Quebec will now ban street prayers as the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) “super-minister” of identity, Jean-François Roberge, has just passed his bill to strengthen secularism.
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
Do you not realize how much “belief” is in science?
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
We still today believe in the big bang theory, not because it’s been proven, but because there’s a consensus that says it’s the most plausible explanation.
Science still doesn’t tell us even what to believe regarding the origins of life and consciousness.
We believe in dark matter and dark energy, not because they’ve been directly observed, but because they’re the best possible explanations that we have at this time for certain phenomena that we believe to be their effects.
We believe that there must be some overarching principles that can unite the formulas of quantum physics and general relativity, but no one knows what they are.
Often in medicine, decisions are made based on what the doctors believe, even when there isn’t 100% certainty.
So stop pretending there’s no such thing as belief in science, because there absolutely is.
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
Because there was evidence of its existence, in the form of occasional (but detectable) interactions between particles that produced unexpected results. No one thought the Higgs Boson existed until there was a scientific reason for its existence. If this is what you’re referring to as “belief in science”, then we’re dealing with multiple definitions of the word “belief”, because that’s nowhere close to how it works in religion.
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child, the scent of blossoms on a gentle spring breeze, the taste of fresh fruit in summer. How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child… How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
So, that’s actually the difference I’m talking about. In science, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you say is “huh, I don’t know the answer to that”. You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Right, he “believed” in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didn’t match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasn’t quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newton’s.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the “belief” in religion is nothing like the “belief” in science.
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if you’re going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
I purposely avoided bringing science in this. You did to match your own narrative. No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
We’re talking about worldviews which is just another name for your beliefs about the world. Whatever you base your worldview on is what you believe. That is a basic fact about how words work.
You purposely avoided an angle which plainly shows the error of your assertions? And you’re accusing me of “matching my own narrative” when I show those errors with that angle which you ostensibly avoided?
Also, these are your literal words:
In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
So no, you didn’t avoid bringing science into this.
Also:
No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
Bold words for someone trying to rationalize forcing your worldview on others by claiming it’s scientific and therefore deserves an exception from the “don’t force your worldview on others” rule…
Have you considered competing in the Olympics? Because those are some impressive mental gymnastics…
Heyaaaa now you’re using fallacies :) I’ll gladly go for olympics if there was a fitting discipline yes.
By all means keep defending Rhodes antiquated systems that promote abuse and suffering. I know where we both stand and it suffice to me; you’re never going to change my views on that.
Really? Point out the fallacy that I used? Cause I’ve already pointed out several that you have.
I’m not defending any systems, I’m defending people’s rights to believe in the worldviews of their own choosing, and categorically rejecting any system that would force one set of beliefs on everyone else.
systems that promote abuse and suffering.
You think atheists can’t promote abuse and suffering? What about the Bolsheviks who committed genocide in the name of purging religion? You support that suffering, because the people you don’t like are the ones suffering?
So… quantum gravity theory, string theory, unified field theory, big bang theory, big crunch theory, and dark matter/dark energy are all beliefs then and in your opinion should therefore be banned?
Those are a tad further than opinions and feelings I suspect. And also are absolutely unrelated to how religions are generating suffering and should be abolished.
Well you might want to do more than just “suspect,” because according to the definition of “belief” that you provided, those are still beliefs.
Also, the majority of suffering being “generated by religion” are due to religions trying to force their worldview and set of beliefs on others, which is precisely what you are trying to do.
In other words, the suffering is caused because they want to eliminate people who have a different set of beliefs from their own. Again, which is exactly what you’re attempting to do.
That is your personal belief. You are advocating to force it onto others who do not share it. How is that different from forced conversion?
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
Do you not realize how much “belief” is in science?
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
We still today believe in the big bang theory, not because it’s been proven, but because there’s a consensus that says it’s the most plausible explanation.
Science still doesn’t tell us even what to believe regarding the origins of life and consciousness.
