To each their own, but personally that sounds like a bad reason to stop pursuing life’s greatest questions. Plenty of my family has passed away, but that doesn’t make faith seem like a reliable pathway to truth.
I’d love to believe they’re in an eternal paradise, but I’d also love to believe my next paycheck will be $1,000,000. The time to believe I’m a millionaire is when I have evidence for it, not when I’d be heartbroken otherwise.
The big bang isn’t creation ex nihilo, and it’s not a theistic claim. But more importantly, nobody with any scientific credibility claims we know the theory is true with absolute certainty. They don’t even claim it adequately explains 100% of the universe as we observe it. A lot of laymen probably think the big bang is creation ex nihilo and use it to explain the “something from nothing” issue, but that’s not what the theory says.
There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began
Hypotheses. Which nobody “believes” in like theists do with God.
Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science.
You’re right. They can hypothesize all they want. But they don’t present their claims as hypotheses, they present them as the truth. Scientists don’t claim their hypotheses are the truth, and they especially don’t believe it to be true before doing any testing.
the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that.
The link you gave me doesn’t show him claiming God doesn’t exist, and neither are any of the comments before it.
You can test the hypotheses of astrophysics, though. I mean, how long have we had telescopes now? And today we have a whole array of other equipment for measuring things in space. If an astrophysicist is claiming a hypothesis to be true without testing it, they’ve failed science at a fundamental level. Can you give me even one example of this?
I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events.
What events? I’ve never heard of astrophysics making theistic claims. OR making claims that haven’t been tested.
They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.
If they’re not proven then they’re hypothetical. By definition theories are well tested, and they’re still not claimed to be true with absolute certainty.
I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is.
We’re not saying there is no god. We’re saying we’re not convinced there is a god.
You highlighted the A without any understanding of what the prefix a- means. It means not, or without.
I’m not a theist because they haven’t convinced me of any theistic claims. I don’t claim no gods exist. I just don’t know of any gods that exist, therefore I am without theism. A-theism.
We’ve been able to do this for years, way before the fill tool utilized AI. I don’t see why it should be slapped with a label that makes it sound like the whole image was generated by AI.
You’re a god amongst men around these parts.
Not really. Altruism is ultimately self-serving whether an afterlife exists or not. People generally don’t want to spend their life being wronged by others or have their life taken altogether, so we have a pretty good incentive to not do those things.
Atheists on the other hand can say “look, there is no god… See?”
Very few atheists say this. The vast majority of us say we don’t know one way or the other.
This chain of comments is so painful to read. What in the world makes you think astrophysicists believe in anything that isn’t tested? And why do you think we do?
A young-earth creationist? You’re a rare breed. Good to have you here.
On a more important note, responding to inflammatory language with strawmen and condescension isn’t a good look. If YEC is true don’t you think it’d be a lot more effective (and productive) to just give us reasons to believe what you believe?
You can’t explain a decision having negative consequences without God?
Ah yes, how childish of OP to wonder why the majority of English speaking countries believe in answers to life’s greatest questions with little to no evidence. What a naive little question, that one.
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
This is wrong. The only thing required to be an atheist is lacking a belief in theistic claims. You don’t need to make the claim that God doesn’t exist, and most atheists don’t.
The only thing we’re certain of (not absolutely, but fairly certain) is that theists haven’t met their burden of proof.
I suppose it’s better than following a standard of evidence that enables homophobes/transphobes, and opens the door to preachers feeding their politics to you.
It seems like you’re equating being religious with everything except accepting theistic claims. You can have everything you’ve mentioned without religion. What OP is asking is why do people accept theistic claims despite there being little to no evidence for them?
I don’t have to believe that the sun will rise every morning, but, I do still believe it will rise every morning
You believe it’ll rise because you have more than thousands of instances of this happening at the same time every day. You didn’t just decide to believe it, you believe it because you found good reasons to believe it.
Try deciding to believe you’re a levitating purple dinosaur. I can’t, can you?
Ignoring the inherit assumption that religion is de facto an issue or backwards
When it’s overwhelmingly the cause of intolerance of LGBTQ rights and opposition of minorities, it arguably is.
The difference is we have evidence that celebrities exist
Hard disagree. Religion has a measurable impact on people voting against the rights of minorities, and it deserves every bit of scrutiny it has coming its way.
It’s not like Bigfoot or flat earth. This shit is having serious consequences for others, physically and mentally.
The question itself isn’t scientific or religious. And nobody in this thread is conducting science, but the majority of us here definitely trust the scientific method over faith.
That’s not to say we take scientific claims as gospel like theists do with theistic claims. Science is about updating our understanding as new evidence is presented. Religion is about being handed the truth.