Theology/Theologies. Are they all harmful by default?

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't know what testable evidence is?

I do know. I just can't do it with how I understand testable evidence. I have tried as how I understand testable evidence and I can't make a belief system based only on testable evidence. So you have to use more words and examples.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Wtf is wrong with you people? Empirically derived evidence is testable. Independently and repeatedly verifiable. It is falsifiable.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I do know. I just can't do it with how I understand testable evidence. I have tried as how I understand testable evidence and I can't make a belief system based only on testable evidence. So you have to use more words and examples.

How can you believe in anything that has no testable evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Testable evidence. Is evidence that can be tested. Unlike mindless article of faith...

Yeah, but that doesn't help me. Because I apparently understand those words as different in practice as what you do when you test evidence.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

@Azrael Antilla Anyway, so why do you think theologies are harmful by default? Any research on it? Some historic data?

I've already explained. So many times.

If you believe in articles of faith. Then you will believe anything and you won't know the difference between fact and fiction. Since for you. Testable evidence is no different from untestable crap in holy books.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Yeah, but that doesn't help me. Because I apparently understand those words as different in practice as what you do when you test evidence.

Learn English better. I dunno.

 

[firedragon]

I've already explained. So many times.

If you believe in articles of faith. Then you will believe anything and you won't know the difference between fact and fiction. Since for you. Testable evidence is no different from untestable crap in holy books.

So why are they harmful by default? Any testable evidence?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

So why are they harmful by default? Any testable evidence?

Omfg. I give up. This is like headbutting a brick wall.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How can you believe in anything that has no testable evidence?

Well, I don't understand what you mean, because as I understand the words, here are the limits of those:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

I can't do morality, useful, aesthetics and the supernatural using testable evidence as a positive methodology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Learn English better. I dunno.

I do understand those words and I understand their limit: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[firedragon]

Omfg. I give up. This is like headbutting a brick wall.

No worries. Just so that you realise that you are also believing in something so passionately, that theologies are by default harmful, with no "testable evidence".

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Well, I don't understand what you mean, because as I understand the words, here are the limits of those:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

I can't do morality, useful, aesthetics and the supernatural using testable evidence as a positive methodology.

Who cares about morality and the supernatural? Morality is an abstract concept. It can be whatever you want it to be.

Those things are not real. They cannot be tested in the same way one tests a scientific theory

 

[Azrael Antilla]

No worries. Just so that you realise that you are also believing in something so passionately, that theologies are by default harmful, with no "testable evidence".

You're a very deceptive insulting and completely ignorant dishonest individual. Frankly I never want to communicate with you again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly. Beliefs have impact. It changes our behaviour / lives.

All the more reason to stay clear of faith (belief on bad or no evidence) and consider rational justification (belief on independently verifiable evidence) important.

There is nothing irrational about avoiding that which G-d has made unlawful

Except for the fact that there is zero evidence that there is a god and even if there is, there is zero evidence that the claims about what he / she / it made unlawfull actually comes from him / her / it.

It's as irrational as avoiding that which the extra-dimensional unicorn, or any other unfalsifiable and unsupportable entity, has "made unlawfull".

There is nothing irrational about establishing worship, which brings order into our lives, and G-d's help.

Except when it's done on bad or no evidence. Which incidentally is the case for all religions.

Evil is defined in a general sense, by what it is not—the opposite or absence of good. It can be an extremely broad concept, although in everyday usage it is often more narrowly used to talk about profound wickedness.

I observe that people are capable of evil, and have experienced temptation myself.
Why deny the truth?

Far more people don't engage in "evil" then those that do.
The vast majority of people do not rape, murder, steal, mutilate, abuse, ....

So to say that humans have a "natural inclination" to do evil, is just demonstrably incorrect.
If it were true, most people would engage in evil.

But most don't.

It's one of those things religions tend to say to put humans on a guilt trip and have them kneel down to whatever god the religion in question is claiming.

 

[firedragon]

I will block you I think.

No problem.

You're a very deceptive insulting and completely ignorant dishonest individual. Frankly I never want to communicate with you again.

No worries mate.

Have a great day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No worries. Just so that you realise that you are also believing in something so passionately, that theologies are by default harmful, with no "testable evidence".

Short version of my trip as a skeptic. I learned to doubt religion. Then I leaned to doubt philosophy and science. All 3 are with limits useful, but they all have limits and if you don't understand those limits you can end up harming yourself and/or others. And yes, I can expand on that. But not now.

Cheers

 

[firedragon]

Short version of my trip as a skeptic. I learned to doubt religion. Then I leaned to doubt philosophy and science. All 3 are with limits useful, but they all have limits and if you don't understand those limits you can end up harming yourself and/or others. And yes, I can expand on that. But not now.

Cheers

Doubting is fine mikkel. People should doubt. No one should have blind faith in anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All the more reason to stay clear of faith (belief on bad or no evidence) and consider rational justification (belief on independently verifiable evidence) important.
...

So how do you do the 3 top ones that science can't do: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who cares about morality and the supernatural? Morality is an abstract concept. It can be whatever you want it to be.

Those things are not real. They cannot be tested in the same way one tests a scientific theory

Care is not real as it is only in your mind.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Short version of my trip as a skeptic. I learned to doubt religion. Then I leaned to doubt philosophy and science. All 3 are with limits useful, but they all have limits and if you don't understand those limits you can end up harming yourself and/or others. And yes, I can expand on that. But not now.

Cheers

I

Short version of my trip as a skeptic. I learned to doubt religion. Then I leaned to doubt philosophy and science. All 3 are with limits useful, but they all have limits and if you don't understand those limits you can end up harming yourself and/or others. And yes, I can expand on that. But not now.

Cheers

Well I've blocked the author of this thread. So I is out. Good luck.