I work in IT. More specifically I work in Networking. So every fucking day.
Best one was when I was working for an internet provider. Customer was complaining every other day their internet was not working to spec. They ordered a 100Mb service and could never get more than around 60Mb. Somehow they got it into their head that our on prem gear was the issue. But our on prem gear was gigabit capable.
But they never listened and eventually it got to the point where ceo to ceo calls were happening.
My ceo managed to make them agree to a call out where if no problem was found in our gear they would pay the $120 callout plus time for the 2 hour drive to the customer office but if I found a problem on their side we would compensate them for the services until it performs as ordered.
I get there plug my laptop into their network and sure enough I get 60Mb speed tests. Moved my cable from their firewall to the spare port on our gear and get the full speed.
They wanted me to do the tests a few more times and I do and get the same result.
I looked up the spec sheet of their firewall and third line down of the throughput graph shows their setup only has a rated capacity of about 60Mb. Never heard a peep from them after that.
I had a similar issue, except from the customer side. I had worked IT for 20 years in the US Air Force, and when I retired 2 years ago, I moved back in with my elderly dad in my old childhood home. I found out he was paying for 40Mb service (the best offered to our secluded countryside home), but we were lucky if we could get 15-20Mb at the best of times.
I spent several weeks troubleshooting over the phone with his ISP and they insisted it was a problem on our end. I rebooted our modem so many times, even configured it from scratch several times. I ensured the WiFi router I set up to extend the range across the house wasn't slowing anything down along the way. I swore there was nothing out of place on our end and they needed to check the connection to our house. They didn't believe me; thought I was just claiming to be an IT expert to skip steps and get someone out to our secluded neck of the woods (fair, but still...)
Eventually, I convinced them to send a technician out here, an hour away from their offices. The tech connected to the line outside the house and immediately packed up his tools and went back to his truck. He said he doesn't even need to check my equipment; there's definitely something wrong with the external line.
Turns out they have a service box at the end of my street. They don't have a dedicated 40Mb line for my home, so they paired two 20Mb lines. One of the lines was completely disconnected; removed during maintenance and they forgot to reconnect it. The other was a shared line with my small neighborhood, which explains the drop in connection during high usage hours. The service tech connected the second line and we got twice the speed we used to.
I ended up dropping that company for Starlink shortly after, since they had no higher speeds in my area. Which was a significant improvement (200Mbps), but not quite the speeds I had hoped for. Now, thanks to Biden's high speed Internet initiative, I'm getting Gb speeds to my neighborhood this summer. Can't wait for that; as much of an improvement as Starlink has been over my old connection, it's still slow compared to what I'm used to from my military service.
thanks to Biden's high speed Internet initiative, I'm getting Gb speeds to my neighborhood this summer.
That's actually happening this time? I'll admit I haven't payed any attention to this, but I kind of figured the isps would just pocket the money again.
My hometown had to request a local ISP submit a grant request to the federal government in order to fund the expansion of high speed Internet in our area. My town and 2 others were approved; a 4th town in my area was denied and needed to re-accomplish and resubmit their grant request.
I don't know all the fine legal details of the grant, but I know that the ISP is required to put the funds toward development in the areas outlined in the grant request.
The last time our president attempted a high speed Internet initiative (I think it was Bush Jr?), they just gave money to ISPs and told them to spend it on upgrading their networks. There was no accountability, so most companies just pocketed the money.
Yeah Verizon did this shit so hard in West Virginia. Sure they pulled fiber all over the state, but they stopped at the cities. They made so much money, but hardly anyone could access the network.
I got fiber to my home 15 years later from a different company.
Many times. It's never as rewarding as you'd like, because the other party is rarely objective, and thus rarely acknowledges their defeat.
It's usually better to ease up when you get close to a total victory and allow the opponent to save face.
After all, no matter how objectively correct you are, if you don't change the other person's position even a little, you're just wasting time.
Yes. It's always a good question to ask yourself:
Would you rather be effective or be right?
I know someone that dismisses 95% of media as "Western media propaganda". They include Al Jazeera in that list 🤦🏻♀️
IMO it's even worse when the other party admits to their mistakes and apologizes.
Takes out all the wind of your sails
I am someone who does that because I'm objective enough to recognize my own fallibility and that if I'm presented with reasonable and logical evidence, i will accept it and change my perspective.
It also usually stops fighting and helps progress to a constructive discussion.
I do that, too, and I regularly get the "you're always right, I'm always wrong" commentary. I respond, no, I'm often wrong, I just don't make a big deal out of it so you don't notice. I'd be happy to move on without a fuss when you're wrong, too, if you'll allow it.
Because seriously, being wrong is not a big deal. Everybody is wrong at some point, and regularly. Just correct yourself and move on, it's not a hit to your identity or person.
I agree wholeheartedly. Being wrong is a good thing sometimes, it means you are indeed living life and learning. There may subjectively be better things to be wrong about sometimes, but it's usually only a big deal if you make it one.
Yeah I like to acknowledge when I'm wrong, it makes me think carefully next time I think I'm right about something, and to challenge my assumptions about things.
An ex and I were on an hour-long bus trip to the next city over where we lived in Korea. The subject of there being a subway in said city came up, and I insisted there was not. She insisted that she saw one there once. I further insisted that there was no way the city was big enough to have a subway. It got quite heated. Anger. Hurt feelings.
She was talking about the sandwich restaurant, I was talking about underground trains. We were both right.
This is a good one. So right yet so wrong at the same time
In the 2nd grade. When we got to school each morning we went to our classrooms and dropped off our stuff, then we went to the gym to wait for school to start. I was in a split class (2nd & 3rd grade in the same room) and while in the gym a 3rd grader came up and asked me what I'd do if my box of crayons went missing. I had the Crayola 128 mega box, with attached sharpener... top of the line.
Of course, when I get to class, my crayons are missing, and Tommy has a box in his desk. I walk over and tell him to give me my crayons and he says they are his. A fight is brewing, so other kids gather round. I reach down and grab the box from his desk and put them behind my back, then simply ask "If these are your crayons, where did you get them?" and he replied "My mom bought them for me at Piggly Wiggly"... I pulled the box from my back and showed everyone the 'Wal-Mart' sticker on the back. Then I put my crayons back in my desk.
I was always a small kid, always being picked on... this was one of my few wins as a kid and it felt so good.
You proved it with a Walmart sticker?
Smart thinking.
Not to be mean to little you, but your name should've been on that box - on each side, and one on the inside for good measute.
"If it's yours then why is my name on it in 5 different spots?"
And if my grandma had wheels she would be a bike!
Yes, and in my experience it rarely if ever has the "gotcha" moment of victory that one fantasizes about. Either it was something with low stakes and the response is just "oh okay", or it's something more emotionally charged and the opposing side will deflect, change the subject, pretend that you're agreeing with them or that they believed what was correct the whole time. It never seems to matter.
In college I used to study a class ahead to be ready with questions. A professor said that something couldn't be done analytically, but I just hours before had learned the proof of the analytical solution so I told them it could be done, he said it couldn't, I said I can prove it. He gave me the chalk I went to the board and prove the analytical solution. He was like wow, I didn't knew that. He gave me extra credits on the final for that.
didn't knew that
Stay in school, kids.
This person is probably Brazilian given the domain of the instance they're in. Given that you didn't assume that they speak another language, I'll assume that means they know probably twice as many languages as you, and tenses are really hard to master.
Don't be a prick to people for no reason.
Their post history indicates a clinical obsession with... being an asshole about shit that doesn't matter.
But that's what most people spend most of their time on the internet doing!
I do disaster planning for counties,hospitals,big companies,etc.
I had a presentation for a hospital and basically showed them very very detailed how they need to prepare for flash flooding. And I was absolutely shot down and basically booed out of the room.
"We never can get flash flooding here, it is impossible, you have no idea what you are talking about!"
Exactly two weeks later you could see them on national news, they had 120cm(around 4 feet) on their ground floor, including their ED.
Even if they had signed us it wouldn't have changed a thing (our recommendations take years to show effects) and people died (it is actually part of one of the worst flash flooding disasters in history,over 220 people died). So I can't be happy about it at all.
But my team and I were very very very much proven right. (And meanwhile even multiple court ordered experts have agreed on our assessment)
Did those dbags get any repercussions or are they still on their yachts?
