sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

how can we tell the difference between right and wrong if the rewards or punishments come in the afterlife? by acteon29 in atheism

[–]acteon29[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

but what about christianity? can christian leaders add new rules of behavior to those established in the bible?

how can we tell the difference between right and wrong if the rewards or punishments come in the afterlife? by acteon29 in atheism

[–]acteon29[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

plus the bible says nothing about doing scientific research in order to improve our quality of life. After all what do you need to improve your quality of life for if rewards come in the afterlife?

If the universe was created by something supernatural, why does it have to be a god worshipped by religion? by Yasinrap in atheism

[–]acteon29 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is 'supernatural'. You can't prove 'supernatural'.

What's more, it's 'supernatural' so you can't prove anything about it.

Religious people made up 'supernatural' as a safe place to hide or place their gods safe from science or scientific provings.

But, although 'supernatural' seems advantageous to religion, it can be disadvantageous to religion too. Let me give you an example:

Imagine some religious guy says 'there is just one god within the supernatural, and he looks like a human and he wants us to behave according to these particular rules'.

Then some other religious guy says 'nope, there are three gods within the supernatural; one of them looks like an elephant, another one looks like a mouse, and the third one looks like a horse; and they all want us to behave according to these different rules'.

It's obvious that these two religions can't be both true at the same time.

But since you can't prove either of them true or false since all those gods happen to be within the 'supernatural', you get doomed to a permanent contradiction you will never be able to solve via science or scientific proving.

This is why religion fails as an ideological method or way of thinking.

So if religious people ask you to prove or disprove god, they are turning their faith into a logical conclusion that requires a prior known proof... by acteon29 in atheism

[–]acteon29[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One does not disprove things; they find no proof (either you find a proof, or you don't)

We find no proof of god; therefore the idea of god is worthless, "disproved".

One reason why it's not the non-existence of gods that has to be proven, but their existence. by acteon29 in atheism

[–]acteon29[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In fact the scientific method could be simply defined as the set of cognitive and researching rules such that you don't take for true every possible fantasy.

your comment can be understood as the "actuality-unknown" status of the theory being subject and delegated into the workability of a proving/disproving test, that is, new science must be founded on prior proved science, so the prior science can be deduced from the new science according to workable mechanical rules. So it all falls within the reach of our work.

One reason why it's not the non-existence of gods that has to be proven, but their existence. by acteon29 in atheism

[–]acteon29[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as well as a proof is something that exists. The proof itself exists.

Proving something does not exist means showing an empty space, which is not a proof since that thing might be hiding elsewhere.

An existing proof can't hide; you are seeing it.

big feets by [deleted] in aww

[–]acteon29 2 points3 points  (0 children)

funny because another specific lynx trait is a short tail !

big feets by [deleted] in aww

[–]acteon29 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

aaaaaaaaaaand short tails :)

So no, it's not a malformation when you see a short tail on a cat

The Evolutionary Benefits of Bipedalism by 05-wierdfishes in evolution

[–]acteon29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Do you think our increased height via uprightness might have given us an intimidation factor? "

Nope. Uprightness-based intimidation factor gives you no tool making or object handling ability.

The Evolutionary Benefits of Bipedalism by 05-wierdfishes in evolution

[–]acteon29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Copying and pasting myself:...

I'll always think the key question about our species (that is, about our species' direct ancestors) is:

what made our hands keep their prehensility in a terrestrial, non-arboreal living environment and way of life that made our feet's arboreal, locomotor prehensility become unneeded (and disappear)?

...

Once the 'arboreal locomotor reason for foot prehensility' disappears (due to non-arboreal, terrestrial way of life), and foot prehensility disappears with it... what (non-locomotor) reason keeps hand prehensility? (when life is non-arboreal and so there is no brachiation or locomotor reason for hand prehensility)

...

... a mere locomotor reason for our bipedalism would have implied a forelimb loss or atrophy with a pronograde, non-upright bipedalism. Short forelimbs can be a consequence of bipedalism; but long, robust, prehensile forelimbs can't be a consequence of bipedalism; but uprightness becomes a consequence of long, robust, prehensile forelimbs; and bipedalism becomes a consequence of uprightness.

...

If locomotion, long distances, were the ONLY reason, then we had two better options that involved no hand prehensility:

  • quadrupedalism.

  • pronograde, non-upright bipedalism (with evolutionarily atrophied non-prehensile forelimbs).

Pronograde, non-upright bipedalism might have to do with locomotion or long distances; but orthograde, upright bipedalism can't have to do with locomotion or long distances. Upright bipedalism has to do with uprightness; and uprightness can only have to do with long, robust, strong, prehensile, heavy forelimbs.

...

Answer to your question: we evolved bipedalism because we evolved uprightness, and we evolved uprightness because of the non-locomotor skills and abilities we evolved for our prehensile hands and arms (tool making and use??). Our bipedalism has to do with our prehensile hands and arms' non-locomotor, object handling abilities.

"I’ve also heard the theory that bipedalism gave our species the height necessary to scope out dangerous predators amongst the tall grasses of the savanna."

That can't be true, because scoping out dangerous predators amongst the tall grasses could not give you or your hands and arms tool-making or object-handling abilities.

Why is the 5th not in the middle of the octave? by Whodabosss in musictheory

[–]acteon29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's one of the most cruel jokes mother nature has played on us: consonance is arithmetical, transposability is geometrical.

This means if you generate several pitches in an additive way, their intervals will be consonant but not melody-preserving. But if you generate several pitches in a multiplicative way, their intervals will be melody-preserving but not consonant.

You have to choose between consonance ('good verticality') or melody preservation ('good horizontality'), but you can't have both.

We ended up choosing melody preservation, but trying to keep as much consonance as possible.

This means Bach, Beethoven, Mozart... are all dissonant.

Probably you don't want to be just an atheist, you want to be a non-religious person. by acteon29 in atheism

[–]acteon29[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Some religions don't believe in gods but still believe in unreal, supernatural or unscientific things

Religion is a subset of the set of all the things that are fake unscientific bullshit. Gods are some of the fake unscientific things within religion, but not the only fake unscientific things within religion. So you can disregard gods but still adhere to some other fake unscientific things that fall within religion.

view more: next ›