• platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are you expecting rational thought from someone who believes in ideas with no evidence? Rational thinking is out of the equation with them.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not entirely precise that they don’t believe without evidence.

      It’s actually worse than that, for example an often cited argument is that 2.3 billion people can’t be wrong. (Ignoring that 6-billion disagree…. Or that the universe cares what they believe.)

      • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Oh man, reminds me about the priest of my school (catholic school). In 7th grade he was telling me that I needed to believe in a religion, so I asked him which of the thousands of religions have existed through history. He said that I needed to believe in his religion because, historically, it has been the most relevant. And I was just shocked… That’s was the dumbest shit I had heard. I told him that wasn’t enough for me to believe in something that is going to send me to hell for eternity if I make a human mistake and forget to confess.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          apparently reality is determined by popularity contests. It’s like highschool all over again.

          • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Yup, they are also pretty bad with logic. I told him that faith with no evidence is senseless, and that Jesus asking for people to believe in him with no proof was just irrational.He proceeded to explain what faith is. Then I told him I was Jesus Christ and he should do as I say. He laughed and said that I needed to prove that to him for him to believe me… It’s like they don’t even hear themselves.

      • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is just an event that could explain the current state of the universe. Why is the distance between the planets increasing? Why is space expanding? Scientists come up with explanations to observations, and then try to prove or deny them.

        It’s not like any of us actually believe that is a irrefutable fact. We won’t kill other people for it like religious people have done for centuries if someone denies their god. We have no emotions attached to it, if science discovers that it is false, we won’t start a war.

        Science never assumes it holds the absolute truth. In fact, science promotes the denial of its own theories through observation and experimentation. That’s how the scientific process works. Al’s, science is just trying to create useful models that describe and explain the behavior of the universe we live in. We know the models are never absolute, we constantly find that the models are incomplete, but they are still very useful in certain restricted contexts. For example, Newton’s equations helped humanity for many years, but they are obviously incomplete compared to modern models.

        I hope you now understand how silly your argument was. Please don’t compare science with faith again.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        This atheist sees the big bang as an event horizon of time. We don’t know and its part of the atheist superpower package to come to terms with we don’t know and use it a lot, rather than assuming God did it or deciding we have winter because Mother Nature misses her daughter when she’s on duty at the underground worksite.

        Hawking tells us there isn’t at at first before the big bang. Time started with it, so causal chains can’t be expected to work the same way. There’s no before.

        Greene submits ours is one of countless universes, but we are only privy to the one we’re in, and big bang events are the result of brane collisions. That is to say the big bang is the result of a natural event, and any point where events happened ex nihilo would be well out of the scope of our speculation, or of any deities that might take an interest in us.

        Which of these are true? Or is it something else?

        We don’t know.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Based on the observable evidence that’s the best explanation that fits reality. You are free to find other explanations and proof to support it showing something else happened. That’s the beauty of scientific explanations, things either are or aren’t.

        A magical being that created everything for no reasons then decided to punish all of humanity forever because he didn’t like something one of them did makes no sense. Also apparently he gives a fuck about who you fuck for whatever reason, what sort of pervert like that tis worth worshiping?

      • highenergyphysics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Let me guess, you hear voices too?

        You should see a psychiatrist and get medicated before you cut your children in half.