Old one for me, but as a kid walking home with friends from school, I realised there might be a better route that would significantly shorten my walk and make little difference to them. I mentioned it and was fobbed off. So later I pulled up the route online and actually measured it. Not only was my suggestion a better route for me, but it was actually shorter for everyone else too! I triumphantly took my findings to my friends who to my surprise and disappointment really could not care less, and a little part of me died because they were not my friends.
What if they liked walking longer to spend time with each other or possibly some place they wanted to see on the way. Sometimes it’s the journey and not the destination
Thats what I thought too. I have definitly used longer paths before just to spend more time.
The shorter paths is not necessarily the best. Maybe they just like that path
When I was working retail in a technical environment I had a customer come in wanting to buy product X. Since I’ve always just wanted to help people I suggested product Y for its superior quality and longevity at a slightly higher cost. The customer started raging at me how dare I try to upsell him something he didn’t ask for. Other customers turning their head and all. He left fuming saying he’d go to another store.
A day later said customer came back into the store and I was already bracing myself. Turns out he compared the products on the website and read some reviews and realized I was right. He apologized and bought the product.
It was not really satisfying, just turning a negative into a neutral I guess.
They didn't have to come back and tell you you were right; could have just bought it elsewhere and avoided you (out of shame for their own ignorance) so I consider that a win at your end. You can totally own that!
One example comes to mind where I almost did.
I used to drive an older Pontiac. It wasn't the fanciest car, so it wasn't the most performant.
One day, I was leaving a restaurant with a girl I was dating, and had to merge into traffic up a hill. I knew the car would need all the power it could get to do the merge safely, so I turned off the air-conditioning. Confused, the girl asked why I did that. I explained that air conditioning affects the performance of the car. She disagreed. She was raised a bit privileged and had only ever driven nice cars, so never noticed the performance hit of having the A/C on.
We bickered back and forth for a minute or two before I said "okay look I'll show you" and reached to turn off the A/C. Before I could, however, she hit me with "you know, you don't always have to be right". I didn't end up getting to prove it to her.
In her defense, I can be very stubborn when its something I am confident I'm correct in, and we actually argued a lot about stuff. Another example of an argument we had was over the fact that prairie dogs can carry the plague. She didn't believe me and I remember we had to look up the answer. And that was on our second date.
I think about that line she hit me with a lot. But I also realize that in a lot of our "arguments" I was still having fun. To me, there's a playful aspect to a good argument. As long as nobody is yelling or getting feelings hurt, it's a fun way to pass the time. Unfortunately, I didn't realize she wasn't having fun like I was.
I feel this. Some people, like us, enjoy discussing and analyzing things. We can separate who we are as people from the things we think. If someone shows us something we hadn't considered, our response is "Awesome, I just learned something new!"
Not everyone is like that. For some people, their self worth is tied to knowing things and being right. We need to be aware of the differences.
Once when I was little my mom was yelling at me about something or other. In the heat of the moment she called me a son of a bitch, and I went "Oh?" with a single eyebrow raised over a smirk. She laughed, and that stopped the yelling.
Wait, does being funny enough to distract someone equal winning an argument? In my universe it does
I once got in an argument with someone who claimed a fish isn't an animal. And I laughed and said "of course it is. What else would it be a plant?". They said "It's not an animal. It's a fish!" So I said "which is an animal we can look it up if you want"
The reply I got was "I don't need to look it up I know a fish isn't an animal"
I got stunned into silence so I think in their mind they believe they were absolutely objectively proven correct. I don't put much worry in arguments since, easier to let things go and realise people are just stupid and ignorant.
I had this exact same argument with someone when he said he was a vegetarian. We were looking for a restaurant to eat with coworkers. Two sentences later he said he could eat fish, so I said "fish is meat, I thought you were vegetarian" expecting something about "it's just easier to say I am, but really I'm a pescatarian". But no. He said "fish is not meat"
I think people get "animals" confused with "mammals". Also there's some weird thing with Catholicism where fish isn't defined as meat for the purposes of Lent. But man it's infuriating to meet someone like that.
Capybaras are also safe for eating during Lent.
Apparently giant rodents are not meat either.
Muskrat is allowed too, not sure I'd try it though.
I got confused about this too, when I found out that traditionally meat has referred to warm-blooded animals. But that's not universal across cultures, "warm-blooded" has been an obsolete term for quite some time in biology, and thermoregulation is kind of a silly condition for something being considered vegetarian or not. A fish is clearly not a vegetable, unless in an induced coma, and I doubt they person only eats comatose fish.
Yes, a few times. Didnt make the slightest difference though, it almost never does. Such is life. Still, at least others viewing the discussion who were on the fence/ unsure will have been presented with the evidence needed to convince them
I knew a dude in highschool that you could literally perform a scientific experiment in front of multiple times, reproducing the same outcome every time and he would still deny it and say whatever opposite day inane bullshit he was claiming to be true.
Otherwise almost every other day with my sister. Especially if it comes to video game knowledge. She at least realizes she was wrong once proven wrong though.
Yes. My company wanted me to get a corporate credit card with Bank of America. I said absolutely not, they have a terrible reputation and I want nothing to do with them. In response, I was told in an email (which was Cc-ed to some VP of Finance) that this wasn't true, and that Bank of America has a great reputation.
Now, if you're gonna claim I'm wrong and start cc-ing people, you better be able to back it up. This pissed me off, so I googled for lists of the worst banks in America. Of the three first surveys on the topic that I found, two of them had Bank of America as the "top spot" as worst bank, and the third one had it in third place. I emailed this back to the person. I never heard back. I happily continued not using their corporate credit card ever after.
Essentially all my young life I was treated like a dork because I was finding ways to reuse containers for lunch rather than get disposables. This is going back well before it was common knowledge.
Yes I was that person who had my own cotton mesh bags for veggies. Yes I got a lot of judgy looks especially from the middle aged ladies. I just embraced being seen as a dork. Figured out early I wanted to be on right side of history even if that meant I wasn’t ‘cool’. As far as I cared, this Shit went beyond me and my ego/confidence.
Now those who called me a dork not only pretend like it didn’t happen but often pass on unsolicited information to me about reuse that is now very common knowledge.
Current day I’m like yea… you have to wash it because reuse isn’t just reuse. It’s also wash well to reuse so you don’t get sick. And occasionally you stil have to throw things out that become contaminated. This part still isn’t ‘common knowledge’ yet…smh.
Happens all the time in my head.
It's the usual thing.
only in the shower, two days later.
Many moons ago I was in a very heated argument that you could write a fully functional program in notepad.
I was trying to explain what COM files were, they just didn't understand enough about it.
That seems like an odd thing to argue against. Did they mean that it wasn't possible? Or wasn't a good idea? Or was this before scripting languages and the point was you needed a compiler? So many questions
Yeah to clarify their point they didn't believe me that it was possible to write executable code outside of an ordinary scripting language.
I mean, in any instance if you can write code with ed, i don't know why you couldn't with notepad.
What kind of question is this? 😆 I think everyone older than 6 regularly does that. Especially when planning things and disagreeing and then you get to learn who was right. And even the kids like to bet who is right and then they look it up, ask someone or try it and one of them will have this as an outcome...
One time my dad and I were in Mexico looking for some glue to fix a chair. So walking into town, I said we need to look for Kola Loka—spelled with Ks. My dad said "Nonsense! It would be spelled with Cs." Neither of us had seen how Krazy Glue is marketed in Spanish, but I could've put money on that spelling. I should've, because I was right dammit! And dad, who is a linguist, grudgingly admitted, "All right, I suppose you may have some linguistic talent too." It was the only time I ever won an argument with him over anything having to do with language.
In reality yes, but normally who I’m arguing with it’s based on pure emotion and no logical aspects anywhere.
And the fact that there's almost never a clear answer anyway.
There are very few instances where blanket statements are true.
Also, how often do you have the scientific or journalistic background to prove your point?
I don't argue unless I am correct. So alot of the time I am able to successfully prove it in the moment, other times they find out on their own later. If I didn't know for sure, why would I argue? That just seems like pointless behaviour.
I mean, there are so many questions without a correct answer. That’s usually why you get into an argument in the first place.
