• stappern@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    well no, its not an equal position. we have 0 evidence of the existence of a god. we have a lot of evidence that there is no need for a god.

    otherwise somebody could claim that santa claus is possible ebcause it wasnt disproven. you cant disprove things that dont exist.

    • OhSnapKracklePopped@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is a huge different between “god doesn’t exist” and “proven there is no need for a god.”

      Depending who you ask, there is plenty of evidence. And you don’t even need to ask the Ken Ham’s of the world—there’s literally dedicated fields of study in philosophy arguing this.

      The whole “one bad apple spoils the bunch” comes from a series Descartes’ essays trying to figure out if God can be real.

      Plus, everyday people have experiences that they interpret as religious events. Coincidence, whatever, that could apply—you can’t, with 100% certainty prove them wrong. You can only assume based off the information you have and your preconceived notions of the world.

      Religion is complicated. People’s faith makes it even moreso.

        • OhSnapKracklePopped@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes it does. That’s why eyewitness testimony is rocky at best and is rarely counted as hard evidence. This is especially true the further back the witness has to recall to get the memory.

          You also have to ask multiple experts to agree on something before anything with evidence gains weight, but evidence looks different to experts too. That’s why almost everything has some form of division.

        • OhSnapKracklePopped@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes it does. That’s why eyewitness testimony is rocky at best and usually not considered completely sound—especially after any duration of time has passed.

    • user@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well I honestly see no reason to try and disprove religions. Some of them do have fucked traditions, yes, but trying to invalidated one’s faith is just sad.

      As for the Santa part, I can’t really argue against that. But for my own sake I’m going to keep pretending he’s real, as that’s more comforting that the thought of a crackhead breaking into my house and stealing nothing but cookies.

      • stappern@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        i think its sad to want to convince people of things that are not real for financial gain :)

        • user@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Financial gain? We’re speaking of religion, not vanity churches. If people want to believe in something above themselves, you have no right to say otherwise just because you yourself believe against it. And the fact you believe all religion is directly tied to money really speaks numbers to how you see things you don’t like.

          • stappern@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There would be no religions if there wasn’t churches pushing them. People can believe in the tooth fairy for all i care. Doesn’t make it true or possible.