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 burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim. You are making a claim (God does not exist). If you want to think logically, the correct conclusion, in the absence of proof, is "I don't know".
For example. Let's say I have 100 opaque cups set upside down on a table and ask you the question "Is a ball under one of these cups?". It would be logically inappropriate to conclude that there is not until you have looked under every cup. Even if you looked under 99 and found nothing, it would not be proper to extrapolate that there is no ball. Do you understand?
That is the issue though. You spoke the ball into existence, not me. It is simply 100 cups upside down on a table until you asked if there was a ball under one of them.
The idea of God doesn't exist without someone saying it does. Do you understand?
Sure. And, you're free to leave the table. You have the freedom to decide the question is uninteresting or contrived or whatever and never think about it again. Others, however, think the question is interesting enough to pursue. Some of those people go on to report discovering evidence for God through first-hand experience. Those people might all be morons or delusional. The only way you have any chance of knowing for sure is to keep an open mind and try to find the evidence yourself. But, again, no one's forcing you.
So to come back full circle, your claim is I'm religious for walking away from the table?
No, my claim is that you are religious for asserting that there definitely isn't a ball while at the table.
Am I religious if I say there isn't a marble at the table? Or a walnut? I don't see one, I have no reason to believe one is there, based on how the world works elsewhere there isn't anything there.
But you're telling me I need to faith to avoid these beliefs in small generally round objects. I say it is you who is using faith to assume the existence of one particular type of thing there and you're claiming I am the person operating without any evidence.
It's ridiculous.
Yes.
A rational person would say "I don't know if there is a ball, marble, or walnut". If you have experience with other tables with upside-down cups, you might go further and say something like "If this table with cups is like the other tables with cups that I've experienced... (fill in whatever your experience re:balls, marbles, walnuts, etc)". To say more requires a leap of faith.
And, unlike tables, cups, balls, and walnuts, the existence of the universe is apparently quite singular. Thus, if you haven't had direct experience with it, it is unlikely that you'll have had sufficient parallel experiences to make any meaningful statements like "If this universe is like the other universes I've characterized...". Therefore, lacking any direct experience, the reasonable position would be "I don't know".
And my claim is what you say is bull shit. If everything you don't believe in is religious then religion loses all meaning. I don't think that is what you are going for.
You're missing the point. What makes your view "religious" (or, as someone else pointed out, perhaps "faith-based" would be the better term) is your definite rejection of things (a la "my claim is what you say is bull shit"). You could respond with "That could be. I don't have any evidence to support or refute it". That would be a rational position, in the absence of evidence. You, however, go further. You say it's bullshit.
It looks like the following comment was deleted for some reason, so I'll post it again:
By that logic I can't say unreasonable claims coming out of the Qanon movement are bull shit because the claims are so far out there they cannot be "disproved", without being religious.
It's irrational for me to say antisemitism is wrong because I can't "disprove" the existence of a super secret group of jews that actually controls everything.
I cannot rationally tell a sexist they are a piece of shit because I cannot prove God didn't intend for the world to work as a sexist might think it should.
I fail to see how being against any of the above is religious without religion losing all meaning. If being against an idea is inherently religious then what's the point? Now we have elevated sexism, antisemitism ect. to the same level as loving thy neighbor. According to your logic, I cannot rationally say one is better than another.
By that logic I can't say unreasonable claims coming out of the Qanon movement are bull shit because the claims are so far out there they cannot be "disproved", without being religious.
It's irrational for me to say antisemitism is wrong because I can't "disprove" the existence of a super secret group of jews that actually controls everything.
I cannot rationally tell a sexist they are a piece of shit because I cannot prove God didn't intend for the world to work as a sexist might think it should.
I fail to see how being against any of the above is religious without religion losing all meaning. If being against an idea is inherently religious then what's the point? Now we have elevated sexism, antisemitism ect. to the same level as loving thy neighbor. According to your logic, I cannot rationally say one is better than another.
Wrong, that is denying the claim of "God does exist".
The concept of God did not even exist until someone started claiming they did. "God exists" is inherently the initial unfounded claim, and they've continuously failed to present evidence for literally thousands of years now.
No, the rejection of the claim "God exists" leads to "I don't know whether or not God exists", not "God does not exists". "God does not exist" is a claim in its own right.
As for your historical comment, perhaps it would be better to precede your claims with "As far as I understand..." to allow yourself room for growth in the future.
Listen to yourself. Someone needs to leave themselves room to grow because they say monopoly money is not interchangeable with the USD?