Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
The one making the claim is the one who has the burden of proof. Requiring someone to prove a negative is completely illogical.
I would also say that someone's disbelief in someone else's claim is not a belief system in itself.
He made the claim that these beliefs are demonstrably false. We are waiting for the demonstration.
Also being atheist IS taking a position, making a positive claim that God does not exist. Agnosticism is neutral, not taking a stance.
Every child is born an atheist.
Science disagrees with you:
https://www.harvard.com/book/born_believers_the_science_of_childrens_religious_belief/
Sorry you feel he is not sciency enough.
You talk as if you have read the research and understood the experiments he did over 3 years in numerous mainly non-religious countries on children who were not in contact with a religious discourse. The conclusion is that they innately inclined towards believing in a higher being. Which means that NO, children are not born atheists.
Which part of the research do you disagree with? I'm eager to read your paper and assess your qualifications.
Ahh yes all those children he studied whom obviously grew up in a vacuum and were never exposed to the concept of a deity, through common language phrases and cultural beliefs.
To conduct this experiment with untainted data would likely involve placing children into an environment with no outside exposure and carefully controlled interactions with restrictions on language use which would arguably be unethical.
The research was peer reviewed. They should have included smarter people like you :)
Finally we agree on something.
There are a few proofs against existence of god. Ineffectiveness of prayer. Impossibility of miracles under controlled conditions. Biological nature of human cognition which precludes life after death.
Which is why I am calling out the OP. They are making a claim and thus have a burden of proof which they can not achieve.
And no it is not illogical in the slightest. Merely impossible. If they demand the negative be accepted as a given then they must prove it first. To do otherwise is to fall into the same trap being claimed Religious People are in.
One can't prove Evolution, despite it being the most complete explanation for the observations. Thus it is a Theory despite being accepted as the explanation by the vast majority of Scientists who study it.
They are not making the claim. The are denying the claim that there is some sentient creator. Those making the claim that there is are the ones who are responsible for proof.
Proving a negative is basically the definition of illogical. If it's impossible, then requiring it is illogical.
They are not demanding the negative be accepted out of some unproveable belief. They are demanding that people use logical reasoning when forming conclusions.
No, they did not. They demanded everyone accept their belief that "creator deity" be "obviously fictional" while providing nothing but their declaration as proof of that claim.
The original claim is "there is a creator deity". There's no proof of this, so the claim can be dismissed and anyone espousing this claim should be ridiculed.
This isn't a belief the same way religion is. It's an observation of reality without assumptions. Every religion is man-made. They are obviously fictional in too numerous of ways to list, and none of them would be good enough for you because they would not be proof. Once again YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.
This right here is all I need to know you're a moron.
Evolution IS proven. A scientific theory is NOT the same thing as the common usage of the word "theory"(Source).
No it is not. It is impossible to prove by current Human abilities. No one every said it was the same. You are assuming when someone says it is a theory that they mean a baseless guess. That is not at all what is meant. It is accepted as the best possible explanation at this time, nothing more. You assume accepting that means Creationists get to pretend the same about their claims. Creationism doesn't even hold up under Biblical research much less Scientific. Calling Evolution a theory gets a lot of panties in knots because most folks didn't study Math long enough to know what theory and proof actually are. For Evolution to be proven you'd have to predict the mutation before it was observed and then prove how it becomes dominate after the millions of Years it takes to do so. There simply isnt time to have proven it. Same with Continental drift and Pangea. The time it takes is too long to prove the theory for Humans to have done so.
No where in theory of evolution does it state that you can predict the mutation, so your rambling has nothing to do with how the theory works. Its clear you've either had a poor education or were simply a terrible student.
Evolution has been proven so many times I can't even hope to list them all, the theory of evolution informs everything from the husbandry of cattle, creating new plant cultivars , yeast modifications, to vaccines.
It's rather easy to prove in a short time span with animals /organisms with a short reproductive cycle and lifespan.
