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
I think to rephrase what they are saying, that the adamant belief that there is no religion is a belief system.
Because it can't be disproved or proved with any non-supernatural intervention, you must grapple with the divine to address the issue.
My difficulty with that though is someone had to come up with the idea of God. It is someone else's belief long ago that brought it into existence. To my knowledge humans are not born with the knowledge God might exist.
To put it differently, I have never seen a dog or cat praying.
It is a question that occurs to all who are sufficiently curious. It is a corollary of the question "Why does anything exist?".
Prove it..
You can not. That is the difference. I know you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into but come on. This is yet another circle, round we go. You feel superior because you asked yourself that question and you came to your logical conclusion. Guess what buttercup, that doesn't mean it's the logical conclusion.
We're just talking circles I believe, so I appreciate the civil conversation (minus my low blows above) but I'm afraid we will be forced to agree to disagree. And if I'm wrong, you may have the chance to witness me give God a huge piece of my mind before he casts me off to hell. :)
I haven't even stated my conclusions. I am only trying to help y'all understand that it is not reasonable to jump from an absence of evidence to a conclusion of non-existence. It has nothing to do with me. It is a fact of formal logic.
Here, let me rephrase what's written above:
Because an invisible pink sky elephant cannot be disproved or proved with any non-supernatural intervention, you must grapple with the imaginary to address the issue.
...
That's not how the world works. We don't spend any time grappling with things for which there is no evidence.
There are many, many things that were imaginary, until they existed. In fact all of Human invention started as nothing but belief. And yet we have the physical object once it is made.
What remains imaginary?
Everything is imaginary. Feel free to prove otherwise to yourself with whatever belief you choose.
While in the womb, there was no evidence (that you could understand) of a world outside the womb.
But, it turns out, there is.
What evidence?
It turns out there is a world outside of the womb.
If you re-read what I wrote, you'll find that I did not claim to know what anyone believes inside the womb.
I'm saying that we all have prior experience of transitioning from situations where we had no evidence for something into ones where we had definite evidence. The implication is that we should remain open rather than forcing conclusions of non-existence.
What you wrote doesn't even pass the mildest smell test: there is ample evidence that forming babies hear and react to stimuli from outside the womb, for just one example.
But even if there were no evidence of a world outside the womb, I wouldn't expect a baby to think one existed. Nor would I threaten that baby with damnation were they not to believe me without evidence.
But, you might, metaphorically speaking, encourage that baby to remain open-minded about the existence of an outside world as opposed to dismissing the possibility out-of-hand.