4 ms·

Comments like this confirm the stereotype that engineers have a one-track mind. Imagine crapping on billions of people for believing something that they cannot

Comments like this confirm the stereotype that engineers have a one-track mind. Imagine crapping on billions of people for believing something that they cannot prove, but that you also cannot disprove. How arrogant.

Carrok 4y ago
Tell me you’ve never been beaten up on a schoolyard for admitting to being an atheist, without telling me… Does that sound like religion has helped these people “improve their daily actions”? For many of us “crapping” on religion is not some metaphorical concept, but a direct reaction to bullying, harassment, and otherwise disdainful treatment at the hands of the devout.
- adolph 4y ago
  Comments are cheaper than therapy I suppose, but also less effective given the apparent level of projection.
lostmsu 4y ago
There's plenty of evidence against Abrahamic religions core sources. The followers simply ignore it.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  What do you mean by core sources? Are you able to provide examples?
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    7000 old Earth and carbon dating.
    - cratermoon 4y ago
      The 7000 year old Earth claim is not found in the Bible or any other sacred text of the Abrahamic faiths. The young earth chronology is a 17th century invention attributed to James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, from a literal reading of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. Biblical literalism as a whole is an 18th century invention, the desire to find literal truth in ancient texts was a product of the scientific revolution.
      - lostmsu 4y ago
        What you are saying is that Old Testament (a core source) literally says Earth is 6000 years old (or to be more precise you can add a few literal facts from it to get that number), but current believers generally ignore that because they believe the text is not actually a literal telling of events. This is exactly what "core source contradicts data, but followers choose to ignore it" means. I was about 10 when stumbled upon carbon dating (being already familiar with children adaptation of Old Testament from grandma's library), at at that point it was clear Christianity is horseshit and the biggest mistery became why so many people still believe a fairy tale.
        cratermoon 4y ago
        No the Old Testament (aka the Tanakh, or Hebrew bible) says nothing about the age of the earth, nor is it possible to just derive a number from a reading. The Ussher and other timelines are examples of making the incomplete and conflicting data of ages and lineages given in the text fit a pre-conceived idea, that being the Earth is was created by God and Adam placed on it in the Garden of Eden, and the date of the creation is therefore just prior to Adam's creation. Given that assumption, the biblical literalists and young earth creationist have invented a timeline that ignores the inconsistencies, fills in gaps, and basically plays hash with anything in the actual text. Certainly reading a children's version of the Bible will result in a child's conception of what the text says. I remember learning similar dumb ideas as a child. But now I'm an adult and I've expanded my knowledge to adult understanding. Yes, when I was a child, I spoke, thought, and reasoned like a child. Becoming an adult means giving up those childish things and bringing one's fully mature thinking and reasoning. Holding on to a childish version of Biblical stories and a childish understanding of how believers think does a disservice to intellectual curiosity.
- jeffreyrogers 4y ago
  I think they just have a different orientation to the world than you do. I'm not religious for what it's worth, but for many of the religious people I know I don't think stripping them of their religious belief would make them any better off.
fasterik 4y ago
That's a false equivalence between proof and disproof. If someone says they know there is a teapot in orbit around Proxima Centauri and I disagree with them, neither of us can prove or disprove the other. That doesn't mean we both have an equal claim to being right. Who is the arrogant one in this case?
- jondeval 4y ago
  Let's leave aside the arrogant/not-arrogant portion of the thread for now and key in on your main point: > If someone says they know there is a teapot in orbit around Proxima Centauri and I disagree with them, neither of us can prove or disprove the other. That doesn't mean we both have an equal claim to being right. I agree with you. No person is rationally justified in believing in such a teapot without evidence. However, a teapot is a contingent thing. Meaning it's very existence depends on the existence of other things (tea, water, the ceramic material that makes it up, Proxima Centauri etc.) I suspect (I could be wrong here) that you are tacitly implying that people who assert the existence of God are making a similar move. Please keep in mind that God is by definition base-reality and non-contingent and so exists necessarily. To illustrate the difference here with an analogy: If we witnessed an alternative rendition of a conversation between Romeo and Juliet where they attempted to prove the existence of Shakespeare, we wouldn't be surprised if they failed to find evidence for Shakespeare from within the play and their own character existence. But at the same time we would find their conclusion absurd if they thought they had successfully proved that Shakespeare did not exist. They are Romeo and Juliet after all.
  - fasterik 4y ago
    There are two separate issues here. One is how we choose to define God, and the other is what religious people actually believe. OP was referring to "billions of people" with certain beliefs. Most of these people believe in God as an entity with a personality who intervenes in events on Earth. That kind of God doesn't have to exist by necessity. On the other hand, if we define God as base reality, then God exists by definition. In that case why not just call it "reality" or "the universe"? When most people say they believe in God, I don't think they are saying they believe in the universe. I think they are making a stronger claim than that. I don't get what the Romeo and Juliet example is supposed to show. The base reality for Romeo and Juliet is our physical world rather than the play world, and God is Shakespeare who exists contingently in base reality. Yes, it's impossible for them to prove that God (Shakespeare) doesn't exist. But what reasons could Romeo and Juliet have for believing that Shakespeare exists or that they are living in a play world rather than base reality? Unless Shakespeare explicitly writes evidence of his existence into the play, their claims are on the same footing as Russell's teapot.
Dudeman112 4y ago
To be fair, a large chunk of said billions of people's beliefs have infinite complexity compared to give or take every other alternative, and also imply that every law regarding the universe's behaviour is optional That's more than enough to safely say that belief is full of shit. Unless it's a religion, then you have to respect it Everywhere else "that belief goes against thermodynamics" is good enough argument to consider the belief bonkers
todfox 4y ago
Billions of people are not that smart.