This is not what "scientific theory" means, and I'm so fucking tired of this argument being tossed around
Edit: People in this thread are either uneducated or being dense on purpose. The word "theory" when it comes to science has a specific meaning. Read a book. Hell, type the words "scientific theory" on Google, if you're too lazy for the former.
From Wikipedia:
Evolution as a Theory explains why and how species have tranformed over millenia. This Theory is absolutely supported by various sources and works on our current understanding of the laws of physics.
What's great about a theory is that it has the potential to be disproven if a new source of evidence is provided. We may never obtain evidence saying it doesn't exist, and we likely never will with how we currently understand the world and its properties. But the fact is that it is a theory.
For all we know we are in a simulation and we're slowly learning how our universe is coded. Or maybe we do have a sentient God or God-like figure who has meticulously guided our evolution though the ages. Maybe one day several hundred years in the future we'll be able to propose a new Theory using evidence found by using equations that we simply can't imagine in our current state.
In short, person you responded to is generally right. If you're going to argue against it, please provide something to work with.
Yes it is. It means that it is not proven. That is the very definition of theory. Once it is proven it is no longer a theory. Acceptance of it means nothing much like how tired you are of People pointing out you've not a leg to stand upon.
That is not what the word theory means in a scientific context, your eduction is so severley lacking it is painful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
So is gravity. Feel free to disprove it at the nearest cliff face, thanks.
And to dogpile on your statement that you can't prove evolution despite it being one of the most complete observations. There's recorded history of mystical, spiritual, and religious events happening.
The fact that we've lost or never had the ability to scientifically verify the spiritual for some reason doesn't really invalidate the claims of the past, rather it places them into a position where you should not rely upon them for specific outcomes.
At most, it suggests that there is some other actor at play and that other actor has not been identified yet, whether that be a I don't know a form of ergot that has died out due to changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution or something like that.
Maybe magic existed in the silphium plant that was lost to antiquity, maybe the strange gases that accumulated in the Grecian oracles put human beings in the State of mind needed for prophecy but their sources have dissipated.
Maybe the cause is three of the four peoples of the earth breaking their sacred Wheels according to the Hopi religion.
My opinion is that as an individual what I believe should be respected as long as it does not directly impact another.
If I want to hang up candles for Beltane then that's me and whatever.
When an atheist flips out online because religion is being discussed amongst people who have religious inclinations then they are the assholes every single time, the same as when I as a religious person flips out that atheism is being discussed online then I am the asshole.
There may be recorded history of people making claims of religious events but none with any actual evidence. You don't need to invalidate claims that were never validated in the first place.
Maybe this.. maybe that. You can claim maybe for literally an infinite number of things, but unless there's evidence or logic to follow, then it's meaningless.
If you want to believe then go ahead, but don't expect others to take you seriously. That's my biggest problem with religion. Expecting others to believe the same things you do is incredibly arrogant.
Maybe the person you replied to is just 3 kids standing on each other’s shoulders, wearing an overcoat
Can't prove they aren't.
Then it must be true!
I have the same expectation that others will take me seriously that I do that people will generally be kind and respectful towards me.
The grand majority will, a few won't, and in normal interactions it will never come to blows.
That you won't take me seriously is not a point I will ever concern myself with, and should we meet in person I doubt our religious stances will ever enter the interaction.
A: reports are evidence. Not conclusive but 100% evidence.
B: you can't make a claim and then demand other People are responsible for proving your claim is not true. You must do so as you made the claim.
C: the OP demanded we all take their belief seriously. no one demanded that they take anyone else's as such.
D: yes, that is the point. Expecting others to accept the OP's belief which was in no way supported outside of their declaration that it must be believed is indeed incredibly arrogant.
If someone puts a clearly empty jar in front of you, and I say there is something in it while you say there is nothing. Who is responsible for proving their point?
Your straw man is not really helpful. The one saying there is nothing in the jar would need to prove it as it is an outrageous claim to have achieved an absolute vacuum in the jar.
Your being pedantic and defensive because you know and don't like the answer. I can't force you see reason so keep on living in your delusion. May it bring you peace and whatnot.