this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
80 points (82.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43889 readers
958 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The most reliable way to lose faith isn't through science, it's reading their holy text.

In general, nothing about science ever shakes a theist's faith, and I doubt it ever will. Reason being: the moment science breaks new ground, religion retreats further back into the unknown. As long as there is an unknown, theists will have something to take shelter from.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's taking shelter as much as trying to find an answer to something that has no answer.

For example Eistein I don't think was trying to take shelter from reality. He wanted to look at reality as deeply as possible and he managed to peek through and see more than almost anyone ever had before.

But he still believed in a God. This is one of those reasons I always call myself an agnostic instead of atheist.

In a practical sense, I'm an atheist. I don't think Jesus turned water into wine or the Buddha achieved enlightenment and entered a higher plane of existence or whatever.

But I acknowledge there might be supernatural or supranatural items / phenomenon/ or even beings that we can't ever fully understand.

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Einstein believed in "Spinoza's god", which is essentially just nature and the laws that govern the universe. It's not the same as believing in an anthropomorphic God and putting faith in scripture.

This is one of those reasons I always call myself an agnostic instead of atheist.

Those aren't mutually exclusive terms. "Agnostic" answers whether you know a god exists, and "atheist" answers whether you believe a god exists.

I don't know of any gods, and I don't believe any exist, so I'm an agnostic atheist.

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Depends on what exactly which kind of God.

I don't think it's possible for science to really weaken or strengthen the case for a God in its most simple form (some entity existing outside of the observable universe), but particular tangible claims from religious texts or beliefs can and have been disproven. Others can't be disproven because of the nature of the claim made.

[–] Delusional@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Do we really need a scientific discovery to prove an existence that doesn't exist? I think the proof that's required is proof that God does exist and until that comes about, religion is clearly just a man made construct for the purpose of power and control.

Besides, I've given clear scientific examples to religious people before and they simply stated that it exists that way because god created it that way which is just the dumbest fucking thinking imaginable. You can't help those people.

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago

Your birth.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What weakened religion is a long process going from the middle age to the modern world. It starts with the pope wars. It peaks with the religion wars in the XVIIth century. By this point the religious power was a political power like any other, but merely with a cultural hold on European populations. Which was the nail in the coffin.

During this period, the Church radicalised itself as a defense mode. Which solidified the laïcal mindset of the Lumières. Basically the church entered a cultural war against science because it feared it would lose controle.

Then the XIXth century happened. Monarchies got destroyed. And the Catholic Church got humiliated and destroyed as a political power. Socialism and communism appeared, and to state how progressive they were, they put the church in the same reactionary bag as the royalists.

In the middle of this are the liberals who don't care much about anything but profits. Si when democracy is on the rise, they are democrats. When royalty comes back, they praise the king. At least as long as they let them make good profits. And that's what the church doesn't let them do. Morale goes in the way of profit. It forbid slavery and exploitation. It's against science. It promotes charity. That sucks balls for the liberals. But order is good, so why not being a believer but without the problems?

It's not science that made religion recess. It's bad political decisions and alliances. Many renowned scientists were believers. Many still are. But somehow the religions are rejecting science because it doesn't go into litteraly what their old fantasy book wrote. It's a shame because religions could easily make a humanist evolution if they had the political will to do it.

[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You do realize you keep using the term, "religion" when you mean to use the term, "Christianity"... Not all religions are like Christianity. smh.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The title mention god with a capital G, which means it's the religions of the Bible, which means European history of things. Context in small details.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (20 children)

Nothing u cant prove a negative.

[–] D61@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago

You mean unfalsifiable claims right?

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Molecular genetics.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›