Skip Navigation

Halasham

@ Halasham @dormi.zone

Posts
1
Comments
97
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • My problem with atheism

    Jump

  • What I'm trying to say is that we don't really understand much about the origin of the universe, so saying "I don't believe there is a god because of lack of evidence" seems too harsh.

    I don't think many Atheists come to the conclusion based off of arguments about the origin of the universe. It appears to be more common that logical or ethical contradictions within theistic doctrine lead to its rejection.

    For me personally it began with the divine hiddenness problem. Being raised in a faith that states its god wants a relationship with me and yet is wholly imperceivable to me. From there building with additional arguments such as the abhorrent ethics of their mythical figures when viewed from a frame of reference other than 'they're the good guys because their god said so'.

  • My problem with atheism

    Jump

  • My last paragraph was aimed towards religious people and atheists that have a solid opinion.

    Alright. Was thinking about this prior to seeing your reply and meant to apologize as on thinking about it your statement could be meant that way and now with the clarification doubt has further been removed. Sorry.

    I don't think accepting ignorance is something bad, I advice to do it whenever possible.

    I agree that it's not bad to accept legitimate ignorance however I don't think it's best practice to accept ignorance just because it's one of the possibilities. Rather, I feel that ignorance should be the fallback position, over baseless speculation, when hard facts on a subject are insufficient in number and/or scope to paint a reasonably clear picture.

    Where sufficient facts on a matter exist to show a clear picture exist I don't believe it proper to accept an assertion of ignorance. Firstly because it's false, we know at least some things on the topic, and secondly because it can be harmful, shysters leveraging 'we don't know' to insert a baseless speculation paired with hawking a product or marketing themselves as a problem solver.

  • My problem with atheism

    Jump

  • Do you think lack of evidence provided by humans, little animals who live in a dust spec for a relative short amount of time, gives you enough confidence to say "there is no creator"?

    For some generalized creator figure? I can't disprove that, however I think Russel's Teapot comes into play at this point. We couldn't detect a porcelain teapot the size of a common teapot in stellar orbit between the Earth and Mars. So, currently, it would be impossible to disprove that claim, however there is also no reason to accept it. The burden of proof is on those who make these claims to support them, not on those who don't accept them to disprove every claim they could posit.

    For any of the creator figures I'm aware of non-deist theists claiming exist? At least of all those that I am familiar with they have self-contradictory stated natures, operate in logical contradictions, and perform impossibilities. In short: They don't exist because for that not to be the case then the few things we can demonstrate to be true must be false.

    That is exactly my issue with atheism, that they think their human reason gives them enough capacity to take a position to something as complex as the origin of reality.

    The only times I've seen an atheist back their atheism just with human reason is when explaining logical contradictions about the asserted god. Most arguments I'm aware of use more than just logical contradictions in the opposing claim. More often than not I see them engaging with the proposed evidence for the claim and providing contrary evidence against it.

    It's just outside of our reach and anything we choose to believe, even if rooted in reason, is a wild guess.

    We use the terms 'rooted in reason' and 'wild guess' to mean different things. To me a wild guess is made in the absence of reason or without regard to it while something that is 'rooted in reason' is about as opposed to that as is possible, a belief that stems only from what it well supported by evidence, reasoning, or most preferably both.

    I'm not sure I take your meaning for 'just outside our reach'. Are you stating that we're close to it but not there yet or that it is categorically beyond our ability to reach such that we will never reach it?

    The most rational thing to do is just to stop guessing. I feel if people accepted their ignorance more frequently instead of taking sides without actual knowledge, the world would be a better place.

    I'm sorry but this comes off as somewhat disingenuous directed toward atheists. We're not accepting the other side's guess and generally also provide reasoning for that decision when prompted. Contrast with the theistic position of the assertion of some grand causer or creator and subsequent assertions that anything not yet explained rationally is somehow the work of this unsupported asserted entity.

  • My problem with atheism

    Jump

  • First of all, I have more in common with atheists than religious people, so my intention isn't to come here and attack, I just want to hear your opinions.

    Welcome. Happy to talk with people rather than have to counter rhetorical attacks.

    My issue with atheism is that I think it establishes the lack of a God or gods as the truth.

    Personally, I'm partial to the definition of Atheism as 'Lack of belief in any gods' rather than 'Belief that there are no gods.' I fit both definitions but I think the first is more accurate and better represents most Atheist's relationship with the truth value of the claim. Even for those of us who believe there are no gods I believe it's a grand commonality between a super-majority of atheists that there's some quantity of sufficient evidence that would change our minds... though quite likely the specific amount will vary from one to another.

    But saying that there's no god with certainty is something I'm just not comfortable with. Science has taught us that being wrong is part of the process of progress.

    The way I see it most of the time scientific advancement doesn't say our previous understanding was wrong, rather that it was incomplete. One of the better examples being Newtonian Physics and Relativity, Newton wasn't wrong so much as his work didn't account for special behavior under extreme circumstances. We do occasionally have counter examples such as miasma being replaced with the Germ Theory of Disease but this tends to be when a historical unscientific position is unraveled by a scientific explanation.