We believe in dark matter and dark energy, not because they’ve been directly observed, but because they’re the best possible explanations that we have at this time for certain phenomena that we believe to be their effects.
We believe that there must be some overarching principles that can unite the formulas of quantum physics and general relativity, but no one knows what they are.
Often in medicine, decisions are made based on what the doctors believe, even when there isn’t 100% certainty.
So stop pretending there’s no such thing as belief in science, because there absolutely is.
Because there was evidence of its existence, in the form of occasional (but detectable) interactions between particles that produced unexpected results. No one thought the Higgs Boson existed until there was a scientific reason for its existence. If this is what you’re referring to as “belief in science”, then we’re dealing with multiple definitions of the word “belief”, because that’s nowhere close to how it works in religion.
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child, the scent of blossoms on a gentle spring breeze, the taste of fresh fruit in summer. How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
So, that’s actually the difference I’m talking about. In science, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you say is “huh, I don’t know the answer to that”. You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Right, he “believed” in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didn’t match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasn’t quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newton’s.
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the “belief” in religion is nothing like the “belief” in science.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if you’re going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
I purposely avoided bringing science in this. You did to match your own narrative. No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
This is you bringing science into this.
Let’s go back and stick with reality and facts. My bad.
We’re talking about worldviews which is just another name for your beliefs about the world. Whatever you base your worldview on is what you believe. That is a basic fact about how words work.
Let’s go back and forget about all the things you’ve said that are wrong and all the ways you’ve contradicted yourself?
I don’t think so…
deleted by creator
You purposely avoided an angle which plainly shows the error of your assertions? And you’re accusing me of “matching my own narrative” when I show those errors with that angle which you ostensibly avoided?
Also, these are your literal words:
So no, you didn’t avoid bringing science into this.
Also:
Bold words for someone trying to rationalize forcing your worldview on others by claiming it’s scientific and therefore deserves an exception from the “don’t force your worldview on others” rule…
Have you considered competing in the Olympics? Because those are some impressive mental gymnastics…
Heyaaaa now you’re using fallacies :) I’ll gladly go for olympics if there was a fitting discipline yes.
By all means keep defending Rhodes antiquated systems that promote abuse and suffering. I know where we both stand and it suffice to me; you’re never going to change my views on that.
Really? Point out the fallacy that I used? Cause I’ve already pointed out several that you have.
I’m not defending any systems, I’m defending people’s rights to believe in the worldviews of their own choosing, and categorically rejecting any system that would force one set of beliefs on everyone else.
You think atheists can’t promote abuse and suffering? What about the Bolsheviks who committed genocide in the name of purging religion? You support that suffering, because the people you don’t like are the ones suffering?
Oooohh you just don’t know what words mean. Okay. I’ll let someone with more patience for stupidity handle this. Good day to you.
Fresh from the Oxford Dictionary ;
But please be my guest and educate me.
And you believe this definition to be true?
Nope. I don’t need to believe in them, they just are. Produced by persons undoubtedly smarter than I am.
So you trust this definition because experts have told you it is so?
How are agreed upon definitions remotely similar to religious beliefs ?
Religious beliefs are agreed upon systems of opinions about philosophy. Definitions are agreed upon opinions of what words mean.
Both were constructed by humans to better understand and communicate about our world and our place in it.
So… quantum gravity theory, string theory, unified field theory, big bang theory, big crunch theory, and dark matter/dark energy are all beliefs then and in your opinion should therefore be banned?
Those are a tad further than opinions and feelings I suspect. And also are absolutely unrelated to how religions are generating suffering and should be abolished.
Well you might want to do more than just “suspect,” because according to the definition of “belief” that you provided, those are still beliefs.
Also, the majority of suffering being “generated by religion” are due to religions trying to force their worldview and set of beliefs on others, which is precisely what you are trying to do.
In other words, the suffering is caused because they want to eliminate people who have a different set of beliefs from their own. Again, which is exactly what you’re attempting to do.