I would think so, at least for knowledge-based ones. Thinking about this out loud, it's hard to feel I can claim certainty given anything seems to have the potential to remind me of the adage that one can never be certain of anything. However, there are a handful where this doubt is completely obsolete, typically because I'm talking to someone who doesn't seem to know the answer is an obvious part of life for me. I have been wrong before and will mention so within reason (as in based on a battle of experience/testimony/proofs/contradictoriness in its equivalent to PEMDAS).
As a Maths teacher, almost daily 😂
Plenty of times. But that's not the same as the other party accepting the fact :o)
I've also been proven wrong many times.
The way the question is posed implies that this is a rare occurance?
Yeah, that's what happens most times.
But also, I have had the rare person accept the fact and pull a complete 180 due to a fact I've shown. It's very rare, but not impossible.
I believe the three hardest words for most people to be "I was wrong"
Every time. Especially anonymously on the Internet.
Of course, the other person may remain rooted in their ignorance and fallacy, but that's their loss.
Every time. Especially anonymously on the Internet.
Of course, the other person may remain rooted in their ignorance and fallacy, but that’s their loss.
For fucks sake.
You legitimately think you're objectively correct 100% of the time...
I'm glad I checked your post history to decide if I should block you.
Someone has to be completely irrational to think they've ner been wrong.
I’m taking up the banner of defedding from sh.itjustworks. I’ve yet to encounter a user from there that isn’t an asshole worthy of blocking
Don't do me like that 😑
You’re the exception!
But I'm also an admin. There are some assholes on SJW, but no more than on lemmy.world, imho
Not talking about you specifically but just saying, glass houses and all.
That’s fair, I’ve just noticed that most of the accounts I’m blocking these days are from SJW. Maybe I’ve just gotten all the assholes in .world already
Fair enough, you're not the first one to feel that way. Luck of the draw I suppose
There's so many instances that are just used by trolls now, because theyre easy sign up and large federation.
Federation shouldn't just be the default setting, and then defeding when shit goes bad.
When Lemmy took off everyone wanted to federate, so there was pretty much zero standards
Oh dear, I thought the /s wasn't necessary here. Don't get your knickers in a twist, I was joking because of course I'm often wrong!
Not in today's argument with the bigot who called me a "wokescold" for quoting facts about the antisemitism of the originators of the Reptilian Conspiracy, but plenty of other times.
I'm the same! I'm literally always right! Never wrong! Ever!!!
Atheists. Their argument always boils down to "I don't want God to exist because I don't like him"
lol theists are the ones that do this “God exists because my worldview would fall apart and I’d realize I wasted my life on a manipulative fairy tale”
Life would be easier if God didn't exist. I'd be able to follow my own hedonistic desires and do what I'd like. But I re examined my faith and realised that God indeed exists.
Sounds like you are one of the people that benefits from thinking a god is a real thing. Most of us don't need something like that to be nice people.
It's not about being nice people- it's about the fact we need a Saviour because we aren't nice people.
Religious people do seem to need it, that's right. The prison population is one tenth of one percent atheist despite the proportion of atheists in the unincarcerated population being hundreds of times higher. It's not like atheists are committing crimes and then start believing in a god after they get locked up, in any significant amount. It's not even the fact that atheists get extra persecution in prison and are just pretending to believe in prison to get the same perks as the religious - because when the federal prison system allowed atheists to identify as humanists in order to receive some of the same benefits as those who identify with a religion, not very many of them did so.
Please do keep being religious, if you truly believe that you are only capable of caring about the well-being of other humans when under divine threat. Most of us can work out the golden rule and how to be empathetic as children by recognizing the shared human experience in others.
The prison population is one tenth of one percent atheist despite the proportion of atheists in the unincarcerated population being hundreds of times higher.
Starting with United States data makes sense as the incarceration rate is so high there. I'll leave the state and international prison searches up to you to follow up on if you decide it's an interesting enough subject. Pew did a summarized study where they lump atheism in with scientology, Satanism, druidism, etc., but it's still a good read.
You might find that there are also correlations between demographics of the incarcerated, uneducated and undereducated, low income, and religious. One certainly isn't necessarily a cause of any other, but it is interesting to find a consistent correlation among all of them.
Moreso there exists no proof of sky daddys existence, why would I invent something to believe in, that places arbitrary rules upon how I live, just for funsies? If civilization collapsed, and humans had to start over from square 1, we would discover all the same scientific principles, all the same laws of thermodynamics, all the same measurements of our solar system and it's age. What we wouldn't do is make up the same BS stories of whatever god you happen to believe in.
If Christianity is man made fake stories, why does it go against all of man's desires?
You know all the stories in the bible existed in other religions before yours? Just with different names and slightly different details here and there. Every religion was made up by people from slightly altered previous religions... it's, comically enough, just another example of evolution.
All religions are about why people shouldn't be jerks, but most of us don't need to believe anyone is watching us to behave. Stories are helpful, but they don't have to have any "magic" to get their point accross. Just examples of things people don't like or do like is enough to make it a good guiding story. A god figure is superfluous and unnecessary.
What stories are you referring to? Things like the flood narrative exist around the world because it actually happened.
Christianity isn't about being a good person- It's about the fact that we cannot be a good person and how we need a Saviour.
A God figure is necessary to redeem us, and whether or not you think He's necessary doesn't make Him any less real.
This argument always fascinates me because it makes it sound like you'd be a psychopath if you weren't afraid of the consequences. I have my own internal compass, thanks. People that don't? I'd rather stay away from them.
I have my own internal compass
Yeah, because of the Garden of Eden. We all do.
Do we all have an internal compass because of the garden of eden, or from believing in Christianity? If it's just from the garden of eden and doesn't require belief, then atheists are just as moral as you are and your argument makes no sense.
If a moral compass comes from religious belief, then you are telling on yourself that you only abstain from being a shitty person because you're afraid of consequences from God.
because that's how they wrote it
I cannot explain that one TBH. It's fucking weird for a book to instruct us to sell our daughters. I have no idea why such an obviously immoral work is used as an authority when people value personal autonomy.
Lol this is like saying I don't want Gandalf to exist because I don't like Gandalf
You've met some pretty dumb athiests then, there are much better and more common arguments than that. Keep in mind there are dumb people everywhere, if you can't tell them apart, you don't have the tools to do so.
Like Dawkins and Ehrman? Because they are pretty dumb.
If you have objectively proven that atheists are wrong, that means that you must have proven that God exists right? I do not think that is possible without God showing himself, and not just to you, but to others too. If these atheists have not seen God, you have in fact, not proven that they are objectively wrong.
Also, there are many arguments that atheists use. For example, some atheists believe that the Bible can not be right because parts of it were written long after the events that they describe (for example gospels written maybe 50 years after Jesus' death, meaning most if not all eyewitnesses have died).
As a Christian myself, I do not believe you can objectively disprove atheism. And to claim not liking God is the only reason for their beliefs is ignorant, if not worse.
God did show Himself as Jesus.
50 years isn't that much, especially considering Jesus' disciples were likely His own age, such as Matthew and John. They could have been 20 at the time and easily lived to write their own gospels, being aware of their old age.
Also, most historical figures we know about from that era have writings about them existing several hundred years after their existence. It's actually an anomaly that accounts of Jesus were written so close to the time, as well as the epistles. It's almost like God literally came down to earth.
As an avowed agnostic since the 3rd grade, you're not wrong.
My fundamental problem with atheism is that I don't believe it's possible to answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing without acquiescing to the possibility of a higher power.
That being said, my qualms with organized religion are much more severe, so I rarely have reason to bicker with atheists about technicalities.
That logic is flawed. Just because we don't understand why there is something rather than nothing, there is no logical implication that there could be a higher being. "Coincidence" would seem to be a much more likely reason (until/if we understand why) - much like coincidence being the reason for most (all?) observed miracles
“Coincidence” would seem to be a much more likely reason
How so? How do you define "coincidence" in this context?
Even if "coincidence" is more likely, that doesn't rule out the possibility of a higher power.
Atheism is the assertion that there is no God, agnosticism is the acknowledgement that we can't actually prove such an assertion. As an agnostic, I dont necessarily believe that a higher power is likely to exist, I simply know that I am unable to definitively prove otherwise.
If you claim to be an atheist, you should be able to logically demonstrate that a higher power cannot possibly exist. Go ahead.
Atheism is the assertion that there is no God, agnosticism is the acknowledgement that we can’t actually prove such an assertion
Most atheists tend to identify as agnostic atheists. You're arguing against gnostic atheists, which are few and far between in my experience. The qualifier is usually dropped out of simplicity.