    As-is I don't see how any such gods that have been commonly claimed could exist as stated without them violating various scientific, and in some cases logical, laws. So, I feel quite secure in my position that these things that contradict our best evidenced understanding of the universe are not real.

    I feel like being open to the possibilities is a healthier mindset, as we barely understand reality.

    Sure, it's worthwhile to look at the evidence against our own positions. But evidence is the key word here. The theistic position has yet to forward any noteworthy body of anything that would fit the definition of the word. They're welcome to keep trying in perpetuity if they so wish but I'm not going to lend credence to the claim until such time as they are not only successful in finding something that is evidence but a sufficient body of it to outweigh what the claim is mutually exclusive with which already has evidence or they can by some means discredit the whole body of evidence against their claim and forward evidence for it.

    That being said so long as there is measurable harm to come from theistic belief and the benefits of it are ephemeral I will be opposed to inflicting it on others.

    I usually don't believe there is a god when the argument comes from religious people, because they have no evidence, but they could be right by chance.

    I don't believe that that's the case. To be no amount of assertion creates a chance that anything could be the case. What makes a chance is that an assessment of possibilities puts a known or estimable probability on it being the case.

  • Be grateful

    Jump

  • Ah, yes. Praise the patron god of sadism and injustice for working his vile deeds on others while the faithful escape a perceived just fate.

  • Anti-LGBTQ+ hate preacher says racists go to Heaven and MLK is burning in Hell

    Jump

  • Because there's a control scheme built with the Book of Vile Darkness (read Bible, not the D&D item) but not any D&D books. This on it's own wouldn't likely be enough to see D&D books burned but because there's a control scheme in play that feels threatened by anything that brings people joy 'X said something bad because D&D' is a sufficient justification in their eyes.

  • Whats your take? Creepy or not?

    Jump

  • Unfortunately 'Creepy' is subjective and poorly defined. It's a feeling rather than 'this meets XYZ criteria and therefore is creepy'.

    she calls me creepy and to stop stalking her. I explain im not stalking im just being a friend and just enjoy talking inbetween class.

    I agree with you that she's not using 'stalking' correctly but I believe this was meant to terminate your platonic relationship. It's upsetting but that's likely the point.

    random number of text message with photo of me 20 seconds ago at lunch table. panic issues, i message who dis. They reply, you dont need to know stop stalking (girls name). I explain its not stalking if i go up and say hello and talk to them.

    This behavior is much more in-line with a correct usage of 'stalking'. I would assume this escalation was taken as being fair game from your refusal to accept her use as stalking. That's vexing but likely meant just to highlight their desire to terminate the relationship as that wasn't clear from her first accusation.

  • Under an air burst nuke

    Jump

  • Fair 'nuff. Still an awesome find, had to show my friends.

  • Under an air burst nuke

    Jump

  • I think you just won the internet for the day. This is the best image I've seen all year.

  • Under an air burst nuke

    Jump

  • However both are still technically correct, the best kind of correct.

  • 14 Christians go on trial in Australia after "faith-healing" death of 8-year-old girl

    Jump

  • We treat an infectious psychological condition like it's anything other than a plague.

  • Louisiana's new "Ten Commandments" law actually contains eleven commandments

    Jump

  • Thought-crime and pre-crime. Two fundamentally important aspects of Christianity as they ensure guilt that they are conveniently the monopoly on forgiveness/absolution of.

  • Vegan Firefighter Loses Groundbreaking Discrimination Case

    Jump

  • If it wasn't for the genocide of the Native Americans I likely wouldn't either, or at very least be a different person. That doesn't change one's subjective experience or the objective facts of either things.

  • Friendly reminder that Chuck Norris is a piece of crap

    Jump

  • This isn't even Socialism, this is just a basic provision against being a Dystopia.

  • Friendly reminder that Chuck Norris is a piece of crap

    Jump

  • 365 days in a normal year, even 73 weeks a year... make Leap Day a special case that's never part of a week (ie. week ends, Leap Day, next week starts) and that'd be quite nice. I'd also want to fix time units on a smaller scale but the 60/60/24 may have additional issues with replacing.

  • Friendly reminder that Chuck Norris is a piece of crap

    Jump

  • Nope, American exceptionalist Supremacist drit. You get the American flag and reference to the American god stamped on your head./s

    The world would be so better off if the dystopia would just Balkanize already. Saying that as an American.

  • Friendly reminder that Chuck Norris is a piece of crap

    Jump

  • I don't think he quite realizes tattoos can be modified... or removed. It'd be easy to have it modified to be the American flag on fire and the text disparaging their vile deity.

  • Totally not a death cult.

    Jump

  • Yeah, I've taken to replacing 'United States' with 'American Dystopia' in my vocabulary. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Brave New World would offer a more pleasant life.

  • Totally not a death cult.

    Jump

  • Nice thing about not being tied to the Cult of Capital. Free sharing of things... at least the things it hasn't figured out how to enforce monetization of, yet.

  • Totally not a death cult.

    Jump

  • The issue is that they don't care. They don't care if the Bible says anything at all about the subject their on about or even if it contradicts them. What the Bible actually says is irrelevant to them, it's only what their glorious leaders pastors say it says matters.

    The root of faith is authoritarianism, not any branch of morality or reverence or regard for history or their mythology.