bramkaandorp

joined 1 year ago
[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Fun is, depth isn't.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Yes, it is.

If we don't see evidence, then clinging onto the concept just because people have believed in it in the past doesn't make sense.

Because if not for that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Because we wouldn't have a concept of there possibly, maybe being a god in the first place.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

"I believe there is a god" seems less likely, given the evidence. It only seems equally likely if you arbitrarily put god above everything else. Something someone only does if they think it is important to keep the idea alive.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (4 children)

I personally never said that I think there definitely is no god, so that part is a straw man argument.

It is also not a requirement of atheism, as has been explained to you multiple times. Insisting that your definition is the correct one doesn't make it so.

Also, why is it not begging the question to say that it is out of our reach?

You say it's like blind people and colors, but that analogy doesn't work, because there are people who have seen colors, and can explain how colors work. Do you have a similar example for gods? Are there people who have "seen" gods, so to speak?

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (3 children)

It tends to lead to hyperactive minds...

Citation need, I think.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (6 children)

Sorry for my very late response.

In your example of color, there are people who can, and people who can't see colors.

Is there any analogy between that and god belief?

Not just belief, because anyone can believe anything. I mean knowledge, or sensory input.

If no one can sense (detect) deities, then how can anyone say that there is one?

And if we can't say that there is one, why would it be unreasonable to conclude that there probably isn't one?

That is all I as an atheist believe. That, lacking any evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that there probably aren't any deities.

All this talk about it being beyond our understanding sounds like begging the question if you can't demonstrate it.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

But that's what happened here. The x-axis has been unevenly distributed.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

A mention is not the same as an appearance, so the discrepancy for some characters could be even greater if you take that into account.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

How else can you make it look like a linear grouping?

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I would even consider watching it of they covered it!

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think you are assuming more than is warranted. Why is it beyond our reach?

 

I love Kim Stanley Robinson’s books, and am reading (in some case re-reading) his books in order. At some point, I’m going to get to Green Earth, but since it’s a reworking of the Science in the Capitol trilogy, I wanted to find out just how much it adds/leaves out/changes.

Is the difference significant enough to merit a “re-read”? I'm particularly interested in characterization, but I'm also curious if the science itself has been significantly changed, with resulting plot changes.

Thanks!

view more: next ›