328

The French aristocrat who understood evolution 100 years before Darwin – and even worried about climate change (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 months ago by dantheclamman@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Let me clarify this without judging you: the abstract objects of gods and religions are real, they are here and effect our lives but the religion itself and gods are not real and have no tangible effect on us.

If you can't relate to this think about ghosts - we talk about them, people are afraid of them and might even commit awful acts deluded by the fact that ghosts exist. That's real. But we have no evidence that ghosts exist, so ghosts themselves are not real.

[+] masquenox@lemmy.world -16 points 7 months ago

Let me clarify this without judging you:

Thanks... I guess.

the abstract objects of gods and religions are real, they are here and effect our lives but the religion itself and gods are not real and have no tangible effect on us.

Religions and gods are real. They're as real as money, borders, national identities and racial classification systems. I think what you are trying to say is that they are social constructs.

[-] Senal@programming.dev 10 points 7 months ago

So you'd be good with phrases such as "God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time" to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people's shared belief in them.

Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn't make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.

"God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

"Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

[+] masquenox@lemmy.world -12 points 7 months ago

to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Nope. I'd declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.

money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations

What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? "Non-physical"? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia's "religious police?" Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I'd say no - they are pretty darn "physical."

national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.

See the above.

“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don't see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.

[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

There are no gods.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago

Irrelevant.

[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Certainly not. Earth is populated with brain washed, indoctrinated fools that will give up their $$ or even their lives for pure nonsense.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Earth is populated with brain washed, indoctrinated fools

And you're not one of those, I take it?

[-] Senal@programming.dev 4 points 7 months ago

Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.

Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you'll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.

Prove that god exists and i'll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.

Just so we're clear, faith isn't proof, in fact its definition is almost universally "belief, in the absence of proof"

Lots of people believing also doesn't equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.

What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”

Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that "would or would not allow" something then we can get on to the conversation part.

Just in case there's any confusion, i'm all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.

Note the "organised", it's important.

Also the "religions are just socially acceptable cults" train.

It might seem like I'm on two trains but in reality it's a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it's basically a complete overlap.

See the above.

The above wasn't addressing any of the points so I'm not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.

I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.

Just in case it's unintentional, I'll try again, but with more describing.

The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with "belief" in a being.

One of those things is a "being"/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or "construct".

Also the first "quote i used" was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago

Prove that god exists

Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I'm not the one using God to substantiate claims.

I hope this is not difficult to understand.

not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Here.

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.

Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God's gift to "rational thinking"... yet their (supposed) "rational thinking" falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames"

Not big on history, are you?

description of a tangible manifestation of a being

You really are obsessed with God's existence (or lack thereoff), aren't you? I guess I had a hard time following because it's not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn't it?

[-] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago

TL;DR;

Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting

See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.

Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.

The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn't happen.

Perhaps i'm misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.

No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it's going to seem like you are making things up.

At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it's a step in the right direction.

Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the "Just to pre-empt...." quote mentions relative "real"ness.

Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.

Not big on history, are you?

Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :

Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.

You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?

Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.

The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it's not a point i added to the conversation.

But i suspect you know this.

This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )

Bad faith arguments
References to things that didn't happen, with either no actual reference or one that doesn't relate to the "argument" being made
Fallacies in place of actual points
Personal attacks
Claims of my devout atheism, again with no references or proof
Complaints that i'm pointing out any of the above, but without substantive refutations
Equivalent of "I'm not arguing with someone who clearly doesn't understand "
lol
lmao

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.

Are all edgelord liberal atheists this thick or is this just you? I'm going to assume that you understand how quotes work? You know... like the one that you yourself used?

Again, point at where this happened,

Already have. And you have failed to address it - not surprisingly.

This is my reply blah, blah, blah

If you are an example of atheism's (alleged) "rationality" it's perfectly clear why your shit-stained excuse of an argument is so thoroughly rejected everywhere except circle-jerks such as this.

Good bye.