>>278174
>Having to split hairs between these similar concepts is a weak form of argumentation and tells me that you don't have anything solid to go on otherwise.
Similar but not the same concepts isn't hairsplitting. Facts aren't insight. Insight is new understanding, which you apparently lack.
>I'll take, "What is a bell curve?" for 500, Alex. I'd say a bell curve has a lot to say about outliers and anomalies. And statistics is part of science.
Actual science, besides medical testing, doesn't really deal in bell curves in experimental testing of directly observable phenomena. Social "sciences" do bickers it's indirect in it's study, and relies on often highly dubious, indirect at best, analogies in the lab to test a hypothesis. Correlative stats are another matter, but that is accumulated through survey data not testing the occurrence of phenomena directly observable.
>Observe what? Death? An afterlife? All signs point to death being a real thing.
Death is a real thing, afterlife or not. Scientists can't observe an afterlife unless they kill themselves and then they can't record it.
>Not some illusion where the body dies and then you're transported somewhere else to another life.
Death isn't an illusion. It's just that no one alive can record what happens after.
>When the brain dies, you die. No one ever comes back. Or tells you about the next dimension with Jesus on the throne or anything like that.
Yep, but you assume you know what if anything happens afterward based on the words of those who have never died.
>So then why would anyone assume death is somehow not real?
Are you done conflating death with what might happen afterward?
>Just bc you want to believe in an afterlife and it's comforting.
I don't.
>And we can observe death and the brain dying.
Even that is indirect via machine
>That person's consciousness dies with the brain.
Maybe, but then they are dead and can't communicate one way or another.
>And it only EVER existed due to the brain. If a tree falls in the forest with no one to see it, it still fell. And you can visit the spot where it fell and realize that it did indeed fall in the past. Then you can ask questions like, "why did it fall?" "What type of tree?" "How old was it?"
So bickers other, alive humans can't "observe" a consciousness, it's dead? But a tree falling in the forest happens whether anyone can detect it or not? Sounds like you are overconfident about your senses. Get back to me when your senses can detect viruses and bacteria and mold and dust in the air.
>I think not. There are lots of unknown mysteries in the world.
And there always will be bickers there is only so much science can observe or measure
>That's the whole point of science and observing the natural world in all its wonder.
Observe or "observe" through their instruments at least, which better than social sciences generally, but still not always directly.
>Religious people don't think about any of it, plug their ears, and say "God done it."
Except all the scientists that are religious
>Well, delusions are comforting.
No more delusional than anything you place meaning in, where there often is no more meaning to than the facts you spew.
>It's pretty cozy to think God is watching over you specifically
Strawman. "God" watches over everything and everyone.
>and guides everything in your life.
More religiously illiterate strawmen. "God" isn't guiding anyone. But his word is what guides his followers in how they comport their lives.
>narcissistic
Opinions thoroughly discarded for being a pompous moron and further misuse of a pseud term.
>As opposed to getting them from Bronze Age goat-herders that wrote some stuff down in a book about not angering their Storm God Yahweh?
Goat herders never wrote anything. And I'm not even certain if Yahweh is the only "god" in the bible, but never let anything interfere in your unwarranted sneering sense of pseudo-superiority.
>And who gives a fuck? It's not real anyway. You can derive morals from LOTR or Harry Potter books if you want. But it doesn't make them true.
Yes, but very few have contributed to any kind of civilization. Those that do are infinitely superior to your nihilism, which creates nothing bickers it inspires no one.
>Yeah, religious folks are too busy filling up the local prison populations after they raped, stole from, and murdered their fellow man.
When are they doing that?
>But it says something about the belief system in Christianity or Islam that people convert when they reach rock-bottom or go to prison or are suicidal.
So if the commit these crimes before turning to religion, they count as religious people doing these crimes?
>But there is def a strong correlation between bad people and religion
Really? Where? What's the coefficient? Is the correlation direct or inverse?
> Or bc bad people want an easy "get-out-of-jail-free" card to escape their sins and wipe the slate clean.
Yeah that's only in much of modern Protestantism or even newer churches in evangelical etc grifter land. It's definitely not in Catholicism
>Or you just get repressed religious people like the Catholic church raping little boys and girls
Are they "repressed" or just predators who look for insidious ways to gain access to those they want to abuse?
>Or you just get religious people like Evangelical Neocons and Zionists kicking up wars in the Middle East and murdering each other.
Yeah dramatically different worldviews are incompatible with each other bickers they create different societies, and groups must fight to see who's world view will triumph for better or worse. As a materialist you should be more understanding of science and how most mammals in the animal kingdom operate.
>Or the constant religious conflicts around the world, no matter where you go...I'll take my harmless, porn-rendering hobby any day of the week over that bullshit.
"I'm a beta weakling who has no strong convictions except cooming"