Poll of the Day > How do people still believe in religion in 2017

(+) Yeah! (+)

Because... Seriously?

No, seriously? Are you asking why people still believe in religion? That's like asking why people still wear shoes when, obviously, crocs are better (I'll leave crocs vs. shoes to another debate).

People have had religion pretty much since the dawn of man. Over the course of about 10,000 or so years (or however mankind has been around. I think it got extended) and maybe even older if our predecessor species also had religion. It's shaped our culture, guided our knowledge for good and ill, and defined how we live and our very ideologies and philosophies. And you think that's just going to CEASE in a generation? Let alone world-wide? There are still a few worshipers of Odin and Zoroastrianism hanging around in small packs. Did you seriously think it was going to just... die?

Yea. This isn't a question. You already knew the answer. This is you going 'lol! Look at those stupid people believing in their invisible man in the sky! Not me! I'm smart because I don't believe in that! Are you guys also smart?'
---

Lokarin posted...

However, there are things that are both facts and opinions, such as "George Washington was the first president of the United States"

That is just a fact. You might have an opinion explaining why another person was functionally president prior to George Washington, but the fact is that no one was president of the US prior to him.
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Lokarin posted...

However, there are things that are both facts and opinions, such as "George Washington was the first president of the United States"

That is just a fact. You might have an opinion explaining why another person was functionally president prior to George Washington, but the fact is that no one was president of the US prior to him.

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction
---

Lokarin posted...

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Lokarin posted...

However, there are things that are both facts and opinions, such as "George Washington was the first president of the United States"

That is just a fact. You might have an opinion explaining why another person was functionally president prior to George Washington, but the fact is that no one was president of the US prior to him.

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction

Okay, I'm way too drunk to do anything but skim this, so correct me if I'm wildly off base.

What someone considers a personal fact is irrelevant because it it still an opinion. Flat-earthers do not only consider something fact, they have opinion that disagrees with fact, this is an important distinction. Opinion does not override provable fact. Ever. There are some nebulous concepts that blur the two, but thinking the earth is flat is not one of them. Even if current universal models are wrong, flat-earthers have utterly failed beyond "gravity isn't real". We can prove George Washington was the first elected president. We can prove the earth is not flat. Having opinions to the contrary doesn't make you a contrarian, it makes you a dumbass.
---

You're basically right. The main thing is that people incorrectly conflate facts with provability. For example; "The earth is flat" and "the earth is not flat" are both technically facts, even though only one is true.
---

Smarkil posted...

Took me a second to realize that was John Oliver. Perfect choice, though.
---

Who is John Oliver?
---

Lokarin posted...

Golden Road posted...

Apparently I forgot that God was proven not to exist earlier this year. Sorry about that, I'll try harder.

No evidence for a negative claim is required since there's no evidence for a positive claim yet

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence
---

-Komaiko54- posted...

Lokarin posted...

Golden Road posted...

Apparently I forgot that God was proven not to exist earlier this year. Sorry about that, I'll try harder.

No evidence for a negative claim is required since there's no evidence for a positive claim yet

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

That is true. One can't say definitively "There is no god because the believers in god cannot provide evidence", however - you still need an evidence AT ALL for your positive claim otherwise it can be dismissed
---

Lokarin posted...

-Komaiko54- posted...

Lokarin posted...

Golden Road posted...

Apparently I forgot that God was proven not to exist earlier this year. Sorry about that, I'll try harder.

No evidence for a negative claim is required since there's no evidence for a positive claim yet

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

That is true. One can't say definitively "There is no god because the believers in god cannot provide evidence", however - you still need an evidence AT ALL for your positive claim otherwise it can be dismissed

Logically, yes, which is why I am not religious myself. But the religious tend to have confirmation bias where they SEE evidence that they want to see. I don't particularly find it compelling, mind you, but as long as it makes them happy and they aren't using religion to spread pain, I don't really care.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

Who is John Oliver?

Hair color is a little different, but otherwise seems a ringer. And, if you seriously don't know, he was a Daily Show correspondent and substitute host before getting a HBO talk show Last Week Tonight where he frequently does stuff like mock something for still happening in the current year, such as in his "Why is this still a thing?" segments and when he says crap like "it's 2017"

Fringe-leftist pandering to the young, but a talented comedian, effective troll, and excellent propagandist.
---

but guys its the current year
---

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg
---

because current year does not do anything.
---