia... attributed some gruesome deaths to a giant man-wolf, and investigations into this lead to the discovery of a new, particularly large species of wolf.

Sure, the hypothetical image of the predator may not be the predator that is eventually discovered, but what was discovered, in the end, is still the predator that people were afraid of.

And yet it would still be falsifiable.

You seem to delight in taking odd tangents that don't actually assist your argument at all when scrutinized.

[Enadail]

Actually, as you prove a positive, not a negative, if something is inherently unfalsifiable, then it is out of the scope of science. If someone makes an unfalsifiable claim, the scientific thing to do is point, laugh, and walk away... ok, maybe that's what I'd do. The scientific thing to do would be to ignore it.

Well, there's two ways to go with that.

One: Religious beliefs are inherently unfalsifiable and thus are out of the scope of science, thus to "scientifically" disprove the existence of a God is a fallacious endeavor.

Two: In the end, what is unfalsifiable? One could say that, at one point, the idea of a round earth was unfalsifiable because nobody was able or willing to make very long naval voyages. Therefore, in the time of Caesar for example, the notion of a round earth would be unfalsifiable. So if something cannot be proven, who is to say that it cannot later be proven?

Either way, I submit that there's no real such thing as impossible. Just not able to be proven possible yet.

As to #1: Anyone who says they can disprove the existence of God is being stupid. But its not a claim I've ever heard made.

As to #2: If something can be tested, it is falsifiable. Capability has nothing to do with it. Whether people were capable or willing to make long naval voyages doesn't make the earth being round unfalsifiable. But some points to clarify:

a) This idea that people have thought the world was flat for so long is not really true. Sailors have known the world was round, or at least curved, for many many centuries

b) In science you don't prove something. Proof is for math. In science, something is either supported by evidence, or it is not.

No scientist will every say something is actually impossible. But there are things that are so unlikely, that for any reasonable situation, they are impossible. Case in point, because of the gap between atoms, and the movement thereof, it is theoretically possible for all the atoms in an object to be lined up with the gaps in another object, thus allowing one object to pass through another (in the right phase, and what not). But the odds of this happening are so infinitesimally low, it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.

So yes, there are things that are impossible, and there are things that are impossible for now that may be overturned later. That doesn't make believing in them now any more sensible.

The claim of monsters is falsifiable, and can be proven wrong.

Is it truly? We're discovering new species all the time. Scientists agree that we have absolutely no idea how many different species there are. The "monster" could have just been a perfectly mundane creature we are currently unaware of.

Yes, it is. Claims were made. Those claims can be tested (and have been). Evidence can be structured, models can be made. We have sufficient evidence to say claims for a creature like the kraken are impossible.

If there is insufficient evidence to support a claim, there is no reason to believe the claim. A meteor could hit you when you leave the house tomorrow, killing you instantly. Does this mean you'll never leave your house again? I'm guessing not, because you know the chance of it happening is so low, its as good as impossible. You know that certain claims are not worth believing in. Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? How about shoe elves? Do you believe in a deity, and if so, why not other deities?

[Ovisterra]

-Implying atheism is the opposite of religion.

[Xathranaar]

-Implying atheism is the opposite of religion.

It's not even really an equal opposite to theism. It has no content.

[Ovisterra]

-Implying atheism is the opposite of religion.

It's not even really an equal opposite to theism. It has no content.

It having no content is why it's the opposite of theism.

Theism is the belief in god(s), atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

[United Republic of Montag]

Atheism

[Xathranaar]

It's not even really an equal opposite to theism. It has no content.

It having no content is why it's the opposite of theism.

Theism is the belief in god(s), atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

Equal opposite.

[Ovisterra]

It having no content is why it's the opposite of theism.

Theism is the belief in god(s), atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

Equal opposite.

Why not?

[Enadail]

It's not even really an equal opposite to theism. It has no content.

It having no content is why it's the opposite of theism.

Theism is the belief in god(s), atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

Well, there are religions that don't have or require the belief in a god.

[Ovisterra]

It having no content is why it's the opposite of theism.

Theism is the belief in god(s), atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

Well, there are religions that don't have or require the belief in a god.

That's what I'm saying.

Atheism isn't the opposite of religion.

[Death Metal]

What is a monster but a hypothetical predator?

Say people in some village in, I don't know, Serbia... attributed some gruesome deaths to a giant man-wolf, and investigations into this lead to the discovery of a new, particularly large species of wolf.

Sure, the hypothetical image of the predator may not be the predator that is eventually discovered, but what was discovered, in the end, is still the predator that people were afraid of.