I'm gnostic about the Judeo-Christian god existing, and agnostic about any god existing. I still identify as an atheist.
Fair enough. I guess my understanding of the terminology may be obsolete.
But I'm unsure how you can be gnostic about the Judeo-Christian God existing. Doesn't that require the exact same amount of faith as actual Christians, just in the opposite direction? I'm not comfortable with claiming certainty of anything in the absence of any logical framework, and thus I do not identify as an atheist.
I do identify as an atheist, and I would say it has nothing to do with some sort of faith in non-existence. I know there is a lot more to be found out about the universe, and as our methods of observation and tools improve so will our understanding of how everything fits together and where it all "came" from. What I dont understand is what would a 2000 year old book's character have to do with anything? Why would the Abrahamic god enter the picture at all? If you can imagine that there's some ultimate creative force that is responsible for existence, why would it resemble the "God" in the Bible? It could be something like a "white hole", spewing matter in to the universe as another interesting but ultimately mundane cosmic feature. It certainly wouldn't give a shit that you exist, or ever hear prayers, or that people are cruel to each other, and all the other stuff people made up and have been telling each other about God. I acknowledge that we don't and can't know everything about how the universe works but I don't get why that has to leave the back door open to believing in some sapient paranormal omniscient presence floating somewhere in space. The Bible is a work of fiction. There are lots of great lessons to be learned in fiction, and it can be a great comfort and an escape, but it was written and made up by people.
why would it resemble the “God” in the Bible?
Why wouldn't it? We have no frame of reference to make a value judgment about what a higher power should or would be like. We simply have no way of knowing.
We do, however, have a framework of references regarding the other natural mysteries humans once ascribed to gods having elegant solutions rooted in the hard sciences. We searched the storm clouds and didn't find Thor. We've dug boreholes and didn't find Hades. We've studied the sun and haven't found Ra. Human history is chock full of gods and "higher powers" to explain the unknown, and as we learned more about the world the less relevant they became. We learned sacrificing goats to a god does not make it rain, and now understand the natural and mundane systems that do. There's no reason to believe that the creation of matter or "something from nothing" as you put it is any different.
There's also no reason to believe it's the same.
Our extremely advanced collection of scientific knowledge doesn’t even attempt to explain anything prior to the big bang. The models simply don't apply.
In the 20th century, many made similar arguments regarding quantum mechanics. Einstein famously remarked "God doesn't play dice", because he didn't see how uncertainty could be a fundamental aspect of physics. Everything we knew about physics up until that point involved definitive calculations which provided a determinate result. Turns out he was wrong.
I try to avoid hubris, and in this situation it's pretty easy for me to recognize and avoid. My question for you is, what is your incentive to make such a definitive claim in the absence of certainty? My suspicion is it has something to do with OPs original claim that atheists choose to believe that God doesn't exist due to emotional reasons, rather than rational ones.
Let's say for example that before there was space time, outside of the known universe that there was a giant space whale. This space whale ate dark energy and as it passed through its digestive system it created matter. Turns out, this is how the universe started. Is the space whale God? It created all life and the universe so is that all it would take to fit the description? Does it have to be intelligent? How intelligent? Does it have to have heard prayers or be aware of humans? Does it have to have directly created Earth or humanity or can it just have created all matter?
How about if Star Trek is right, and there is a race of incredibly advanced extra dimensional beings with powers indistinguishable from gods? They seem to be all knowing and all powerful and can communicate with us and can even read our minds. Are they gods, or aliens with technology beyond our understanding? What if the aliens were confirmed to have created Earth? Humans even?
Would it still be a god if you could measure it, visit it, observe it? Does a theist's idea of god have to be something beyond perception? I would argue that the line between a god and a highly advanced alien is in the deliberate ambiguity, and the need to "have faith" that it exists. The moment there is hard evidence of its existence it stops being a god. Anything that can't exist in the face of any evidence that it does might as well not.
There are probably an infinite amount of possibilities in the unknown, but without any evidence or scientific rigor then any theory people come up with are just daydreams. Being pooped out by a giant space whale is an equally valid idea to there being a god out there, and equally valid to an enormous primordial cow licking the salt from ice to create life. I don't believe in those stories because I don't have any reason to. Your saying that my lack of belief in god is emotional is pretty funny to me, perhaps your lack of belief in Superman is emotional rather than rational.
Because modern morality would reject the idea that an omnipotent being would need to torture someone to death to absolve humanity of the "sin" of acquiring knowledge of good and evil from actions they took prior to understanding the difference between good and evil. Whereas 2000 years ago that concept might have been more palatable.
Or that somehow it is acceptable to torture people for eternity for losing a guessing game you created. We have only 100 years to pick the right answer, should we make everything just and fair so it's easy to figure out there was a plan? Or give cancer to children?
Not to mention just torturing some dude to win a bet with Satan. Wait, isn't that a bet with one of the creations that doesn't have the free will? Isn't an omnipotent being actually above needing to prove things to the devil?
Either the Bible is a work of fiction embracing the morality of the era it was written in, or it's perfectly normal for an omnipotent being to create things with free will but flip out and do tortures or mass genocides when the free will is used incorrectly. Can you imagine how you'd perceive people acting out these stories today? "Hey boss, I need the day off, I'm hearing voices telling me to take my child up a mountain to kill him, so I'm going to do that."
What makes you assume that a higher power would adhere to your moral code?
You don't actually know, but because certain possibilities make you emotionally uncomfortable, you choose to reject them. It's totally fine for you to choose to believe whatever you like. But from a purely rational perspective, you cannot prove your assertion; it's based on faith.
If you assert a higher power with a more advanced moral code than mine would condone selling women into sexual slavery I am pretty sure you have already lost the argument.
But that higher power isn't even consistent with its own moral code. Remember when it sent bears to maul a bunch of children for teasing a bald dude? I assume you will say it is foolhardy to assume it is morally wrong to maul children to death for a childish mistake? That's absurd, though, the Commandment is not killing. Maybe god should have tossed in an eleventh: "bald dudes are off-limits, kids, bother someone else."
From a purely rational perspective, I have to reject the Abrahamic religions as being fantasies from cultures with barely developed moral codes, as that is the infinitely more plausible explanation.
If I cannot find my keys, I don't "from a purely rational perspective" have to accept that pixies might have hidden them. Rejecting the existence of mischievous pixies has nothing to do with my emotions towards pixies.
Not at all. There is a huge difference in proving a positive (i.e. that God exists) than prooving a negative (i.e. that God is IMPOSSIBLE).
EXAMPLE:
Could Trump be a lizard alien in a skin suit as some might believe? Absolutely.
Am I gnostic by stating in a matter of fact tone that he isn't (and thus dependant on "faith" by extension of your argument? Probably not.
Just because someone once made a wild claim about God existing, doesn't make me require "faith" to call out he obviously made up story with absolutely zero facts to back it as such.
Trump is a human being who physically exists on Earth.
God is an abstract concept that is beyond human comprehension and exists outside the bounds of time and space.
Making claims about something that you fundamentally don't understand is a fool's errand.
Certainty is a fool's errand. Everything is ranges of probability. I ultimately can't prove that everyone on the Internet is not a corgi, but it's highly unlikely.
I specifically disbelieve the Judeo-Christian god exists because that god is claimed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and merciful. All three are difficult to reconcile with the suffering we see in the world. If he knew everything and was merciful, but powerless to do anything, that would be different. If he was merciful and powerful, but didn't know any better, that would be different. If he was powerful and knowledgeable, but didn't give a shit, that would be different. All three, however, is a different matter.
Could there be some other explanation? Perhaps. There have been pages and pages written on that very subject down through the centuries. I've found those explanations to be deeply unsatisfying. It's more likely that such an entity does not exist.
I haven't gone through every single god in every single pantheon and measured out their likelihood of existing or not. I merely find the concept of a god to be unnecessary to explain the universe around us, so I'm agnostic about the vast majority of them.
I also fail to understand how that addresses the infinite recursion with gods. I mean if there is something. And that requires a creator. Who created the creator? And who created that creator of the creator? I think I tend towards gnostic atheism. I'm pretty sure that the idea of god is a really stupid answer to that question. But I also know how science and knowledge works. So I technically wouldn't claim to know, unless someone claim's it's a different thing for Russel's teapot or the flying spaghetti-monster. That's kind of the benchmark to tell if someone understands what I mean by agnostic atheist.
