556
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
556 points (98.8% liked)
politics
23387 readers
3795 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have had a couple concussions, and I am generally intolerant of religion as a whole, doesn’t sound like any of the study findings any research on people who weren’t religious to begin with. Unless I’m reading this wrong, which I could be you know, because of the concussions🤣🤣🤣
Based on what the article said, your general intolerance of religion might be the very symptom they were referencing.
Their research doesn't suggest that damage to that particular area of the brain causes religious beliefs, but rather that it more or less locks you into your beliefs religious or otherwise.
The injured brain becomes less able to consider other viewpoints, so changing beliefs becomes less likely even when confronted with facts that disprove the belief.
Right, it bears pointing out that atheism is in itself a faith, or at least its adherents treat it very much like one to the point that it might as well be one. For me it is the faith in the non-existance of a supreme being or deity.
It doesn't require faith to NOT believe in something. It requires faith to accept religion which cannot be proven.
It does require faith when you’re disbelieving something that has as much proof of its existence as of its non existence. There is no conclusive proof against the existence of a supreme being, in fact like I said in another comment there is physical evidence of one if you observe the universe, which is that all of existence collective is god.
If you zoom into a human being there are millions of microorganisms and bacteria that inhabit us, and at that level of zoom they all look like they inhabit their own little planets, zoom in more and you start to see the very molecules that make us up. But you zoom out and see a person, zoom out and see a planet, then a galaxy, then clusters and so on. Who’s to say that if you looked at the universe from outside of it, it would not be the very body of another living organism?
I like this thought experiment and think about this a lot. However this does nothing to remotely indicate the existence of the Abrahamic god. People tell you with certainty that god exists and he's three persons and jesus rose from the dead yada yada. That's a complete fantasy derived from literally nothing.
No proof but still believe? Faith.
Not believing in something that has zero evidence requires no faith. I don't need faith to tell you Cthulu isn't real
Well atheism is not just denying the abrahamic god but the idea of any supreme being at all.
Atheism is not the idea of denying any gods, but rather not believing claims that they exist. This requires not faith, but by definition, the lack of it.
-Mark Twain, Pudd’nhead Wilson
I have a pet flying dragon that breathes fire and devours people I don't like. Do you believe me?
This isn’t as smart of an argument as you think it is.
And your reply wasn't one at all.
I wasn't arguing. I was giving you an analogy. What's the difference between not believing in a god and not believing in a pet dragon? Does one require faith and not the other? Why or why not? That's an argument.
If my argument is so easy and stupid, rip it apart. Condescension gets you nothing.
It’s a very bad faith (heh) argument to compare god to a mythological creature. I’m not arguing that the abrahamic god is real or that Zeus et al are real. I’m saying that as the thing that encompasses everything that exists, the universe, could be a god of sorts. Or the God if you want.
The argument is that atheists believe so much that god does not exist and become so hostile to the notion of religion itself that it behaves as a religion and becomes like a religion itself.
Perhaps the fault in communication here is that atheist mostly define gods as intelligent and willful entitities when there is nothing that suggests that other than the deities that we invented in our own image. But to say, conclusively that god does not exist, meaning that we know that the universe is without a doubt not a transcendental entity is just faith that god does not exist because you have no proof of that nor any way to prove it without looking at it from outside of it.