Positive Atheism

[fr0d0]

'Uniqueness' might be your own strawman, but what about spiritual health, spirituality, God, gods, Angels, anti superstition, demons, morals, soul ...religion is prescriptive & descriptive. It 'achieves' fulfilling humans. It's not a subject where you'd expect breakthrough's and innovations. Religious truths are well established.. nothing much new is discovered, although it's always open to improvements. Science on the other hand is very young in places. New discoveries are made all the time. Looking at it long term the scale of scientific discovery will reach a state were there isn't much left to discover.. will that mean it's less valid? Hopefully not.

[Edwardo Piet]

So what can Religion 'do' exactly that science can't? Spew unfalsifiable bullshit?

EvF

[fr0d0]

If science can't spew unfalsifiable bullshit then it isn't free to conclude everything.

Religion enables you to be fulfilled.

[Edwardo Piet]

If it's unfalsifiable it isn't science. If it's unfalsifiable it's beyond proper human understanding by definition so it's absolutely trivial to indulge in pretending that you can know if when you can't. Humans are fallible.

If religion spews unfalsifiable bullshit then it is basically spewing bullshit and pretending to know/understand what can't be known/actually understood. Religion might enable some people to think they're fulfilled. But that's a placebo.... so please do explain how religion can actually 'fulfil'.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Because religion can and does actually 'know'. That you choose to blind yourself to those facts is your issue.

Humans are fallible: religious precept
Unfalsifiable: God, the Trinity, Jesus as God

No one is 'pretending'. Some rationalise using precepts and conclude what enables a fulfilled life.

[Edwardo Piet]

Considering that humans are fallible... it's a contradiction for the religious to then pretend to know anything about the unfalsifiable, unknowable, etc. How incredibly nonsensical.

I blind myself to the facts? Oh really? How so? Are you going to back up that assertion?

Religion can and does actually know? How does 'it' do that? And how can you have any idea that it does when 'it' is apparently so unknowable?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Religion points out what we _can_ know. That we can't understand God doesn't mean we can't discern anything of his nature... religion says. And then we have the vast majority of religious thought that concerns itself with everyday issues. But no.. to you it's entirely unfalsifiable... because you're focusing one a very tiny part.

[Edwardo Piet]

So it's a bit like discovering that the wind exists by seeing a branch shaking in such a breeze?

Indirectly?

In which case I wonder what it is you believe indirectly points to 'him'.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

'Uniqueness' might be your own strawman, but what about spiritual health, spirituality, God, gods, Angels, anti superstition, demons, morals, soul ...religion is prescriptive & descriptive. It 'achieves' fulfilling humans. It's not a subject where you'd expect breakthrough's and innovations. Religious truths are well established.. nothing much new is discovered, although it's always open to improvements. Science on the other hand is very young in places. New discoveries are made all the time. Looking at it long term the scale of scientific discovery will reach a state were there isn't much left to discover.. will that mean it's less valid? Hopefully not.

That's new, labeling a question a priori as strawman. Do you mean there are questions you don't wanna hear about? Just tell me, frød.

1) spiritual health...as in psychiatry, psychology, reverence of nature? You can get secular counselling these days you know? So, not unique to religion. Read Comte-Sponville about it.

2) sprituality....hah, ha, looks like a double entry to me to pimp the list

3) God, gods, Angels, demons, ...so religion is useful for information on gods, angels and other stuff that religion has fantasized about...true it has some use as a body of fairy tales but not uniquely and still pathetic

4) anti superstition...nice one, generally a religion defines superstition as that what the other religions do, but they provide no across all religions verifiable criterion. Let alone a test to show that religion is not superstition itself

5) morals....definitely not unique to religion, certainly not coherent and consistent across religions, and arguable religion is a source of bad habits like fundamentalism

6) soul...you still owe me a definition that shows in what way soul is different from 'identity', don't worry I can be very patient

7)... yeah sure, a long list of religious goodies that are unique to religion and a benefit for the world

"Fulfillment"....not unique to religion, also there are a lot of atheists around testifying of the fact how unfulfilling their life as a religious person has been.

"Religious truths are well established.. nothing much new is discovered, although it's always open to improvements." That's an understatement since an agreed on method for improvement is totally absent in religion, it sticks to dogma and if opinions collide the result is most always a new branch on the gigantic tree of all religious creeds. The only change I see is from an authoritative institute with prescriptive interpretation to a personal a la carte interpretation (there is a New Age snack of the day I can highly recommend to you) of religious dogma. Don't know if that is progress.

"It's not a subject where you'd expect breakthrough's and innovations." Tell me about it. It lags behind general educated opinion several centuries.

[fr0d0]

Sorry Rabbit I've grown more than tired of you. Your ignorance is overwhelming and transparently pointless. You make me feel so apathetic. Forgive me for ignoring you.