What do you define as "organised religion"
The conventional definition. Any religion that has an institutional existence in society. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.
I work in IT. More specifically I work in Networking. So every fucking day.
Best one was when I was working for an internet provider. Customer was complaining every other day their internet was not working to spec. They ordered a 100Mb service and could never get more than around 60Mb. Somehow they got it into their head that our on prem gear was the issue. But our on prem gear was gigabit capable.
But they never listened and eventually it got to the point where ceo to ceo calls were happening.
My ceo managed to make them agree to a call out where if no problem was found in our gear they would pay the $120 callout plus time for the 2 hour drive to the customer office but if I found a problem on their side we would compensate them for the services until it performs as ordered.
I get there plug my laptop into their network and sure enough I get 60Mb speed tests. Moved my cable from their firewall to the spare port on our gear and get the full speed.
They wanted me to do the tests a few more times and I do and get the same result.
I looked up the spec sheet of their firewall and third line down of the throughput graph shows their setup only has a rated capacity of about 60Mb. Never heard a peep from them after that.
I had a similar issue, except from the customer side. I had worked IT for 20 years in the US Air Force, and when I retired 2 years ago, I moved back in with my elderly dad in my old childhood home. I found out he was paying for 40Mb service (the best offered to our secluded countryside home), but we were lucky if we could get 15-20Mb at the best of times.
I spent several weeks troubleshooting over the phone with his ISP and they insisted it was a problem on our end. I rebooted our modem so many times, even configured it from scratch several times. I ensured the WiFi router I set up to extend the range across the house wasn't slowing anything down along the way. I swore there was nothing out of place on our end and they needed to check the connection to our house. They didn't believe me; thought I was just claiming to be an IT expert to skip steps and get someone out to our secluded neck of the woods (fair, but still...)
Eventually, I convinced them to send a technician out here, an hour away from their offices. The tech connected to the line outside the house and immediately packed up his tools and went back to his truck. He said he doesn't even need to check my equipment; there's definitely something wrong with the external line.
Turns out they have a service box at the end of my street. They don't have a dedicated 40Mb line for my home, so they paired two 20Mb lines. One of the lines was completely disconnected; removed during maintenance and they forgot to reconnect it. The other was a shared line with my small neighborhood, which explains the drop in connection during high usage hours. The service tech connected the second line and we got twice the speed we used to.
I ended up dropping that company for Starlink shortly after, since they had no higher speeds in my area. Which was a significant improvement (200Mbps), but not quite the speeds I had hoped for. Now, thanks to Biden's high speed Internet initiative, I'm getting Gb speeds to my neighborhood this summer. Can't wait for that; as much of an improvement as Starlink has been over my old connection, it's still slow compared to what I'm used to from my military service.
That's actually happening this time? I'll admit I haven't payed any attention to this, but I kind of figured the isps would just pocket the money again.
My hometown had to request a local ISP submit a grant request to the federal government in order to fund the expansion of high speed Internet in our area. My town and 2 others were approved; a 4th town in my area was denied and needed to re-accomplish and resubmit their grant request.
I don't know all the fine legal details of the grant, but I know that the ISP is required to put the funds toward development in the areas outlined in the grant request.
The last time our president attempted a high speed Internet initiative (I think it was Bush Jr?), they just gave money to ISPs and told them to spend it on upgrading their networks. There was no accountability, so most companies just pocketed the money.
Yeah Verizon did this shit so hard in West Virginia. Sure they pulled fiber all over the state, but they stopped at the cities. They made so much money, but hardly anyone could access the network.
I got fiber to my home 15 years later from a different company.
Many times. It's never as rewarding as you'd like, because the other party is rarely objective, and thus rarely acknowledges their defeat.
It's usually better to ease up when you get close to a total victory and allow the opponent to save face.
After all, no matter how objectively correct you are, if you don't change the other person's position even a little, you're just wasting time.
Yes. It's always a good question to ask yourself:
Would you rather be effective or be right?
I know someone that dismisses 95% of media as "Western media propaganda". They include Al Jazeera in that list 🤦🏻♀️
IMO it's even worse when the other party admits to their mistakes and apologizes.
Takes out all the wind of your sails
I am someone who does that because I'm objective enough to recognize my own fallibility and that if I'm presented with reasonable and logical evidence, i will accept it and change my perspective.
It also usually stops fighting and helps progress to a constructive discussion.
I do that, too, and I regularly get the "you're always right, I'm always wrong" commentary. I respond, no, I'm often wrong, I just don't make a big deal out of it so you don't notice. I'd be happy to move on without a fuss when you're wrong, too, if you'll allow it.
Because seriously, being wrong is not a big deal. Everybody is wrong at some point, and regularly. Just correct yourself and move on, it's not a hit to your identity or person.
I agree wholeheartedly. Being wrong is a good thing sometimes, it means you are indeed living life and learning. There may subjectively be better things to be wrong about sometimes, but it's usually only a big deal if you make it one.
Yeah I like to acknowledge when I'm wrong, it makes me think carefully next time I think I'm right about something, and to challenge my assumptions about things.
An ex and I were on an hour-long bus trip to the next city over where we lived in Korea. The subject of there being a subway in said city came up, and I insisted there was not. She insisted that she saw one there once. I further insisted that there was no way the city was big enough to have a subway. It got quite heated. Anger. Hurt feelings.
She was talking about the sandwich restaurant, I was talking about underground trains. We were both right.
This is a good one. So right yet so wrong at the same time
In the 2nd grade. When we got to school each morning we went to our classrooms and dropped off our stuff, then we went to the gym to wait for school to start. I was in a split class (2nd & 3rd grade in the same room) and while in the gym a 3rd grader came up and asked me what I'd do if my box of crayons went missing. I had the Crayola 128 mega box, with attached sharpener... top of the line.
Of course, when I get to class, my crayons are missing, and Tommy has a box in his desk. I walk over and tell him to give me my crayons and he says they are his. A fight is brewing, so other kids gather round. I reach down and grab the box from his desk and put them behind my back, then simply ask "If these are your crayons, where did you get them?" and he replied "My mom bought them for me at Piggly Wiggly"... I pulled the box from my back and showed everyone the 'Wal-Mart' sticker on the back. Then I put my crayons back in my desk.
I was always a small kid, always being picked on... this was one of my few wins as a kid and it felt so good.
You proved it with a Walmart sticker? Smart thinking.
Not to be mean to little you, but your name should've been on that box - on each side, and one on the inside for good measute.
"If it's yours then why is my name on it in 5 different spots?"
And if my grandma had wheels she would be a bike!
Yes, and in my experience it rarely if ever has the "gotcha" moment of victory that one fantasizes about. Either it was something with low stakes and the response is just "oh okay", or it's something more emotionally charged and the opposing side will deflect, change the subject, pretend that you're agreeing with them or that they believed what was correct the whole time. It never seems to matter.
In college I used to study a class ahead to be ready with questions. A professor said that something couldn't be done analytically, but I just hours before had learned the proof of the analytical solution so I told them it could be done, he said it couldn't, I said I can prove it. He gave me the chalk I went to the board and prove the analytical solution. He was like wow, I didn't knew that. He gave me extra credits on the final for that.
Stay in school, kids.
This person is probably Brazilian given the domain of the instance they're in. Given that you didn't assume that they speak another language, I'll assume that means they know probably twice as many languages as you, and tenses are really hard to master.
Don't be a prick to people for no reason.
Their post history indicates a clinical obsession with... being an asshole about shit that doesn't matter.
But that's what most people spend most of their time on the internet doing!
I do disaster planning for counties,hospitals,big companies,etc.
I had a presentation for a hospital and basically showed them very very detailed how they need to prepare for flash flooding. And I was absolutely shot down and basically booed out of the room. "We never can get flash flooding here, it is impossible, you have no idea what you are talking about!"
Exactly two weeks later you could see them on national news, they had 120cm(around 4 feet) on their ground floor, including their ED.
Even if they had signed us it wouldn't have changed a thing (our recommendations take years to show effects) and people died (it is actually part of one of the worst flash flooding disasters in history,over 220 people died). So I can't be happy about it at all.
But my team and I were very very very much proven right. (And meanwhile even multiple court ordered experts have agreed on our assessment)
Did those dbags get any repercussions or are they still on their yachts?
