this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43939 readers
531 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!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OhSnapKracklePopped@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] stappern@feddit.it 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Evidence don't change based on "who you ask".

[–] OhSnapKracklePopped@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] stappern@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

thats not called evidence.

[–] OhSnapKracklePopped@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] stappern@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

thats not evidence