And yet it would still be falsifiable.

You seem to delight in taking odd tangents that don't actually assist your argument at all when scrutinized.

Wrong.

The core of what they were worried about... that something that science has yet to acknowledge is killing their villagers... turns out to be true. They got a detail wrong here and there, but they were still in the end right.

And the people who dismissed their claims, just said it was the work of a common wolf, THEY turn out to be wrong, because what was discovered turned out to be unlike any previously known species.

Now, it's also possible that it could have been a common wolf from the start, of course. But if we just assume it is from the start and do absolutely nothing about it, how the hell are we ever going to find out for sure?

The same core principle- that dismissing something is wrong from the start means you can never find out if it's true- can be applied to flat earth vs round earth, or the notion of space travel. And how many scientific experts were proven flat-out wrong when they asserted that computers could be both more powerful and smaller compared to the primitive counterparts of the 60s?

Hence going back to my original point: Nothing is truly impossible, just cannot yet be proven possible.

[Xathranaar]

Equal opposite.

Why not?

First of all, I was trying to agree with you, but I digress...

Because theism implies content, and atheism does not.

Now lets end this before it turns into another of those silly atheist definition grudge-matches.

[Xathranaar]

And yet it would still be falsifiable.

You seem to delight in taking odd tangents that don't actually assist your argument at all when scrutinized.

Wrong.

The core of what they were worried about... that something that science has yet to acknowledge is killing their villagers... turns out to be true. They got a detail wrong here and there, but they were still in the end right.

And the people who dismissed their claims, just said it was the work of a common wolf, THEY turn out to be wrong, because what was discovered turned out to be unlike any previously known species.

Now, it's also possible that it could have been a common wolf from the start, of course. But if we just assume it is from the start and do absolutely nothing about it, how the hell are we ever going to find out for sure?

The same core principle- that dismissing something is wrong from the start means you can never find out if it's true- can be applied to flat earth vs round earth, or the notion of space travel. And how many scientific experts were proven flat-out wrong when they asserted that computers could be both more powerful and smaller compared to the primitive counterparts of the 60s?

Hence going back to my original point: Nothing is truly impossible, just cannot yet be proven possible.

You don't know what falsifiable means, do you?

[Ovisterra]

Why not?

First of all, I was trying to agree with you, but I digress...

Because theism implies content, and atheism does not.

But surely the opposite of theism must lack content, by definition. The opposite of believing in something must be not believing in it.

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

Can I choose both, and thus reaffirm my fence sitting status?

Or is being a hypocrite a really bad idea?

[Enadail]

And yet it would still be falsifiable.

You seem to delight in taking odd tangents that don't actually assist your argument at all when scrutinized.

Wrong.

The core of what they were worried about... that something that science has yet to acknowledge is killing their villagers... turns out to be true. They got a detail wrong here and there, but they were still in the end right.

And the people who dismissed their claims, just said it was the work of a common wolf, THEY turn out to be wrong, because what was discovered turned out to be unlike any previously known species.

Now, it's also possible that it could have been a common wolf from the start, of course. But if we just assume it is from the start and do absolutely nothing about it, how the hell are we ever going to find out for sure?

The same core principle- that dismissing something is wrong from the start means you can never find out if it's true- can be applied to flat earth vs round earth, or the notion of space travel. And how many scientific experts were proven flat-out wrong when they asserted that computers could be both more powerful and smaller compared to the primitive counterparts of the 60s?

Hence going back to my original point: Nothing is truly impossible, just cannot yet be proven possible.

You should read my post. There are things that are impossible for any practical situation. But your analogy was flawed.

You presented a case where people where dying, and that only two conclusions were reached, either a regular wolf or some new breed of wolf. But both are possible situations. But if there's no evidence to suggest something special/different going on, why assume its something beyond the normal?

You keep dragging this back to religion and creating a false analogy. The question of God is not saying something is wrong to find out if its true later... God is an unfalsifiable claim. It can never be shown as correct or not. And when those experts made a claim that computers could not be made smaller or more powerful, they made a judgement based on personal assessment of knowledge and information available. It was always falsifiable. They were just wrong. The vast majority of religious claims are simply not falsifiable. You can't make the comparison.

[Death Metal]

Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? How about shoe elves? Do you believe in a deity, and if so, why not other deities?

All I will say about my beliefs is that I think they are true, acknowledge they cannot be proven true or untrue, and thus try to not act as if they are certain proof. And to others, I can typically understand, I just don't agree with, but if they're right, well, good for them.