Old one for me, but as a kid walking home with friends from school, I realised there might be a better route that would significantly shorten my walk and make little difference to them. I mentioned it and was fobbed off. So later I pulled up the route online and actually measured it. Not only was my suggestion a better route for me, but it was actually shorter for everyone else too! I triumphantly took my findings to my friends who to my surprise and disappointment really could not care less, and a little part of me died because they were not my friends.
What if they liked walking longer to spend time with each other or possibly some place they wanted to see on the way. Sometimes it’s the journey and not the destination
Thats what I thought too. I have definitly used longer paths before just to spend more time.
The shorter paths is not necessarily the best. Maybe they just like that path
When I was working retail in a technical environment I had a customer come in wanting to buy product X. Since I’ve always just wanted to help people I suggested product Y for its superior quality and longevity at a slightly higher cost. The customer started raging at me how dare I try to upsell him something he didn’t ask for. Other customers turning their head and all. He left fuming saying he’d go to another store.
A day later said customer came back into the store and I was already bracing myself. Turns out he compared the products on the website and read some reviews and realized I was right. He apologized and bought the product.
It was not really satisfying, just turning a negative into a neutral I guess.
They didn't have to come back and tell you you were right; could have just bought it elsewhere and avoided you (out of shame for their own ignorance) so I consider that a win at your end. You can totally own that!
One example comes to mind where I almost did.
I used to drive an older Pontiac. It wasn't the fanciest car, so it wasn't the most performant.
One day, I was leaving a restaurant with a girl I was dating, and had to merge into traffic up a hill. I knew the car would need all the power it could get to do the merge safely, so I turned off the air-conditioning. Confused, the girl asked why I did that. I explained that air conditioning affects the performance of the car. She disagreed. She was raised a bit privileged and had only ever driven nice cars, so never noticed the performance hit of having the A/C on.
We bickered back and forth for a minute or two before I said "okay look I'll show you" and reached to turn off the A/C. Before I could, however, she hit me with "you know, you don't always have to be right". I didn't end up getting to prove it to her.
In her defense, I can be very stubborn when its something I am confident I'm correct in, and we actually argued a lot about stuff. Another example of an argument we had was over the fact that prairie dogs can carry the plague. She didn't believe me and I remember we had to look up the answer. And that was on our second date.
I think about that line she hit me with a lot. But I also realize that in a lot of our "arguments" I was still having fun. To me, there's a playful aspect to a good argument. As long as nobody is yelling or getting feelings hurt, it's a fun way to pass the time. Unfortunately, I didn't realize she wasn't having fun like I was.
I feel this. Some people, like us, enjoy discussing and analyzing things. We can separate who we are as people from the things we think. If someone shows us something we hadn't considered, our response is "Awesome, I just learned something new!"
Not everyone is like that. For some people, their self worth is tied to knowing things and being right. We need to be aware of the differences.
Once when I was little my mom was yelling at me about something or other. In the heat of the moment she called me a son of a bitch, and I went "Oh?" with a single eyebrow raised over a smirk. She laughed, and that stopped the yelling.
Wait, does being funny enough to distract someone equal winning an argument? In my universe it does
I once got in an argument with someone who claimed a fish isn't an animal. And I laughed and said "of course it is. What else would it be a plant?". They said "It's not an animal. It's a fish!" So I said "which is an animal we can look it up if you want"
The reply I got was "I don't need to look it up I know a fish isn't an animal"
I got stunned into silence so I think in their mind they believe they were absolutely objectively proven correct. I don't put much worry in arguments since, easier to let things go and realise people are just stupid and ignorant.
I had this exact same argument with someone when he said he was a vegetarian. We were looking for a restaurant to eat with coworkers. Two sentences later he said he could eat fish, so I said "fish is meat, I thought you were vegetarian" expecting something about "it's just easier to say I am, but really I'm a pescatarian". But no. He said "fish is not meat"
I think people get "animals" confused with "mammals". Also there's some weird thing with Catholicism where fish isn't defined as meat for the purposes of Lent. But man it's infuriating to meet someone like that.
Capybaras are also safe for eating during Lent.
Apparently giant rodents are not meat either.
Muskrat is allowed too, not sure I'd try it though.
I got confused about this too, when I found out that traditionally meat has referred to warm-blooded animals. But that's not universal across cultures, "warm-blooded" has been an obsolete term for quite some time in biology, and thermoregulation is kind of a silly condition for something being considered vegetarian or not. A fish is clearly not a vegetable, unless in an induced coma, and I doubt they person only eats comatose fish.
Yes, a few times. Didnt make the slightest difference though, it almost never does. Such is life. Still, at least others viewing the discussion who were on the fence/ unsure will have been presented with the evidence needed to convince them
I knew a dude in highschool that you could literally perform a scientific experiment in front of multiple times, reproducing the same outcome every time and he would still deny it and say whatever opposite day inane bullshit he was claiming to be true.
Otherwise almost every other day with my sister. Especially if it comes to video game knowledge. She at least realizes she was wrong once proven wrong though.
Yes. My company wanted me to get a corporate credit card with Bank of America. I said absolutely not, they have a terrible reputation and I want nothing to do with them. In response, I was told in an email (which was Cc-ed to some VP of Finance) that this wasn't true, and that Bank of America has a great reputation.
Now, if you're gonna claim I'm wrong and start cc-ing people, you better be able to back it up. This pissed me off, so I googled for lists of the worst banks in America. Of the three first surveys on the topic that I found, two of them had Bank of America as the "top spot" as worst bank, and the third one had it in third place. I emailed this back to the person. I never heard back. I happily continued not using their corporate credit card ever after.
Essentially all my young life I was treated like a dork because I was finding ways to reuse containers for lunch rather than get disposables. This is going back well before it was common knowledge.
Yes I was that person who had my own cotton mesh bags for veggies. Yes I got a lot of judgy looks especially from the middle aged ladies. I just embraced being seen as a dork. Figured out early I wanted to be on right side of history even if that meant I wasn’t ‘cool’. As far as I cared, this Shit went beyond me and my ego/confidence.
Now those who called me a dork not only pretend like it didn’t happen but often pass on unsolicited information to me about reuse that is now very common knowledge.
Current day I’m like yea… you have to wash it because reuse isn’t just reuse. It’s also wash well to reuse so you don’t get sick. And occasionally you stil have to throw things out that become contaminated. This part still isn’t ‘common knowledge’ yet…smh.
Happens all the time in my head.
It's the usual thing.
only in the shower, two days later.
Many moons ago I was in a very heated argument that you could write a fully functional program in notepad.
I was trying to explain what COM files were, they just didn't understand enough about it.
That seems like an odd thing to argue against. Did they mean that it wasn't possible? Or wasn't a good idea? Or was this before scripting languages and the point was you needed a compiler? So many questions
Yeah to clarify their point they didn't believe me that it was possible to write executable code outside of an ordinary scripting language.
I mean, in any instance if you can write code with ed, i don't know why you couldn't with notepad.
What kind of question is this? 😆 I think everyone older than 6 regularly does that. Especially when planning things and disagreeing and then you get to learn who was right. And even the kids like to bet who is right and then they look it up, ask someone or try it and one of them will have this as an outcome...
One time my dad and I were in Mexico looking for some glue to fix a chair. So walking into town, I said we need to look for Kola Loka—spelled with Ks. My dad said "Nonsense! It would be spelled with Cs." Neither of us had seen how Krazy Glue is marketed in Spanish, but I could've put money on that spelling. I should've, because I was right dammit! And dad, who is a linguist, grudgingly admitted, "All right, I suppose you may have some linguistic talent too." It was the only time I ever won an argument with him over anything having to do with language.
In reality yes, but normally who I’m arguing with it’s based on pure emotion and no logical aspects anywhere.
And the fact that there's almost never a clear answer anyway. There are very few instances where blanket statements are true.
Also, how often do you have the scientific or journalistic background to prove your point?
I don't argue unless I am correct. So alot of the time I am able to successfully prove it in the moment, other times they find out on their own later. If I didn't know for sure, why would I argue? That just seems like pointless behaviour.
I mean, there are so many questions without a correct answer. That’s usually why you get into an argument in the first place.
