bramkaandorp

joined 1 year ago
[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Satanic! To the gulag.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

But, but...

There was a firefight!

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Not yet. But they're hard at work making it happen.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

So, protestant?

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Yup! People will have no job because of this. The least they can do is be honest and unambiguous.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Does that translate to a 50/50 chance of gods existing?

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Fun is, depth isn't.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yes, it is.

If we don't see evidence, then clinging onto the concept just because people have believed in it in the past doesn't make sense.

Because if not for that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Because we wouldn't have a concept of there possibly, maybe being a god in the first place.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

"I believe there is a god" seems less likely, given the evidence. It only seems equally likely if you arbitrarily put god above everything else. Something someone only does if they think it is important to keep the idea alive.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I personally never said that I think there definitely is no god, so that part is a straw man argument.

It is also not a requirement of atheism, as has been explained to you multiple times. Insisting that your definition is the correct one doesn't make it so.

Also, why is it not begging the question to say that it is out of our reach?

You say it's like blind people and colors, but that analogy doesn't work, because there are people who have seen colors, and can explain how colors work. Do you have a similar example for gods? Are there people who have "seen" gods, so to speak?

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It tends to lead to hyperactive minds...

Citation need, I think.

 

I love Kim Stanley Robinson’s books, and am reading (in some case re-reading) his books in order. At some point, I’m going to get to Green Earth, but since it’s a reworking of the Science in the Capitol trilogy, I wanted to find out just how much it adds/leaves out/changes.

Is the difference significant enough to merit a “re-read”? I'm particularly interested in characterization, but I'm also curious if the science itself has been significantly changed, with resulting plot changes.

Thanks!

view more: next ›