A_Very_Big_Fan @ A_Very_Big_Fan @lemmy.world

Posts

16

Comments

1,079

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Both lol

Ooooh I 100% read "morality" lol, my bad

It doesn't sound familiar because nobody here is saying God is impossible. We're saying they don't have good reason for believing he exists.

I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence.

You wouldn't have to tell them to stop "believing" in string theory because none of them do. The math happens to work out so a lot of them are interested, but none of them "believe" in it because it hasn't been tested.

Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?

We're not saying they're wrong. We're saying their reasons for believing aren't good reasons. And in a thread about why people believe, criticism is not only warranted, but expected.

Gnostic atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.

Can you point me to even one atheist here making a gnostic claim? The link you already gave is just Communist saying you don't have evidence, and it seems like you're translating every other instance of that to "GOD ISN'T REAL".

You must live in a very different society than those in Europe or America if your experience with theists has just been "people hypothesizing." You also must not have read the Bible, Torah, or Quran. Their "beliefs" are presented as facts in all three of those religions, both by their holy texts and their people, and I don't know of any religion that doesn't also do that.

If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.

And again, nobody is saying they're wrong. We're saying they don't have good reason to believe what they believe. Just look at the link you sent earlier.

And if an atheist genuinely believes their own untested hypothesis about what happened before the big bang is true, whether they're a scientist or a layman, the same criticisms apply to them, too.

The question itself isn't scientific or religious. And nobody in this thread is conducting science, but the majority of us here definitely trust the scientific method over faith.

That's not to say we take scientific claims as gospel like theists do with theistic claims. Science is about updating our understanding as new evidence is presented. Religion is about being handed the truth.

To each their own, but personally that sounds like a bad reason to stop pursuing life's greatest questions. Plenty of my family has passed away, but that doesn't make faith seem like a reliable pathway to truth.

I'd love to believe they're in an eternal paradise, but I'd also love to believe my next paycheck will be $1,000,000. The time to believe I'm a millionaire is when I have evidence for it, not when I'd be heartbroken otherwise.

The big bang isn't creation ex nihilo, and it's not a theistic claim. But more importantly, nobody with any scientific credibility claims we know the theory is true with absolute certainty. They don't even claim it adequately explains 100% of the universe as we observe it. A lot of laymen probably think the big bang is creation ex nihilo and use it to explain the "something from nothing" issue, but that's not what the theory says.

There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began

Hypotheses. Which nobody "believes" in like theists do with God.

Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science.

You're right. They can hypothesize all they want. But they don't present their claims as hypotheses, they present them as the truth. Scientists don't claim their hypotheses are the truth, and they especially don't believe it to be true before doing any testing.

the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that.

The link you gave me doesn't show him claiming God doesn't exist, and neither are any of the comments before it.

You can test the hypotheses of astrophysics, though. I mean, how long have we had telescopes now? And today we have a whole array of other equipment for measuring things in space. If an astrophysicist is claiming a hypothesis to be true without testing it, they've failed science at a fundamental level. Can you give me even one example of this?

I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events.

What events? I've never heard of astrophysics making theistic claims. OR making claims that haven't been tested.

They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.

If they're not proven then they're hypothetical. By definition theories are well tested, and they're still not claimed to be true with absolute certainty.

I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is.

We're not saying there is no god. We're saying we're not convinced there is a god.

You highlighted the A without any understanding of what the prefix a- means. It means not, or without.

I'm not a theist because they haven't convinced me of any theistic claims. I don't claim no gods exist. I just don't know of any gods that exist, therefore I am without theism. A-theism.

We've been able to do this for years, way before the fill tool utilized AI. I don't see why it should be slapped with a label that makes it sound like the whole image was generated by AI.

What do you mean by real

You're a god amongst men around these parts.

Not really. Altruism is ultimately self-serving whether an afterlife exists or not. People generally don't want to spend their life being wronged by others or have their life taken altogether, so we have a pretty good incentive to not do those things.

Atheists on the other hand can say "look, there is no god... See?"

Very few atheists say this. The vast majority of us say we don't know one way or the other.

This chain of comments is so painful to read. What in the world makes you think astrophysicists believe in anything that isn't tested? And why do you think we do?

A young-earth creationist? You're a rare breed. Good to have you here.

On a more important note, responding to inflammatory language with strawmen and condescension isn't a good look. If YEC is true don't you think it'd be a lot more effective (and productive) to just give us reasons to believe what you believe?

You can't explain a decision having negative consequences without God?

Ah yes, how childish of OP to wonder why the majority of English speaking countries believe in answers to life's greatest questions with little to no evidence. What a naive little question, that one.

Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.

This is wrong. The only thing required to be an atheist is lacking a belief in theistic claims. You don't need to make the claim that God doesn't exist, and most atheists don't.

The only thing we're certain of (not absolutely, but fairly certain) is that theists haven't met their burden of proof.

I suppose it's better than following a standard of evidence that enables homophobes/transphobes, and opens the door to preachers feeding their politics to you.