Asklemmy

43810 readers

1 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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 6 years ago

MODERATORS

493

Whats your such opinion (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 2 years ago by cryptix@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

1214 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zacryon@feddit.de 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

That is a bad comparison IMO. We have piles and piles of hard evidence the Earth is round. Saying the Earth is flat is just factually incorrect at this point.

We also have a lot of evidence that snakes can't speak, people can't turn plain water into wine, walk on the water and so on.

But the existence of God. I would argue we have no hard evidence of God's existence nor do we have hard evidence that God doesn't exist.

Claiming something which can neither be proven or disproven is what constitutes a pseudoscience. By that logic I could claim that we are in fact giant pink elefants hopping around on the moon, while imagining our reality as we currently think to perceive it. Since you can't disprove that, I must be right. Or am I not?

As far as science is concerned it is still a theory.

No. A scientific theory can be proven or disproven, while the idea of a God, as interpreted in most religions, can not. Thereby constituting a pseudoscience. And thus, it's not a scientific theory.

On top of that what makes a god a God there are multiple definitions of a God.

I suppose in the context of the parent comment the abrahamic God is meant, as interpreted by Christians, Jews and Muslims.

[–] Catsrules@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We also have a lot of evidence that snakes can’t speak, people can’t turn plain water into wine, walk on the water and so on.

If I am remembering my stories correctly the snake wasn't a normal snake but more of a representation of Satan. And I think god turned the water into wine and walked on water. We aren't talking about an average person. Neither Satan nor God is around to let us do some experiments on.

Claiming something which can neither be proven or disproven is what constitutes a pseudoscience. By that logic I could claim that we are in fact giant pink elefants hopping around on the moon, while imagining our reality as we currently think to perceive it. Since you can’t disprove that, I must be right. Or am I not?

Yeah fair enough but my point still stands that comparison between god and flat earth is still a bad comparison. Considering the Earth is here right now, and we can experiment on it.

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Also, the sanke wasnt a snake until AFTER Yahweh found out about the fruit salad thing

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

I'm really tired of that asshole god taking up all the oxygen. I am not religious and do not believe in any supernatural veings but if there were such a thing, the Japanese got it right with Shinto

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

The Abrahamic religions do not have a monopoly on the concept of God. The irrationality of their particular fables, talking snakes and walking on water and all the behavioral quirks they claim God has expressed, has nothing to do with the concept itself.

Let's say I popularized the idea that electricity is really just tiny pixies dancing around, and I came up with all manner of personality traits and stories to go along with them. Let's say millions, billions of people embraced my pixie theory, and it mutated over time into schismatic alternatives with their own traits and stories. Do the ridiculous things now ascribed to electricity, so pervasively that most people picture little pixies when they hear the words, prove that electricity doesn't exist?