Eeeehhh you got a men’s room in there?
Eeeehhh you got a men’s room in there?
A hypothesis requires no evidence. It’s then tested through repeatable controlled experiments. The events leading to the Big Bang have no evidence. If science can hypothesize, why can’t religion?
Have you read string theory? It’s no different than Spinoza’s god.
Agreed. I’d also totally vote for The Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can’t Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.
Mawwiage.
Mawwiage is wat bwings us togevaaah, today.
Mawwiage. Vfat bwessed awaaaingement, vfat dweam wifin a dweeam…
I love the etymology of the word Cajun. They’re Louisiana Acadians saying Acadian with a southern accent.
You’re going in circles now. I linked a conversation where Communist explicitly stated people are wrong to believe in god without proof. It’s one of many on this post.
I’m not taking another lap with you.
Good luck always being right.
Take care.
Then we are in agreement that string theory is simply a belief until any evidence has been found. That doesn’t stop them from writing books, holding lectures, and convincing others to participate in the field. I don’t go around telling ten-dimensional physicists to stop believing in, and speculating about, a theoretical field that’s devoid of evidence. I’d consider that pretty arrogant. Just because there’s no evidence, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Sound familiar?
Again, regardless of how strongly someone believes in religion, it’s still a belief, just like string theory. Why are the atheists in this thread qualified to tell them they are wrong to hold it?
You keep circumventing the main point that I’m making. The religious commenting here were not telling others to believe. Most were not even citing dogma, only how faith affects them positively. Atheists were imposing their own beliefs on the religious through unsolicited critical condemnation.
How can you not see the arrogance in that?
I’m not claiming that the Big Bang is theistic. I’m stating that there is no explanation for the creation or momentum of the two masses that collided, and proposing that it could have been accomplished by a divine creator just the same as ten-dimensional physicists believe that time was non-existent. If you don’t think scientists hold beliefs, you haven’t read enough about string theory. Religion is a belief, not a fact. Some may believe more whole-heartedly than others, but that doesn’t change the fundament.
Again, this was a post asking religious people why they are religious. There was no solicitation of god to atheists, yet many atheists took up arms to discredit the religious using the “burden of proof” argument. That argument only applies if someone is trying to convince another of an idea. A belief, by definition, is holding an idea without proof.
I absolutely respect rebuttals if they try to convince you of god’s existence. If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.
The event that I initially commented on way higher in this post was on the topic of creation. The Big Bang is widely accepted as the beginning of the universe. We have strong evidence of expansion from the universal center toward proposed systemic entropy.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began without violating the laws of physics, some involving non-existence of time. Other than speculation, we have no explanation as to where the masses came from or what set them in motion. Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science. Interference-based creation is just as possible as string theory.
You may not be saying that god doesn’t exist, but the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that. https://lemmy.world/comment/10760354
I was simply standing up for the scientific support of agnosticism against a gnostic atheist who was repeatedly critical of those believing in god, on a post asking religious people why they’re religious. As a scientific person, I felt he was representing science poorly.
Astrophysics is based on observation of non-controlled events, coupled with existing understanding of physical laws and mathematics. Since there are very few controlled experiments in astrophysics, most of it is comprised of untested theories supported by the aforementioned evidence.
I’m just pointing out the difference between theory and applied scientific method on repeatable phenomena. I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events. They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is. Some may believe science governs the laws we see in existence, others may believe it’s god.
Einstein believed in the possibility of a divine creator that did not concern itself with the fate of mankind, but was responsible for the perfection found in the connection of all things, also known as “Spinoza’s god,” after Baruch Spinoza. There is certainly room for science and religion to coexist, and therefore no need for condemnation of either.
It could be simple download requests, rather than MAC or IP address downloads.
I remember hearing the opposite a long time ago. Thanks for the correction!
It’s a shitty rip off from a musical standpoint. I’m glad he has to pay.
Ice Ice Baby has a pickup in the phrase that isn’t in Under Pressure. It’s an easy way to know what’s coming. It’s how Vanilla Ice won against Queen’s copyright infringement lawsuit.
I just read through the linked conversation. I’m sorry, but it’s been clearly decided by groupthink that you are not allowed to learn anything or form new opinions. I hope you understand their decision and its effective permanence on your growth.
You see someone holding a belief you don’t agree with as arrogant, but not your unwanted criticism of it? Forget arrogance. You may be a narcissist.
Arrogance comes into play when one person asserts their beliefs over another’s.
They weren’t stating that you should believe in god.
You were stating that they shouldn’t.
I’m making no claims of the unknown, other than defending the possibility of something that cannot be proven or disproven to exist. You’re openly discrediting the beliefs of others through your own understanding. What sounds more arrogant to you?
So you don’t believe any of the untested theories of astrophysics?
The fact that you have no counterpoint other than syntax correction reaffirms that you have nothing to offer. Take care.
It’s already banned in Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Taiwan, Denmark, European Union, France, India, Indonesia, Netherlands, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Somalia, and United Kingdom.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/these-countries-have-already-banned-tiktok