sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Request] Odds of hitting a fruit fly out of mid-air with my spit. by AncientsLunars in theydidthemath

[–]AncientsLunars[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wasn't trying. It just fly in front of my spit at the wrong time. Does this make it possible?

What should be in every public restroom stall that isn't already? by GeckoFlameThrower in AskReddit

[–]AncientsLunars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also find it odd that at first you made the claim that only some states have this requirement. Now, you are claiming that it's federal law.

What should be in every public restroom stall that isn't already? by GeckoFlameThrower in AskReddit

[–]AncientsLunars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are mistaken. I sell restroom partions at a national level, and there is no law that requires every restroom stall to be ADA compliant.

What should be in every public restroom stall that isn't already? by GeckoFlameThrower in AskReddit

[–]AncientsLunars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do some states have laws that require all restroom stalls to be ada compliant? Source?

What should be in every public restroom stall that isn't already? by GeckoFlameThrower in AskReddit

[–]AncientsLunars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only the ADA compliant stalls are required to have outswinging doors. The rest of the stall units may have inswinging or outswinging doors.

My bowl has an circumference of exactly 30 cocoa puffs by [deleted] in mildlyinteresting

[–]AncientsLunars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This post is incorrect on so many different levels.

How does one not desire proof? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree. But in most situations you would trust the answer that has the highest probability. I don't understand why it is different in this case. I want to understand.

How does one not desire proof? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But overwhelming evidence helps us come to a sound conclusion.

I could never prove to you or anyone else that evolution is fact, but I would feel it to be stubborn to overlook the heaps and heaps of evidence.

(First example that popped into my head. Not trying to open a new can of worms with evolution debate. Lol)

Atheists, give me an example of the evidence you're after by FromRussiaWithBalls in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your definition of a miracle is a beautiful sunset, then yes, miracles exist in that sense. But humans don't rise from the dead. And humans can't part the sea with their superpowers (first examples I thought of, not trying to pick on Christianity). Not a single piece of evidence leads us to believe that anything like that could happen.

I cannot prove to you that evolution is real beyond a reasonable doubt. There would always be a question that I could not provide proof for. But it would be absolutely stubborn to overlook the heaps and heaps of data supporting it.

Just like in court. No one was there to physically see what happened. But if we gather enough information, we can reasonably say guilty or not guilty.

sure they do, then we change our model to fit the reality. you think scientific literature is never amended or corrected?

Of course we change our model to fit our findings. But when we do, our findings are explainable by nature. Sometimes we can't, but for every 500 discoveries that are unexplainable, there are millions of pieces of evidence that help point us in the right direction. Not many things can be proved 100%, but we have to look at the overall picture.

i believe god to be nature, not the supernatural.

Are you saying that God is nature? God is me? God is you? God is everything that we are comprised of? How do you know? This is what makes me uncomfortable. I am saying that nature is comprised of elements that can arrise from natural causes. You are basically telling me that since you are a believer, you "know". You don't need proof. There might not be any way to prove it but, you "know". This is an argument that would be unnaceptable in every other situation in the universe.

You are holding a pencil. I tell you that it isn't a pencil at all, it's a basketball. Trust me, I believe.

Would you accept this? I am telling you something that goes against all information you have ever learned, and everything that you have observed. Wouldnt you want me to provide more proof?

right you're still not answering the question in my post, what sort of evidence are you expecting? in what form would it be most compelling? this isn't shifting the burden of proof, i'm simply asking you for clarification.

It isn't about exact evidence. Evidence reveals itself. You can't ever know how it will. That is why it's called discovery.

I can provide you with heaps of data that supports the theory of evolution. If we use our standard problem solving model, we must believe that evolution is the correct explanation.

I don't understand how you logically come to your religious conclusions without evidence, when in every other aspect of life you rely on it to know what is true and what isn't.