I would think so, at least for knowledge-based ones. Thinking about this out loud, it's hard to feel I can claim certainty given anything seems to have the potential to remind me of the adage that one can never be certain of anything. However, there are a handful where this doubt is completely obsolete, typically because I'm talking to someone who doesn't seem to know the answer is an obvious part of life for me. I have been wrong before and will mention so within reason (as in based on a battle of experience/testimony/proofs/contradictoriness in its equivalent to PEMDAS).
As a Maths teacher, almost daily 😂
Plenty of times. But that's not the same as the other party accepting the fact :o) I've also been proven wrong many times. The way the question is posed implies that this is a rare occurance?
Yeah, that's what happens most times.
But also, I have had the rare person accept the fact and pull a complete 180 due to a fact I've shown. It's very rare, but not impossible.
I believe the three hardest words for most people to be "I was wrong"
Interesting article related to this:
https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/one-crucial-word/
Every time. Especially anonymously on the Internet.
Of course, the other person may remain rooted in their ignorance and fallacy, but that's their loss.
For fucks sake.
You legitimately think you're objectively correct 100% of the time...
I'm glad I checked your post history to decide if I should block you.
Someone has to be completely irrational to think they've ner been wrong.
I’m taking up the banner of defedding from sh.itjustworks. I’ve yet to encounter a user from there that isn’t an asshole worthy of blocking
Don't do me like that 😑
You’re the exception!
But I'm also an admin. There are some assholes on SJW, but no more than on lemmy.world, imho
Not talking about you specifically but just saying, glass houses and all.
That’s fair, I’ve just noticed that most of the accounts I’m blocking these days are from SJW. Maybe I’ve just gotten all the assholes in .world already
Fair enough, you're not the first one to feel that way. Luck of the draw I suppose
There's so many instances that are just used by trolls now, because theyre easy sign up and large federation.
Federation shouldn't just be the default setting, and then defeding when shit goes bad.
When Lemmy took off everyone wanted to federate, so there was pretty much zero standards
Oh dear, I thought the /s wasn't necessary here. Don't get your knickers in a twist, I was joking because of course I'm often wrong!
Not in today's argument with the bigot who called me a "wokescold" for quoting facts about the antisemitism of the originators of the Reptilian Conspiracy, but plenty of other times.
I'm the same! I'm literally always right! Never wrong! Ever!!!
Atheists. Their argument always boils down to "I don't want God to exist because I don't like him"
lol theists are the ones that do this “God exists because my worldview would fall apart and I’d realize I wasted my life on a manipulative fairy tale”
Life would be easier if God didn't exist. I'd be able to follow my own hedonistic desires and do what I'd like. But I re examined my faith and realised that God indeed exists.
Sounds like you are one of the people that benefits from thinking a god is a real thing. Most of us don't need something like that to be nice people.
It's not about being nice people- it's about the fact we need a Saviour because we aren't nice people.
Religious people do seem to need it, that's right. The prison population is one tenth of one percent atheist despite the proportion of atheists in the unincarcerated population being hundreds of times higher. It's not like atheists are committing crimes and then start believing in a god after they get locked up, in any significant amount. It's not even the fact that atheists get extra persecution in prison and are just pretending to believe in prison to get the same perks as the religious - because when the federal prison system allowed atheists to identify as humanists in order to receive some of the same benefits as those who identify with a religion, not very many of them did so.
Please do keep being religious, if you truly believe that you are only capable of caring about the well-being of other humans when under divine threat. Most of us can work out the golden rule and how to be empathetic as children by recognizing the shared human experience in others.
Source?
I expected you wouldn't just Google it, but you can get started with the federal bureau of prisons providing raw data: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwzrnrwp46v34wp/Prison_Data_Shareable.pdf?dl=0
Starting with United States data makes sense as the incarceration rate is so high there. I'll leave the state and international prison searches up to you to follow up on if you decide it's an interesting enough subject. Pew did a summarized study where they lump atheism in with scientology, Satanism, druidism, etc., but it's still a good read.
You might find that there are also correlations between demographics of the incarcerated, uneducated and undereducated, low income, and religious. One certainly isn't necessarily a cause of any other, but it is interesting to find a consistent correlation among all of them.
Moreso there exists no proof of sky daddys existence, why would I invent something to believe in, that places arbitrary rules upon how I live, just for funsies? If civilization collapsed, and humans had to start over from square 1, we would discover all the same scientific principles, all the same laws of thermodynamics, all the same measurements of our solar system and it's age. What we wouldn't do is make up the same BS stories of whatever god you happen to believe in.
If Christianity is man made fake stories, why does it go against all of man's desires?
You know all the stories in the bible existed in other religions before yours? Just with different names and slightly different details here and there. Every religion was made up by people from slightly altered previous religions... it's, comically enough, just another example of evolution.
All religions are about why people shouldn't be jerks, but most of us don't need to believe anyone is watching us to behave. Stories are helpful, but they don't have to have any "magic" to get their point accross. Just examples of things people don't like or do like is enough to make it a good guiding story. A god figure is superfluous and unnecessary.
What stories are you referring to? Things like the flood narrative exist around the world because it actually happened.
Christianity isn't about being a good person- It's about the fact that we cannot be a good person and how we need a Saviour.
A God figure is necessary to redeem us, and whether or not you think He's necessary doesn't make Him any less real.
This argument always fascinates me because it makes it sound like you'd be a psychopath if you weren't afraid of the consequences. I have my own internal compass, thanks. People that don't? I'd rather stay away from them.
Yeah, because of the Garden of Eden. We all do.
Do we all have an internal compass because of the garden of eden, or from believing in Christianity? If it's just from the garden of eden and doesn't require belief, then atheists are just as moral as you are and your argument makes no sense.
If a moral compass comes from religious belief, then you are telling on yourself that you only abstain from being a shitty person because you're afraid of consequences from God.
because that's how they wrote it
I cannot explain that one TBH. It's fucking weird for a book to instruct us to sell our daughters. I have no idea why such an obviously immoral work is used as an authority when people value personal autonomy.
Lol this is like saying I don't want Gandalf to exist because I don't like Gandalf
You've met some pretty dumb athiests then, there are much better and more common arguments than that. Keep in mind there are dumb people everywhere, if you can't tell them apart, you don't have the tools to do so.
Like Dawkins and Ehrman? Because they are pretty dumb.
If you have objectively proven that atheists are wrong, that means that you must have proven that God exists right? I do not think that is possible without God showing himself, and not just to you, but to others too. If these atheists have not seen God, you have in fact, not proven that they are objectively wrong.
Also, there are many arguments that atheists use. For example, some atheists believe that the Bible can not be right because parts of it were written long after the events that they describe (for example gospels written maybe 50 years after Jesus' death, meaning most if not all eyewitnesses have died).
As a Christian myself, I do not believe you can objectively disprove atheism. And to claim not liking God is the only reason for their beliefs is ignorant, if not worse.
God did show Himself as Jesus.
50 years isn't that much, especially considering Jesus' disciples were likely His own age, such as Matthew and John. They could have been 20 at the time and easily lived to write their own gospels, being aware of their old age.
Also, most historical figures we know about from that era have writings about them existing several hundred years after their existence. It's actually an anomaly that accounts of Jesus were written so close to the time, as well as the epistles. It's almost like God literally came down to earth.
As an avowed agnostic since the 3rd grade, you're not wrong.
My fundamental problem with atheism is that I don't believe it's possible to answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing without acquiescing to the possibility of a higher power.
That being said, my qualms with organized religion are much more severe, so I rarely have reason to bicker with atheists about technicalities.
That logic is flawed. Just because we don't understand why there is something rather than nothing, there is no logical implication that there could be a higher being. "Coincidence" would seem to be a much more likely reason (until/if we understand why) - much like coincidence being the reason for most (all?) observed miracles
How so? How do you define "coincidence" in this context?
Even if "coincidence" is more likely, that doesn't rule out the possibility of a higher power.
Atheism is the assertion that there is no God, agnosticism is the acknowledgement that we can't actually prove such an assertion. As an agnostic, I dont necessarily believe that a higher power is likely to exist, I simply know that I am unable to definitively prove otherwise.
If you claim to be an atheist, you should be able to logically demonstrate that a higher power cannot possibly exist. Go ahead.
Most atheists tend to identify as agnostic atheists. You're arguing against gnostic atheists, which are few and far between in my experience. The qualifier is usually dropped out of simplicity.
I'm gnostic about the Judeo-Christian god existing, and agnostic about any god existing. I still identify as an atheist.
