• Lemmynated@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s why my community is a bunch of like-minded strangers on the internet who i vaguely align with.

  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s basically what happened with me and atheism.

    Worth it, raising atheist kids in a more tolerant place now.

    • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      67
      ·
      2 months ago

      Atheism is just as illogical as theism. You can apply Occam’s razor to assume that there is no god/gods, but that is still just that, an assumption. Agnosticism would be the logically/scientifically backed argument.

      • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        No, it’s not. Unfalsifiable deities are unscientific. So being an atheist against any kind of unfalsifiable deity is scientific. And all religion is unfalsifiable by definition.

        • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          31
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Being an atheist is also unfalsifiable. Disbelief in any one God is not unscientific, but disbelief in the possibility of God is, objectively.

          I have confused atheism and anti-theism.

          • uranibaba@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            34
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            That is stupid logic. The possibility of a potato controlling everyones’ mind is not zero.

            There is nothing that indicates a god exists, hence no reason to believe it. The scientific way would be to belive it if it was possible to prove, but since it is not and there is nothing to indicate otherwise, atheism.

          • seth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Atheism is lack of belief in any god existing, not disbelief in the possibility of a god existing. I don’t know where you’re getting that definition from, as I’ve never met an atheist who would agree with it? If you ask atheists if they are open to the idea of a god clearly intervening in the universe in any meaningful way, thus proving both their existence and their status as a god, I think the majority would say of course. Many of us would also be disappointed as those gods tend to be selfish, mean, exclusionary, and anti-nature in their treatment and expectations for humans, but we would accept it as reality.

            It just seems unlikely to happen given that none seem to have done so yet. If you want to speak of a god in terms of a “spirit of the universe” or similar nebulous impersonal, non-intervening concept, that is hardly different from just believing in the teapot or unicorn, in that it will have zero influence on your life and you may as well not even concern yourself with beliefs at all. Which, coincidentally, is how most “believers” live their lives anyway - without regard to any of the supposed commandments their gods have instituted. It’s like they only believe in the idea of belief as a virtue unto itself, not the actual beliefs. And thank goodness they only go that far!

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Being an atheist is also unfalsifiable.

            Yeah, because you can’t disprove someone not believing in a higher power

            Atheism doesn’t make a positive claim that something does or does not exist, it’s a statement of belief

            Gnostic atheism is akin to a claim there is no higher beings, that I’ll grant

      • uniquethrowagay@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        2 months ago

        Typically, atheists don’t spend a lot of time thinking about gods. Also, most theists aren’t just theists, they follow a very specific religion/god, which is orders of magnitude less reasonable.

        • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t know man, have you met atheists online? Theyr worse than vegans.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        So it’s logical to doubt whether pink flying unicorns exist?

        Or could it be that not believing in those is the logical position?

        Abrahamic religions are cancer

      • seth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what agnosticism and atheism even are. Agnosticism is a belief in knowability, and most atheists are agnostic - they make no claim to have certain knowledge about whether gods exist. They mainly acknowledge there is no reasonable evidence to believe in any gods as presented. Many theists I have known are gnostic, as they claim to have definite knowledge that their god exists. Atheism is just a position on whether gods exist. Gnostic atheism is as dishonest as gnostic theism, but then, I have never met a gnostic atheist. I have met many agnostic theists, which is why they are tolerable to be around. They don’t make any claims to special revelation.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    All my opinions are peer reviewed by a scientific panel, of course. How can anyone live in another way.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      What’s your favorite color? Please respond in the form of a peer-reviewed paper.

      • elidoz@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        ok, here’s the experimental process

        everyday you choose a color from a continous spectrum, then these color will be similar but not exactly the same everytime, the real favourite color is somewhere in the middle

        the next step is to choose which color is better than the other by starting at the average color, and then performing gradual descent on the RGB color space until you reach the local maxima, which is also probably the global maxima thanks to the first step

        now I need someone to review this

          • elidoz@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            unfortunately everyone has a different favourite color, so the experiment and peer reviewing has to be repeated for every individual

            a color is better than another only based on personal preference

  • DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Exactly. My mom is lost to Trump. From the generation that told me not to jump off a bridge if my friends were, she has no independence from peer pressure. Just Boomer hypocrisy.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    All reality is perceived, and people’s perception of reality can be stupid. Stupid perceptions lead to strong emotions based on stupid.

    • Xephonian@retrolemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Worse than that, their perception is quite easily manipulated. Hence why media control is so important to the fascists.

      *The fascists are the Democrats and their goons, ANTIFA.

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Accurate. But people need to be brave enough to embrace the truth even if they don’t like it. You can diplomatically say things like “I’m not so sure about that” and such without directly contradicting those people.

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

    One of the reasons why it’s not as hilariously loserish as nihilistic as it sounds to say that in many ways havings friends is dumb.

    It’s kind of going too far to make a point but probably not as far as lots of people would guess.

    Oh you have a group of friends guess what you will now engage in the following behaviors at the prescribed times or else.

    And we wonder why authenticity is so rare.

  • yetiftw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    all opinions are ultimately inconsistent with reality in some way, indicating that they all do really originate from somewhere within ourselves