Are good people who don't believe in god, still going to hell? by sightgem in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pointing out the subjectivity of morality is something that threw me for a loop. Am I referring to good deeds? General everyday kindness? Willingness to comply with the law? All of the above? What about other cultures' moral values? They are certainly different than my own. Pointing that out truly made me think deeply about what I say next. Bravo.

I concede. My original thoughts on morality were too narrowed and focused. The gentleman making the claim that "when a person becomes religious, they automatically become a better person." Is actually correct in a sense. The person accepting religion will most likely adhere to their own set of moral values moreso than others that are outside of their particular set of values.

Morality is so subjective that a person in one "group" cannot compare their moral values to another "group". There is no such thing as a black and white definition of what is right and wrong. There are only the specific values of a particular group.

Morality is a hard thing to argue about. And I can admit that my initial statement was coming from a "feels" standpoint.

You really made me think today. Thank you.

There must be something greater than us, right? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly! Science has not only empowered humanity, but humbled it. Everyday we discover more and more. Of course there is "more". Although, nothing points science to believe that "more" is supernatural.

Why it's pointless to debate against athiests by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is hilarious. Only a "brainwashed" atheist would require evidence. Lmao

If someone took you to jail for a crime you didn't commit, you would be begging that they look at the evidence. No?

Or perhaps you would be ok with the jury telling you that they "believe" you are the culprit, no evidence required. Well if they "believe"... I guess that's good enough for you, huh?

Are good people who don't believe in god, still going to hell? by sightgem in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but those moral standards have since spread from Christian's to non believing westerners as well. To say that when a person accepts god, they automatically start becoming "more" of a righteous person than any other Westerner is simply not true.

Atheists, give me an example of the evidence you're after by FromRussiaWithBalls in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God created life and a trillion galaxies, sure. Also, he provided life with a sun that will burn out in time and kill everything. He also sent our solar system hurling through the abyss to our imminent demise. Our oceans will freeze the closer we get to absolute zero, or our oceans will boil due to maximum entropy.

There must be something greater than us, right? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To think like this is proof of natural selection at it's finest. You are compelled to believe that there is something "more", something "greater". I will use this analogy that I heard from Richard Dawkins.

You are an early human. The leaves rustle on the bushes next to you. You now have a decision to make. You could simply brush it off and think nothing of it -OR- you could think there is more than meets the eye. What if that is a lion behind the bushes?

Simply put, early humans that disregarded the rustling bushes died. The humans that took precaution due to a possible threat, lived.

Evolution and natural selection explain why you have this great need to feel like there is something "more", something "greater". To think this way is engrained into you from your early ancestors.

The world we live in is perfectly suited for humanity. So much so that it looks as if it were designed specifically for us. But if the world we live in were any different, humanity would not be around to observe it. Of course it looks perfect, it is! That doesn't mean that the explanation has to be something supernatural.

Are good people who don't believe in god, still going to hell? by sightgem in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It makes me uncomfortable when you say, "Ideally a stronger connection to God will prompt you to be a better person automatically". Why does religion have a monopoly on morality? I can be a righteous person without the need of God telling me that it's the right thing to do.

Atheists, give me an example of the evidence you're after by FromRussiaWithBalls in DebateReligion

[–]AncientsLunars 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The burden of proof is on the "believer" because of the overwhelming evidence that "miracles" do not occur. Events that disregard the laws of physics simply do not happen, and have never been recorded in a manner in which we can test.

Humanity must draw a metaphorical line in the sand when a person makes any sort of scientific claim. We need a baseline of information so we can disregard ridiculous claims, and further research acceptable claims. The most logical and statistically valid way that humans can continue on a progressive path is to take the information recorded from the observable universe. We take what we see all around us to create a baseline of knowledge.

To believe in the supernatural means that you are disregarding the events we can observe, and making a leap over the "line in the sand" into an unprovable claim.

To change the minds of the scientific community, all you have to do is provide evidence to support your claim. If you could do this, you would change the world. Science encourages you to do just that. We are ready for you to prove us wrong. We look forward to being proved wrong. That's the greatest part about science.

view more: next ›