56
Attitude to Religion and its believers.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
56 points (91.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43027 readers
1514 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah man something about Russell's tea pot
We have no evidence for gods, that's it. There's no need to provide evidence for absence of god, the burden of proof belongs to the person who makes the claim (that there's a god/gods).
Unknowns just exists, religion assigns the unknown form. Why is that justified and even more incredible important to those who believe that it be true and to make choices due to the assignment of that form?
Because science tries to understand the unknown using reason, religion throws the reason away and says it was gods.
I get what you're saying, but saying people who choose to believe something that can't be proven and hasn't been disproven need psychotherapy is like saying the same for color preferences. Sometimes there is no right answer and people should be able to choose.
Opinions are opinions. Opinions don't change the fact that earth is orbiting the sun or that religions are a hoax
First, religions and the existence of God are two different things, just like the existence of the earth and the earth being flat are two different things. Likewise, the existence of religions is no guarantor of God's existence, nor is there many flaws proof of his non-existence. And unknowns are facts we haven't discovered or proven yet, much like germ theory, or fanciful ideas which haven't been debunked, such as the idea that an imbalance of humors was the cause of disease.
The problem with this theory is that we dont have a complete explanation for existence without the existence of a higher power.
Yep, but we have tool for trying to understand it. It's called scientific method, and it has so far been able to help us understand the mechanics of the universe without resorting to crazy claims such as "yeah must have been super powered aliens", which is the only offer from religion.
I do get that there's a chance that it's all bogus, and that there really is or was a god that created everything in a way we have been able to measure it, but why exactly should I believe it? Which story should I believe? 'In this world of a million religions everyone prays the same way', the same human made stories written over centuries trying to explain the world around us. In this context religion seems nothing more than a predecessor to scientific method turned into crowd control tool.
My main point is any philosophy about where humans came from is a matter of faith. I was just pointing out the issue where evolution doesnt sufficiently explain things, but most atheists are aware of this or just handwave away the problem.
I suppose on picking a religion you would need to look at what makes the most logical sense, and is most consistent. Also I would look at what has the best track record with the best outcome.
Yeah that religion is called science. To suggest that gaps exist on evolution so we need to go examine religion is an a joke of an argument. The difference in successful capturing of the reality of the process of life by the theory of evolution to any religion is galactic in scale. Your justification is ridiculous and only exists because you cannot let go of the lies someone taught you as a child in order to control you.
The joke is that you think you follow science and then outright discount things when they are not what you want.
I mean we can talk about how god is a non sense idea.
So with what certainty do you think there is no God?
Around the same certainly that I think balloons exist inside giraffes on the moon of TRAPPIST-1b.
So this points out how you dont care about science because you are completely close minded. What you will find is that with your group this is common, they will not even begin to admit the possibility of a deity.
I gave you my assessment of my the possibility, more over the subject has been significantly more explored than the evidence for it. Doing good science is not endlessly chasing any possible outcome, it is rigorously evaluating those you can investigate.
That said,
There is no god and your a fool, feel fucking bad for you. I'm really sorry people manipulated you as a child to the point your trapped by the idea. Haunted even.
Evolution theory DOES explain where we came from, and the theory is proven billion times over and over. It's insanity to believe anything else. As Dawkins neatly put it, we have more evidence for evolution theory than we have for Holocaust.
No, 'atheists' do not handwave problems found in scientific theories away but study it until it's no longer a problem. What religion does is just says "it must be gods" and throws any reason to thrash bin
The issue is you guys do handwaving about how the basic building blocks started and then go on to look at fossil progression. You guys need to stop and look at how it seems to be impossible for DNA to develop and how evolution doesnt have a good explaination for it.
No one is handwaving away problems we are yet to solve, except the people just claiming "must have been gods"
There has always been and probably always will be new problems to solve. Scientists have been working on trying to understand and resolve those problems, and we know so much more today than we did 100 years ago. We take evolution theory as a fact, because it's the theory that has been proven billions of times again and again, and we keep finding more proof for it. Just because we might not know everything yet, is not an argument against the only working theory we have.
Your Christ illusion has been proven zero times
You can say its not handwaving, but as evolution currently stands it is an impossible theory. Until there is an actual explanation you can say its been "proven billions of times".
All the evidence we have supports evolution theory
Except for the very start of it, and unless you can answer that question it voids all of evolution.
If that's your main point then you're in a great position to examine your beliefs using tried and tested methods to know things.
Of course, you may have to adjust those beliefs to be in accordance with reality, which can be much more difficult. Should you accept this challenge that life has presented, your chosen subject of evolution has mountains of good evidence to study.
This is interesting use of language that usually applies to the scientific method. I've often seen it used in attempts to legitimise religious reasoning, and sometimes it goes with assertions of "proper basic beliefs."
You should be aware that these are just more modern methods of things like Pascal's Wager, that are not meant to convince anyone except those who already believe.
All religion, at least those with god belief and certainly the Abrahamic three, contain no sensible logic, are completely inconsistent, have a terrible track record and very often horrible outcomes.
How do the the Abrahamic three all have a terrible track record?
Just to be clear, ignoring everything else I said doesn't somehow make them irrelevant. In fact it does the opposite to any further opposition you may bring later.
Also, it's kinda rude.
As to your question, the track record of those three religions to convincingly explain anything they claim to, is complete and utter failure. Every time.
