[ SECRET POST #2664 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2664 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #381.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[dreemyweird]

Oh, go away. Not everyone is obliged to try and find justifications to all the horrible shit they witness or go through. If you can, good for you. But if somebody can't do that, please don't suggest that they must be a die-hard reddit atheist.

[(Anonymous)]

I have no problem with someone saying that they believe that this question is irresolvable and that the most reasonable answer is that God does not exist.

I don't think OP's comment was that. It reads to me as "God's Not Real! You're dumb for having this issue because God's Not Real but you're too blinded or stupid to realize that." And that's a difficult thing. Sorry if I'm reading something into it that's not there, but that's what annoys me about it.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, you're reading too much. It's not about calling the other person dumb or stupid, it's just that they are deciding to ignore the facts that contradict their beliefs cause they want to continue believing. Nothing wrong with that, most people do it all the time, and not only with religion. It's like when you read something not so good about a celebrity you like.

[(Anonymous)]

But see the thing is that when I read your comment, I see the same thing, so I'm not sure if I can trust your judgment.

Because when I read your post, it sure as hell looks like you're saying that it's a fact that God does not exists. And that is an attitude that I associate with the attitude OP has. And I'm not sure that 'It's okay that I'm calling religious people stupid or at best willfully ignorant, because I think lots of people are frequently stupid or willfully ignorant all the time' is a great line of defense either.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry then, but usually I assume that if there's no proof that something exists, then it doesn't exists.

[(Anonymous)]

Uh...wow, that kind of makes you a really crappy excuse for an atheist? It makes zero logical or scientific sense whatsoever -- it's like saying that because a year ago, there was no proof that the Higgs boson existed, it didn't exist.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt - Exactly this: "it's like saying that because a year ago, there was no proof that the Higgs boson existed, it didn't exist."

You can go back 10, 20, 50 years and see many scientific arguments about 'impossible things' because there wasn't proof at the time. And time rolls on, and we learn new things, and all of the sudden the impossible is actually fact.

[(Anonymous)]

Science and mythical creatures aren't the same. Unless you can prove me that there are unicorns out there, I'm gonna believe that unicorns don't exists.

[(Anonymous)]

DA
But being an atheist just means you believe there's no deity. Nothing to do with science, necessarily.

[neurotic]

Yeah, that's right. I mean, that's how Science works. That's how being a Scientist works. If there is no proof that something exists, then it doesn't exist. You can't go about Science go 'welllll.... since something might exist, we should do things differently.'

Basically. Say as a scientist, I've never seen a green apple. Thus, my theory is that green apples don't exist. As long as there is never a green apple to see, I can't include it in my theories about red apples.

But the pretty cool part about being a Scientist, is that if someone shows up and gives me a green apple, I don't lose my shit, and start screaming at them, or trying to kill them. I go 'Whoa! That's a green apple! I was wrong. Green apples exist! This is proof!!'

[diet_poison]

ia. You can't disprove the existence of something just because you can't prove it either. It's fine for people to believe in a deity or not, but saying "you're objectively wrong" is also obnoxious on both sides.

[(Anonymous)]

But saying that people are objectively wrong to believe in some of the accompanying trappings of religion is a different story. Usually people don't just claim God exists. They claim a whole store of concomitant beliefs, supposedly documented in a Book that has no provenance, containing a number of events which are very *easily* disproven by Science.

And when my freaking tenured biology professor tries to teach me the precepts of Creationism in a State University Biology 101 class? That's when I very forcefully say, "You're objectively wrong."

[diet_poison]

um, I know lots of religious people who say you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. In fact those are the kinds of religious people you are talking to on this thread. You seem to be addressing people who aren't here when you're referring to people trying to scientifically document God.

And I feel like this should be obvious, but believing in a literal Genesis =/= everyone who believes in God.

[(Anonymous)]

...what?

That is a terrible assumption to make. A lack of proof indicates an absence of sufficient evidence for a phenomenon, not that said phenomenon doesn't exist or isn't possible.

[(Anonymous)]

Then am I suppose to put ghosts, dragons, unicorns, wizards, hobbits and vampires under the "maybe they do exists" category?

[(Anonymous)]

The trouble is that, when it comes to almost all of those things, we have evidence to suggest that they can't exist, or that they have existed in less fantastical forms and were exaggerated in the service of storytelling.

There can be evidence against something, just as there can be evidence for something. When there's an absence of either, then we cannot say that the phenomenon does not exist; we can only say that we currently do not know whether it does.

[diet_poison]

Technically, yes.

You are not obligated to believe they exist, but you cannot conclusively disprove it.

(Well, you could make a case, for, say, wizards, but not really for ghosts. for example)

[(Anonymous)]

And this is why the hardcore atheists need to get off my awesome agnostic train.

[applemagpie]

I thought the anon was making fun of the comment they were replying to, because it sounds like the typical 'enlightened athiest'

[dreemyweird]

I dunno, in hindsight, maybe they are. But to me they sounded like someone who couldn't really see the other side of the argument. Which is not wrong or bad in itself.

[applemagpie]

I'm an atheist myself, but I think the first comment to this thread was a kind of patronizing.

[(Anonymous)]

(Another atheist here.)

I agree, but on the other hand it can be really frustrating to watch people replay the same conflict again and again ("If God is so merciful and loving, why do bad things happen to good people?") without pushing that train of thought any further than, "Welp, guess it's just a mystery we'll never know the answer to" or "He works in mysterious ways, yep, that's it!"

I don't say anything to people who are troubled by this conflict in their beliefs, but I don't particularly admire how the "solution" to that question is inevitably to shrug or come up with some brain-twisting logic where God's not at fault for allowing terrible things to happen to innocent people.