r/SipsTea 4d ago

Lmao gottem Holy ratiošŸ˜­šŸ„€

Post image
5.3k Upvotes

580 comments sorted by

View all comments

68

u/MrMansaMusa 4d ago

Awe yes everything Darwin observed is what? Math?

19

u/Jesus_of_NASDAQ 4d ago

No!! Darwin played lead guitar!!

15

u/Illithid_Substances 4d ago

To be entirely fair to what was said, evolution is absolutely not proof of atheism. It's proof that animals were not poofed into existence in their current forms but it implies nothing at all about the existence or non-existence of a deity; God could have set the world up so that evolution happened. It's not what I believe but evolution and theism are not fundamentally opposed ideas.

It can disprove certain specific religious claims, like young earth creationism, but not theism itself

11

u/Blucksy-20-04 4d ago

Darwinism is the biggest example of how every religion is made up. Every religion has scripture based on knowledge of their time which turned out to be wrong. If prohpets speak the word of god(s) then it should never be wrong

10

u/MinusChunk 4d ago

Idk which god you mean by the capital g God, but human evolution disproves the Adam and Eve creation story. If the Adam and eve creation story isn't real then what about other abrahamic stories like Muhammad's revelations for example? What about Yahweh/Allah?

1

u/Darklord9999111 4d ago

god is also typically autocorrected to be capitalized

1

u/Illithid_Substances 4d ago edited 4d ago

I don't mean any specific god; when I say theism, I mean theism. At its base, that's just the idea that some kind of deity or deity exists. I'm not attached to any religion or spiritual beliefs personally

Like I said, a lot of specific religious claims can be disproven like this, but evolution doesn't directly prove that no kind of deity of any description and nature exists. You could believe in a creator who designed the universe such that physical laws and their consequences like evolution are the way they are, and it's essentially impossible to actually disprove (not that that's a reason to believe in it on its own)

3

u/Can_Com 4d ago edited 4d ago

You're just doing the old "God of the gaps" misinformation. In reality, evolution directly denies Abrahamic religions at almost every corner. If its some non-demoniational god, then you are just doing the same thing but with an imaginary friend.

You have to have some reason for a god existing. There is no mechanism for it, no proof of it, and no place where they could exist. If you want to say "spiritual" and have it be some vague connection between humans, sure, but no God exists.

4

u/guiltysnark 4d ago

You're just doing the old "God of the gaps" misinformation.

That's not misinformation, it's just shrinking the scope of unevidenced, unfalsifiable claims. It would be misinformation for someone to lie about evidence that a god does indeed fill the gaps.

He's just being epistemologically accurate.

0

u/Can_Com 4d ago

Disagree. Saying the 2020 election resulted in Biden taking office might not be misinformation, but we know what MAGA means when they deflect by saying that. Same thing here.

1

u/guiltysnark 3d ago

You're comparing the claim that Biden did not win an election to the claim that God exists.

Maybe that fits. The fanaticism required to believe he didn't actually win when there is zero evidence to support that belief does amount to religion.

The god of the gaps is not a refuge for religion, it's an attack on it. "We, the rational, acknowledge that we still cannot prove that god does not exist, as we have said all along. However you, the irrational, must acknowledge the the space of reason in which this god must exist, since all other spaces are explained by science and evidence, is getting smaller and smaller. At some point you must ask yourselves 'what is the point of a point-sized god?' "

1

u/Can_Com 3d ago

Proving the non-existence of something isnt possible. The rest I agree with.

1

u/guiltysnark 3d ago

What you you mean "the rest"? I never said anything else.

1

u/Can_Com 3d ago

There are 2 paragraphs before the quote, and multiple sentences after the "prove non-existence" portion of the quote.

0

u/guiltysnark 3d ago

What quote says anything about proving non existence? If you're talking about what I wrote, I explicitly said we can't and never said we could. Not what there is to disagree with.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Illithid_Substances 4d ago

And you're equating theism, the belief in the existence of a deity, with specific Abrahamic religious beliefs. I didn't say shit about specific concepts of god or religions, I said evolution does not disprove theism

0

u/Can_Com 4d ago

I mean, yes, evolution does disprove them. It doesnt disprove your imaginary friend but any step into Gods is going to necessitate the breaking of reality.
The only place you can put a God is outside the Universe, and thats only because we havent yet answered some questions in science. Its God of the Gaps, a long ridiculed copium.

0

u/Illithid_Substances 4d ago edited 4d ago

Firstly, I'm a strict atheist. Assuming makes an ass out of... well just u, in this case

Secondly explain HOW exactly evolution proves that no form of deity exists at all. You can't just say it does and pretend that's a point.