Carrok 4y ago

Tell me you’ve never been beaten up on a schoolyard for admitting to being an atheist, without telling me… Does that sound like religion has helped these people “improve their daily actions”? For many of us “crapping” on religion is not some metaphorical concept, but a direct reaction to bullying, harassment, and otherwise disdainful treatment at the hands of the devout.

adolph 4y ago
Comments are cheaper than therapy I suppose, but also less effective given the apparent level of projection.

lostmsu 4y ago

There's plenty of evidence against Abrahamic religions core sources. The followers simply ignore it.

cratermoon 4y ago
What do you mean by core sources? Are you able to provide examples?
- lostmsu 4y ago
  7000 old Earth and carbon dating.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    The 7000 year old Earth claim is not found in the Bible or any other sacred text of the Abrahamic faiths. The young earth chronology is a 17th century invention attributed to James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, from a literal reading of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. Biblical literalism as a whole is an 18th century invention, the desire to find literal truth in ancient texts was a product of the scientific revolution.
    - lostmsu 4y ago
      What you are saying is that Old Testament (a core source) literally says Earth is 6000 years old (or to be more precise you can add a few literal facts from it to get that number), but current believers generally ignore that because they believe the text is not actually a literal telling of events. This is exactly what "core source contradicts data, but followers choose to ignore it" means. I was about 10 when stumbled upon carbon dating (being already familiar with children adaptation of Old Testament from grandma's library), at at that point it was clear Christianity is horseshit and the biggest mistery became why so many people still believe a fairy tale.
      - cratermoon 4y ago
        No the Old Testament (aka the Tanakh, or Hebrew bible) says nothing about the age of the earth, nor is it possible to just derive a number from a reading. The Ussher and other timelines are examples of making the incomplete and conflicting data of ages and lineages given in the text fit a pre-conceived idea, that being the Earth is was created by God and Adam placed on it in the Garden of Eden, and the date of the creation is therefore just prior to Adam's creation. Given that assumption, the biblical literalists and young earth creationist have invented a timeline that ignores the inconsistencies, fills in gaps, and basically plays hash with anything in the actual text. Certainly reading a children's version of the Bible will result in a child's conception of what the text says. I remember learning similar dumb ideas as a child. But now I'm an adult and I've expanded my knowledge to adult understanding. Yes, when I was a child, I spoke, thought, and reasoned like a child. Becoming an adult means giving up those childish things and bringing one's fully mature thinking and reasoning. Holding on to a childish version of Biblical stories and a childish understanding of how believers think does a disservice to intellectual curiosity.
jeffreyrogers 4y ago
I think they just have a different orientation to the world than you do. I'm not religious for what it's worth, but for many of the religious people I know I don't think stripping them of their religious belief would make them any better off.

fasterik 4y ago

That's a false equivalence between proof and disproof. If someone says they know there is a teapot in orbit around Proxima Centauri and I disagree with them, neither of us can prove or disprove the other. That doesn't mean we both have an equal claim to being right. Who is the arrogant one in this case?

jondeval 4y ago
Let's leave aside the arrogant/not-arrogant portion of the thread for now and key in on your main point: > If someone says they know there is a teapot in orbit around Proxima Centauri and I disagree with them, neither of us can prove or disprove the other. That doesn't mean we both have an equal claim to being right. I agree with you. No person is rationally justified in believing in such a teapot without evidence. However, a teapot is a contingent thing. Meaning it's very existence depends on the existence of other things (tea, water, the ceramic material that makes it up, Proxima Centauri etc.) I suspect (I could be wrong here) that you are tacitly implying that people who assert the existence of God are making a similar move. Please keep in mind that God is by definition base-reality and non-contingent and so exists necessarily. To illustrate the difference here with an analogy: If we witnessed an alternative rendition of a conversation between Romeo and Juliet where they attempted to prove the existence of Shakespeare, we wouldn't be surprised if they failed to find evidence for Shakespeare from within the play and their own character existence. But at the same time we would find their conclusion absurd if they thought they had successfully proved that Shakespeare did not exist. They are Romeo and Juliet after all.
- fasterik 4y ago
  There are two separate issues here. One is how we choose to define God, and the other is what religious people actually believe. OP was referring to "billions of people" with certain beliefs. Most of these people believe in God as an entity with a personality who intervenes in events on Earth. That kind of God doesn't have to exist by necessity. On the other hand, if we define God as base reality, then God exists by definition. In that case why not just call it "reality" or "the universe"? When most people say they believe in God, I don't think they are saying they believe in the universe. I think they are making a stronger claim than that. I don't get what the Romeo and Juliet example is supposed to show. The base reality for Romeo and Juliet is our physical world rather than the play world, and God is Shakespeare who exists contingently in base reality. Yes, it's impossible for them to prove that God (Shakespeare) doesn't exist. But what reasons could Romeo and Juliet have for believing that Shakespeare exists or that they are living in a play world rather than base reality? Unless Shakespeare explicitly writes evidence of his existence into the play, their claims are on the same footing as Russell's teapot.

Dudeman112 4y ago

To be fair, a large chunk of said billions of people's beliefs have infinite complexity compared to give or take every other alternative, and also imply that every law regarding the universe's behaviour is optional That's more than enough to safely say that belief is full of shit. Unless it's a religion, then you have to respect it Everywhere else "that belief goes against thermodynamics" is good enough argument to consider the belief bonkers

todfox 4y ago

Billions of people are not that smart.