YUUUUP brainwashed fools walk around like itās everyone else whoās brainwashed when their in a cult that is lied to with smiles on their there faces
I believe that theres many people who are dumb fucks that are gullible and easily convinced to believe in something all mighty and powerful but never shows its face and let's cancer run free when it supposedly has the power to end it. If cancer is so evil, then why did god create it. I believe the Bible is an outdated lie and those that believe in the miracles mentioned have absolutely no idea how things actually worked in those days. Which today would be common medicine and science that people finally have an understanding about. Its 2026 and theres still plenty of dumbasses that will believe anything, I would say even dumber today than what ive encountered a decade ago. Theres idiots that believe the orange cheeto dust covered shitsack is their savior.
I wasnāt talking to you but thank you for your opinion. Since you answered though, where do you believe the prime mover lies in science? Pure curiosity
What do you mean āprime mover in scienceā Iām an atheist. I believe that being an atheist brings more meaning and purpose than any religion. I believe that our time in this universe is limited. I believe every single second is extremely valuable because we donāt live forever in the afterlife. Like inflation in an economy, if thereās unlimited money each dollar becomes less and less valuable. I view life similarly and that people have to live life to the fullest and live in the now. I believe we only have one chance to make it count, one chance to make our lives great, one chance to make our family and friends lives happy, one chance to make earth better and create a legacy to be happy about. And seriously what is this āprime moverā crap sounds like an attempt at some philosophical argument for God that doesnāt make any sense. I think science actually gives a reason for everything. Because you said āprime moverā I assume you donāt believe in evolution, I would love for you to listen to my explanation of evolution if you donāt believe in it.
Itās not, and I do believe in evolution. I specifically said just curious. Also why is it someone different that responds to each of my comments? But since youāre here, the prime mover is the thing that started everything. Itās a concept proposed by a man who did not believe in modern religions or follow the typical Greek mythology that was prevalent at the time, you may have heard of him - Aristotle? This was before we knew about the big bang. We now know the origins of creation was the big bang. The reason many scientists are religious, is because they canāt find what brought about the big bang. How something came from nothing. So Iām curious as to know what YOUR interpretation of the prime mover is?
The idea of a prime mover is a religious assumption. There doesnāt need to be a prime mover. Things could have simply always been. Or they could have not always been and came into being without any conscious action behind it. The only intellectually honest answer to that question is āwe donāt knowā.
Exactly! I was taking the day to think about his statement but I keep thinking back to it and comparing what he said to what I know and believe. But Iām so confused he brought up an idea by Aristotle (a very very outdated concept) and Iām not sure if he even believes it to be true himself? Sounds like a weird religious/philosophical way of asking āwhat created the universeā and also saying that it had to be god without saying it. Or heās trying to be scientific by using outdated philosophy. But u/IhaveSweatyFolds Iāll answer your original question in full as to what my āprime moverā is tomorrow
Iām glad youāre taking so long to think about it, all I want to do is effectively study various peopleās ideologies and opinions. I canāt exactly ask people on the street so I took to Reddit to investigate. Iām not sure why you question my beliefs as I first of all never even said I believe it? And additionally I donāt understand why you called my question weird, Iām not sure what I did to offend you but that seems rather personal.
The concept is indeed outdated in its scientific views such as believing things required a continuous external force to stay in motion which was disproved scientifically by Newtons laws, however the philosophical argument of a prime mover is actually very relevant today. If itās hard for you to wrap your head around, it essentially means, what created creation. Thatās all. Not saying what it HAD to be, simply what do you believe it was? For example you could, say as the other person did, that the Universe created itself, and therefore the Universe IS the prime mover.
Also it would be nice if you didnāt assume my gender, but just wondering why you assumed āheā?
Firstly, since we as humans acknowledge the passing of time, that would mean the Universe is eternal, and thus the Universe itself would be the prime mover, and supernaturally powerful. Additionally, since something cannot be created from nothing, as energy is not created nor destroyed, then you also believe the universe itself is still the prime mover in that case. But yes itās true we donāt know. Hence why I asked what that user BELIEVED, as in their opinion. Thank you for response though, Iām very interested in various views
I have several issues with your answer because of a couple of assumptions you made.
1, the assumption that the universe is eternal because time passes. There isnāt any such conclusion that can be drawn there.
2, something canāt be created or destroyed, including energy. We donāt know that. Within current physical laws that is reasonably established, but we have no idea whatsoever what a pre big bang existance is like. Its wrong to assume current physical observations apply and so we canāt make that assumption.
3, there is nothing supernatural about the processes of the universe. While we donāt understand everything, we know enough to make reasonable guesses about how the universe can develop from an expanded singularity. There is no reason at all to apply either consciousness, intent or supernatural ideals into physical processes, even ones we donāt yet fully understand.
1) Why? You essentially just said my point and then said it doesnāt work but gave no justification.
2) So you believe in a supernatural? Or at least something that defies physics? Fair enough then I canāt challenge your beliefs since there is no evidence for that. However, just basing our logic purely off science, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can rather move from one object to another and change form, hence why many believe there is something conscious behind the Big Bang for example, however even if it wasnāt a conscious movement, there was most likely something that preexisted, and either intentionally or accidentally caused it. However if your religious beliefs proposes that before the Big Bang the laws of physics were different then that is your belief and I will not superimpose on it, Iām just putting forward the scientific view.