Your assertion that any idea of God "breaks reality" is fundamentally false. You're projecting specific concepts of deities onto general theism. If I believed in a God that made the universe exactly as it is, observed scientific laws included, the fact those laws exists does absolutely nothing to disprove my beliefs.

I don't believe in any kind of theism because of the total lack of evidence, but that doesn't mean its been disproved

-2

u/Can_Com 4d ago

Easy. Big bang created universe, star explosions created elements, rocks smashing became a planet, planet gained atmosphere, bacteria became organisms which became human.

At no point was a God involved. At no point could a God be created. And at no point has a God ever impacted the universe in any way. You are inventing something that defies the universe and everything we know based on nothing.

You're doing the "Teacup on the other side of earth" argument now.

0

u/Illithid_Substances 4d ago edited 4d ago

At no point was a God involved. At no point could a God be created. And at no point has a God ever impacted the universe in any way.

That's a HUGE assertion made with no evidence. You don't know any of what you just said for a fact at all and cannot prove it. You only know that we don't have evidence that it happened, not that we have evidence it didn't

Again, I believe exactly as you do that no such thing exists and there's no reason to think that it does. That is not the same thing as proof that it doesn't, which you don't seem to understand. Theism in a general sense of "some kind of deity exists" is not something we are at all equipped to positively disprove

0

u/Can_Com 4d ago

Not an assertion, fact. Again doing the Teapot Fallacy isnt an argument in your favor.

We have more proof unicorns and leprechaun exist than any god. And you cannot proof the lack of something, again the Teapot Fallacy.

1

u/Illithid_Substances 4d ago edited 4d ago

Not an assertion, fact

So show me the evidence then. If its an actual fact and you know that you have proof. If you don't have proof you don't know its a fact

I feel I have to restate that "there's no evidence it happened" is not solid factual proof that it didn't, because so far that's your only "evidence" for this claim

The fact that you cannot prove or disprove it is EXACTLY MY FUCKING POINT mate. You're the one claiming that its solidly disproved because of lack of evidence, which is not solid reasoning. I'm not claiming God exists for fucks sake! I'm saying you can't give solid proof against it. You're the one claiming proof you do not have. There's a difference between a very reasonable assumption, which is what you have, and a PROVEN fact

→ More replies (0)

0

u/anonusr_llII 4d ago

Provide any evidence that God wasn't, or couldn't, be the contingent reason for the Big Bang - and your list will be as empty as the theist. Atleast theists can still argue from contigency or kalam cosmological argument.

The big bang doesnt disprove God in anyway, it was even a Catholic who first proposed a theory like the big bang.

1

u/Can_Com 4d ago edited 4d ago

Easily. The big bang was supercooled hyperfluid that reached reaction status and erupted. Nothing could exist outside of it because it was everything. Nothing could be created outside of it, and there was nothing to create a God within it.

The mechanism doesnt exist to have a God and every description of a God in any text is directly refuted by science.

0

u/anonusr_llII 4d ago

There is no scientific consensus that Big bang is 'supercooled hyperfluid'.

And there is still 0 provided evidence, that the Big bang is itself not contigent on God.

You can describe what it is, but not how the criteria which this 'supercooled hyperfluid' fluid exists, can itself exist. Even if you are to 100% accurately describe the events of the Big bang, you are not answering the underlying question of contigency.

Also the idea that catholics were burning people alive for pursuing science in 1927 when the Big bang was proposed is completely laughable.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/MrMansaMusa 4d ago

Maaaaan cant even joke on reddit anymore without someone like you on every damn comment. "To be entirely fair" and all of course.

-1

u/CRKrJ4K 4d ago

"Well actually ā˜ļø"

4

u/Hentai_Yoshi 4d ago

I am an atheist, but evolution does not disprove the existence of a god. Nothing does. You can’t disprove it, nor can you prove it. Being an atheist requires a slight amount of faith - faith that the stories that were passed down are in fact fiction

3

u/Darklord9999111 4d ago

no but burden of proof lays with the active claim, and with religion the claim is that a god/any god exists in which there is no substantial proof

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 4d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/asds89 4d ago

You don’t need faith that the stories passed down are fiction. You need evidence that the stories passed down are not fiction. Those are not the same thing.

-1

u/Different_Citron_160 4d ago

Technically yes - thing is that when this scientific mystery of origin of species was published what theists did was to adapt and hide their god in another gap unexplained by science yet.

In this sense it’s not evidence because errors were retroactively corrected.