If they can offer any good evidence as answers to the subjects discussed in this post, I've yet to hear them. I'm open to being convinced and I try to adjust my beliefs accordingly when presented with good evidence contrary to my current knowledge.
But there's been nothing so far.
I didnt ignore what you said, its just pointless to write super long responses to all the subjects, it just gets to be a wall of text.
Let me be more direct, what is the horrible outcomes that christianity or judism brings?
Super long wall of text? You're kidding, right? ಠಿ_ಠ
Look, I even put it in it's own, separate paragraph
So, to avoid any confusion before moving on, you didn't even try to explain your reasoning for the criteria you set out. You didn't offer any good evidence to justify those criteria, and you dodged replying by pretending it's too difficult for you.
This isn't a good look for you or those who share your beliefs.
And you're really asking me to point out terrible things that have come about as a result of religion or been perpetuated through religious belief?
Off the top of my head -
Holy wars.
Witch trials.
Destruction of indigenous cultures.
Widespread misogyny.
Discrimination towards minorities.
So this was exactly the way I thought you would go so I didnt want to invest a lot of time. Those things you mentioned are not related to christianity, it christians doing things. If you actually understand the bible I would say 4/5 go directly against the bible and the last one is questionable.
The main issue is that people apply the things that a person of a belief system does to that belief system. For example they will see a Rep or Dem commit a crime and say that the particular party is responsible, or for in your case christianity is responsible for what its people do.
"But the people are the fruits of what the religion is!" No, they typically are a failing of following the tenants.
Nonsense. We are talking about things people do as a direct result of their beliefs, also known as outcomes. Bait and switching just makes you look even worse.
And accusing nearly all Christians of not doing it right is disingenuous, elitist and pitifully sad.
Perhaps instead of disgracing yourself further, you can tell us what these tenets are that so many go against?
If you dont understand what I am saying then just ask, insulting is just childish.
I didn't insult you, I pointed out your poor behaviour.
And I did ask you, about several different things, the most recent being about the tenets you claim to follow.
Why don't you try again?
No, you are not related to me and I dont care if you try to scold me. I did nothing wrong or shameful and I dont need to explain anything to you. If you get offended by internet conversations then dont have them. If you dont understand what I am saying feel free to ask questions but I am not answering to you.
I'm not offended and I'm not scolding you.
You need to realise that I'm merely highlighting your poor behaviour for others to see.
Why so defensive? If you can't justify your position then just say so, but pretending otherwise is just childish.
You keep gaslighting me and I dont really care. My behavior was normal and you just seem to be over reacting about something. Just like you claiming I am being defensive, I am jsut telling your I am not going to explain myself to you, and I dont care if you are wanting to scold me, you dont have any power over me.
Gaslighting? That suggests I'm inventing things just to make you look bad.
Unsurprisingly, that's not true. Here's you lying and generally being awful -
Not what I said. I'll repeat -
That's about as related to Christianity as you can get, which means you misrepresented what I said. Also known as lying.
Accusing people of doing it wrong is not a good way to make your point. It either discredits your own religion, or it belittles the beliefs of your fellow Christians while elevating your own.
Not a good look.
Again, I did ask. More than once. Here's an example -
So again, accusing me of being childish to cover up that you're lying.
Lovely.
If you're going to behave like a child and pretend you didn't when called out on it, that doesn't mean you didn't or that I'm wrong. But it does make you a liar. Again.
Heh, you're funny.
If anything you said was new or original, I would have asked about that. Not that you would answer me anyway.
But its all tired repetition of the same old guff we've heard a million times.
Oh well.
Yeah sorry, I am not going to read all that wall of text. Have a great day!
Poor thing, running away like they always do.
Why is that a problem?
Isn't it a much bigger problem to invent an explanation and insist it's correct, rather than just admitting we don't know?
The problem is that DNA and associated parts are too complex to evolve, so there is no explaination how it would have gotten to that point. You can say that religion doesnt do a good job explaining, but the various religions have one even though its kind of cheating. Evolution seems impossible without another unknown factor which makes it another faith based system.
I'm wondering who taught you that. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence, proof, and reason for evolution. It makes absolute sense, is simple, and easy to comprehend if you're willing to open your mind and disregard what religion has tried to teach you.
There are lots of good explanations out there, so I won't bother trying -- but basically the most difficult thing to understand about evolution is the incredible amount of time it took to get us to where we are today. Once you see that drawn out visually, it makes a lot more sense.
It's not something you can believe or not believe, because it's fact. Instead, you either accept it or don't accept it. Most people accept the existence of gravity because it's so easily demonstrated. Once you give evolution a minute of your time, it's equally easy to accept.
Sure, evolution is fine, except for the most important part which is the very start. Without those basic building blocks then it doesnt work.
that is not part of evolution though. this is like saying gravity is bullshit because it doesn't explain how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
I am referring to the very start of evolution about how the building blocks came about. Depending on how that question is answered it totally changes what evolution is.
isn't a 'higher power' just kicking the can down the road?
It could be, I guess it would all depend on the theory of what a higher power is. If its God, then thats the endpoint, if its aliens or simulation theory, then it definitely is a kick.
i am not sure what's the difference there. why is one an endpoint, and the others aren't?
God would be an endpoint in that its the full explaination, where as if aliens put the basic building blocks of life on earth then the question is where did the aliens come from.