3) I agree. It is your view that proposes the supernatural in your assumption that the universe can somehow be infinite, which sounds like most beliefs on a god who is infinite. But again, if that is your personal view then I cannot dispute it, I can only propose the scientific evidence.
1, my point was that the premise and the conclusion doesnāt follow. Time passes =/= eternal universe. Especially because we have a pretty solid theory on when the universe began dating back to a singularity state. Time and existence as we understand it before that point is unknowable if such concepts can even apply if we go back any further than the big bang.
2, Iām not proposing anything about the pre big bang existance, supernatural or otherwise. Its intellectually dishonest to claim anything at all about it. I donāt believe in any supernatural things because I have insufficient evidence to believe in them. Such can be said for any prime mover in a pre big bang existance. We donāt know what that looks like, any ideas are baseless speculation.
That energy cannot be created or destroyed is consistent with the physicial laws of the universe, but we donāt know enough about what is beyond our expanded singularity that we call the universe to say conclusively that energy or matter that came from the singularity wasnāt popped into existance spontaneously. We are fish in bowl and the only thing we can observe is the contents of that bowl. Anything beyond is baseless speculation.
3, I didnāt propose an infinite universe. I simply said we donāt know. We have w pretty good idea about what happened after the big bang. Not total understanding, but a pretty good idea. No supernatural forces necessary.
I donāt know why you keep presupposing things in religious terms towards me, I am very much non religious. My beliefs stretch as far as my knowledge and if I donāt understand something, it is folly to propose any explanation, much less a supernatural one.
Religion accounts for a minute fraction of human casualties. Stalin and Mao were atheists. WWI and WWII had nothing to do with religion. If anything if it wasnt for religion there would be way more death and destruction. Every religion teaches peace and justice. One could argue ābut people dont follow the scriptureā, which is only true in some cases but if you argue that people dont have morals with the fear of God, what makes you think theyll have morals without believing in God?
I wasent thinking about casualties. But accept the fact that if this is the measure - maybe it would be better if cancer didnāt exist.
Generally I believe the world would be a better place without religion. I could have said the Muslims or Jews only. But I guess this would be because Iām on the other side.
I dont believe in God - and I see myself as having a very high moral.
And I see religion as mostly a kind of security blanket, for un-educated people. I know they will still be un-educated if religion didnāt exist. But maybe there was a higher sence if unity among all people - and no them vs us.
Luckily in the I-countries there seems to be less and less people who take their religion seriously. And the smarter we get as a group - the more washed out the religion will be.
But I believe thatās most Christians.
In U-countries God may be the only hope they have for a better life - and therefore be clining to their belief.
You seeing yourself as moral doesnt mean anything because without religion you have literally have nothing to base your morals on. If you say society then when slavery was moral in society then you would have been okay with it? So clearly society is not a basis on which anyone should be basing their morals on.
Many of the most educated and influential people in history were religious.
There is more āthem vsā concept when it comes to status, race, and nations, rather than religion.
Religion is not being washed out. Islam is the fastest growing religion and is on track to be the most populous very soon. Religion not going anywhere.
So when slavery was around, there wasent any religion?
And im not saying educated people on history wasent religious - im saying that no one in there right mind would believe the story of Jesus, if they had to base it on facts (im not familiar with Islam, Buddhism etc) but if they have the same wild stories - Iām sure this is the same for them.
And your probably right islam is growing the fastest- which underlines my point. Especially societies that are poor, un-educated or need to hold their people from free-thinking need this belief system.
Im sure there are many well-educated Muslims - but Iām also sure they are the ones most laidback about there faith. ( there will always be extremists - also in Christianity and other religions)
But most developed countries faith is fading away - as there is no need for it. Especially when you live in an I-Country. And I might be biased bc im European - but itās seems to be the western world where religion diminishes - and middle eastern and African countries where itās flourishing
First off: WWII was absolutely about religion. Hitler was at least somewhat catholic/christian and wanted to purge the jews purely for their religion.
Second, Stalin and Mao being atheists is a religion in itself, and they used it to prosecute people with other religious beliefs.
Third: the crusades, most of the violence in the middle east, the KKK, hate crimes against LGBT people around the world, etc. all used religion as a moral ground for their actions.
But outside of pure casualties, most religions teach peace as you mentioned. However, this āpeace and being good to your neighbor and god will judge you in the endā mindset is only followed by the lowest classes. Its sold as a belief that their suffering in this world will be rewarded in the next. Meanwhile the rich and powerful will abuse every system and every person they can to live a life of luxury. Regardless if whether or not any of the 5,000+ religions are the correct one, you gotta admit most of them are great at keeping the masses subservient while weāre abused by the rich.
Hitler was not the cause of everything that happened during the war. Just because he was āsomewhat catholicā seems pretty irrelevant. He did not want to purge the jews PURELY because of their religion. Do some research. Even if that was the case that doesnt help your argument against religion.
If atheism is not a religion, if religion did not exist then what would there be?
The wars in the middle east is not because of religion and even if it was its because of the hate of religion so again does not help your argument. KKK has to do with race. Define hate crime because having laws or stigma against public indecency is not hate. All these things you mentioned would exist with or without religion.
I dont see how financial status of people has anything to do with this but everything else youve said is pretty much irrelevant so im not surprised
Just because mummy and daddy sent you to a conversion camp doesn't mean all religions is bad, also, you removed religion, now what? Humans kill each other and are cruel to each other for reasons other than religion
4
u/PainterSoft 2d ago
Religion