[iamzack]

If it's untestable, it doesn't warrant any kind of consideration for any reason.

[Scotty]

If it's untestable, it doesn't warrant any kind of consideration for any reason.

Then you're not arriving at that conclusion scientifically.

[iamzack]

Name one untestable thing that matters even to people who have never heard of the idea.

[Qent]

If it's untestable, it doesn't warrant any kind of consideration for any reason.

It warrants consideration from me, because I'm interested in what I should do independent of what's in my self-interest.

[iamzack]

Altruism isn't untestable.

[Qent]

It might not be what I should do either.

[iamzack]

You need religion to tell you to be nice to people?

[Scotty]

Name one untestable thing that matters even to people who have never heard of the idea.

This doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing, does it?

Science is not for the whys.  Do you still disagree with that?  If so, provide arguments backing it up.

[Qent]

I didn't say what it is that I should do. Maybe I'm supposed to be mean to people. But I want to know if there is some way that people should act, and if so what that is. So I need to consider whether or not the universe has a purpose.

[The E]

Science is not for the whys.  Do you still disagree with that?  If so, provide arguments backing it up.

Science is all about the "how". But in the process of explaining the how, it might disprove specific "whys". Whether or not you accept the scientific explanation, or stick to the disproven stuff is up to you. Just don't complain when people point and laugh at you when you do.

[iamzack]

Name one untestable thing that matters even to people who have never heard of the idea.

This doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing, does it?

Science is not for the whys.  Do you still disagree with that?  If so, provide arguments backing it up.

Yes. Is there anything except religion for which we go "well, there's no evidence for it, so it's up to people to decide whether it's real or not." There's no scientific evidence for whys. That means whys probably don't have answers. If science can't find a purpose for our existence, then there is most likely no purpose for our existence. It is irrational and unreasonable to believe that there IS a purpose.

I didn't say what it is that I should do. Maybe I'm supposed to be mean to people. But I want to know if there is some way that people should act, and if so what that is. So I need to consider whether or not the universe has a purpose.

Why do you have to be told what you're supposed to do? Can't you just do what makes you happy as long as you're not hurting anyone else? Why is that a hard concept to grasp?

[General Battuta]

Iamzack is correct. The universe provides no normative information on human interaction.

The only guidelines available to you are those supplied by evolution, which will select for stable societies that boost the fitness of all those within them.

[Aardwolf]

@ iamzack: but unicorns DO exist! Just... they're underwater, and they're called narwhals. And they have a campaign list on the wiki

[karajorma]

How can science say there are no unicorns?!

If a hypothesis is untestable, it's probably false, ain't it?

Who says it's untestable? You can test for the existence of unicorns pretty easily. You go where someone claims there are unicorns and look for evidence. We can fairly conclusively state that there aren't unicorns on Earth. There might be some kidnapped by aliens on another planet somewhere but there aren't any here.

The brain in a jar thing is completely untestable, there is no test you could devise which wouldn't be skewed by the fact that all the results you are seeing are fictional anyway. So science can't disprove that particular belief. It could prove it perhaps, but only if it is true and willing to be proved.

Logic isn't science though. Logic does mean that you would be irrational to believe it. Your objections to belief in religion are logical ones, not scientific ones. People who understand science tend to think in a more logical fashion so it's hardly surprising that a larger percentage of scientists are also atheists. This doesn't mean that it was science that disproved religion though. Simply that they applied Occam's Razor and picked the simpler choice.

[iamzack]

You know, normally I'm prone to believing in silly stuff like souls and afterlife and **** like that. Talking to religious people makes me so furious I temporarily become an atheist. Stupidity offends me. Silly, huh.

[Scotty]

Interesting to know that you consider my personal beliefs stupidity.

Silly also how you can't prove it's stupidity.

[Aardwolf]

She probably implied it, and you probably weren't wrong to infer it, but she didn't say that. She only said stupidity offends her... or do you personally believe that your religion is stupid?

[Qent]

Nah, I think she meant that when stupid people (not necessarily anyone from this forum) believe the same thing she does, she changes her beliefs. At least, that's what I find myself doing sometimes.

[Mongoose]

Name one untestable thing that matters even to people who have never heard of the idea.

String theory.

[Rodo]

I just love to have some of those long debates with my mother about god an all that stuff, but it's just that... debate. You can't go further with someone that truly believes in something, even if you could actually prove something about religion, it would still be hard for many to even start thinking otherwise.
The hard thing about this is that, like in many other fields, religions tend to have tons and tons of hardcore fanatics which can't seem to realize where their rights end and the decisions and choices the other ones make cease to be THEIR BUISNESS, after all... tolerance is preached by most of the religions today, but none seem to abide it.