Fair enough. I guess my understanding of the terminology may be obsolete.
But I'm unsure how you can be gnostic about the Judeo-Christian God existing. Doesn't that require the exact same amount of faith as actual Christians, just in the opposite direction? I'm not comfortable with claiming certainty of anything in the absence of any logical framework, and thus I do not identify as an atheist.
I do identify as an atheist, and I would say it has nothing to do with some sort of faith in non-existence. I know there is a lot more to be found out about the universe, and as our methods of observation and tools improve so will our understanding of how everything fits together and where it all "came" from. What I dont understand is what would a 2000 year old book's character have to do with anything? Why would the Abrahamic god enter the picture at all? If you can imagine that there's some ultimate creative force that is responsible for existence, why would it resemble the "God" in the Bible? It could be something like a "white hole", spewing matter in to the universe as another interesting but ultimately mundane cosmic feature. It certainly wouldn't give a shit that you exist, or ever hear prayers, or that people are cruel to each other, and all the other stuff people made up and have been telling each other about God. I acknowledge that we don't and can't know everything about how the universe works but I don't get why that has to leave the back door open to believing in some sapient paranormal omniscient presence floating somewhere in space. The Bible is a work of fiction. There are lots of great lessons to be learned in fiction, and it can be a great comfort and an escape, but it was written and made up by people.
Why wouldn't it? We have no frame of reference to make a value judgment about what a higher power should or would be like. We simply have no way of knowing.
We do, however, have a framework of references regarding the other natural mysteries humans once ascribed to gods having elegant solutions rooted in the hard sciences. We searched the storm clouds and didn't find Thor. We've dug boreholes and didn't find Hades. We've studied the sun and haven't found Ra. Human history is chock full of gods and "higher powers" to explain the unknown, and as we learned more about the world the less relevant they became. We learned sacrificing goats to a god does not make it rain, and now understand the natural and mundane systems that do. There's no reason to believe that the creation of matter or "something from nothing" as you put it is any different.
There's also no reason to believe it's the same.
Our extremely advanced collection of scientific knowledge doesn’t even attempt to explain anything prior to the big bang. The models simply don't apply.
In the 20th century, many made similar arguments regarding quantum mechanics. Einstein famously remarked "God doesn't play dice", because he didn't see how uncertainty could be a fundamental aspect of physics. Everything we knew about physics up until that point involved definitive calculations which provided a determinate result. Turns out he was wrong.
I try to avoid hubris, and in this situation it's pretty easy for me to recognize and avoid. My question for you is, what is your incentive to make such a definitive claim in the absence of certainty? My suspicion is it has something to do with OPs original claim that atheists choose to believe that God doesn't exist due to emotional reasons, rather than rational ones.
Let's say for example that before there was space time, outside of the known universe that there was a giant space whale. This space whale ate dark energy and as it passed through its digestive system it created matter. Turns out, this is how the universe started. Is the space whale God? It created all life and the universe so is that all it would take to fit the description? Does it have to be intelligent? How intelligent? Does it have to have heard prayers or be aware of humans? Does it have to have directly created Earth or humanity or can it just have created all matter?
How about if Star Trek is right, and there is a race of incredibly advanced extra dimensional beings with powers indistinguishable from gods? They seem to be all knowing and all powerful and can communicate with us and can even read our minds. Are they gods, or aliens with technology beyond our understanding? What if the aliens were confirmed to have created Earth? Humans even?
Would it still be a god if you could measure it, visit it, observe it? Does a theist's idea of god have to be something beyond perception? I would argue that the line between a god and a highly advanced alien is in the deliberate ambiguity, and the need to "have faith" that it exists. The moment there is hard evidence of its existence it stops being a god. Anything that can't exist in the face of any evidence that it does might as well not.
There are probably an infinite amount of possibilities in the unknown, but without any evidence or scientific rigor then any theory people come up with are just daydreams. Being pooped out by a giant space whale is an equally valid idea to there being a god out there, and equally valid to an enormous primordial cow licking the salt from ice to create life. I don't believe in those stories because I don't have any reason to. Your saying that my lack of belief in god is emotional is pretty funny to me, perhaps your lack of belief in Superman is emotional rather than rational.
Because modern morality would reject the idea that an omnipotent being would need to torture someone to death to absolve humanity of the "sin" of acquiring knowledge of good and evil from actions they took prior to understanding the difference between good and evil. Whereas 2000 years ago that concept might have been more palatable.
Or that somehow it is acceptable to torture people for eternity for losing a guessing game you created. We have only 100 years to pick the right answer, should we make everything just and fair so it's easy to figure out there was a plan? Or give cancer to children?
Not to mention just torturing some dude to win a bet with Satan. Wait, isn't that a bet with one of the creations that doesn't have the free will? Isn't an omnipotent being actually above needing to prove things to the devil?
Either the Bible is a work of fiction embracing the morality of the era it was written in, or it's perfectly normal for an omnipotent being to create things with free will but flip out and do tortures or mass genocides when the free will is used incorrectly. Can you imagine how you'd perceive people acting out these stories today? "Hey boss, I need the day off, I'm hearing voices telling me to take my child up a mountain to kill him, so I'm going to do that."
What makes you assume that a higher power would adhere to your moral code?
You don't actually know, but because certain possibilities make you emotionally uncomfortable, you choose to reject them. It's totally fine for you to choose to believe whatever you like. But from a purely rational perspective, you cannot prove your assertion; it's based on faith.
If you assert a higher power with a more advanced moral code than mine would condone selling women into sexual slavery I am pretty sure you have already lost the argument.
But that higher power isn't even consistent with its own moral code. Remember when it sent bears to maul a bunch of children for teasing a bald dude? I assume you will say it is foolhardy to assume it is morally wrong to maul children to death for a childish mistake? That's absurd, though, the Commandment is not killing. Maybe god should have tossed in an eleventh: "bald dudes are off-limits, kids, bother someone else."
From a purely rational perspective, I have to reject the Abrahamic religions as being fantasies from cultures with barely developed moral codes, as that is the infinitely more plausible explanation.
If I cannot find my keys, I don't "from a purely rational perspective" have to accept that pixies might have hidden them. Rejecting the existence of mischievous pixies has nothing to do with my emotions towards pixies.
Not at all. There is a huge difference in proving a positive (i.e. that God exists) than prooving a negative (i.e. that God is IMPOSSIBLE).
EXAMPLE: Could Trump be a lizard alien in a skin suit as some might believe? Absolutely. Am I gnostic by stating in a matter of fact tone that he isn't (and thus dependant on "faith" by extension of your argument? Probably not.
Just because someone once made a wild claim about God existing, doesn't make me require "faith" to call out he obviously made up story with absolutely zero facts to back it as such.
Trump is a human being who physically exists on Earth.
God is an abstract concept that is beyond human comprehension and exists outside the bounds of time and space.
Making claims about something that you fundamentally don't understand is a fool's errand.
Certainty is a fool's errand. Everything is ranges of probability. I ultimately can't prove that everyone on the Internet is not a corgi, but it's highly unlikely.
I specifically disbelieve the Judeo-Christian god exists because that god is claimed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and merciful. All three are difficult to reconcile with the suffering we see in the world. If he knew everything and was merciful, but powerless to do anything, that would be different. If he was merciful and powerful, but didn't know any better, that would be different. If he was powerful and knowledgeable, but didn't give a shit, that would be different. All three, however, is a different matter.
Could there be some other explanation? Perhaps. There have been pages and pages written on that very subject down through the centuries. I've found those explanations to be deeply unsatisfying. It's more likely that such an entity does not exist.
I haven't gone through every single god in every single pantheon and measured out their likelihood of existing or not. I merely find the concept of a god to be unnecessary to explain the universe around us, so I'm agnostic about the vast majority of them.
I also fail to understand how that addresses the infinite recursion with gods. I mean if there is something. And that requires a creator. Who created the creator? And who created that creator of the creator? I think I tend towards gnostic atheism. I'm pretty sure that the idea of god is a really stupid answer to that question. But I also know how science and knowledge works. So I technically wouldn't claim to know, unless someone claim's it's a different thing for Russel's teapot or the flying spaghetti-monster. That's kind of the benchmark to tell if someone understands what I mean by agnostic atheist.
What do you define as "organised religion"
The conventional definition. Any religion that has an institutional existence in society. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.