this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
109 points (78.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

29786 readers
264 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
109
Removed by mod (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by SolomonG@sh.itjust.works to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hector_McG@programming.dev 18 points 7 months ago (3 children)

You have it the wrong way round; humans invented god.

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can you not just leave it out for a bit? It's irritating now.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

This is Lemmy. You cannot go 5 posts without someone acting like a 2007 edgy internet atheist. I assume this is where they all ended up.

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's edgy for someone to be atheist?

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I thought we'd snuffed this shite-arse logic out with "toxic masculinity"? They said "acting like a 2007 edgy internet atheist", not "being atheist, which makes them edgy".

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Literally all they did was suggest the opposite scenario. What exactly is edgy about it? It's the atheism being taken issue with clearly, there's no internet edgy about it. If that is edgy, then it basically says "anyone who disagrees with me is 2007 internet edgy."

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago

I don't know, ask them yourself?

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If billions of people believed Santa Claus existed, and forced their beliefs on other people, wouldn't you get sick of it?

Religion has killed many millions of people, standing up and calling it out for it's lies and nonsense is the right thing to do.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Christianity hasn't killed people. People who would have killed people anyway taking parts of Christian scripture out of context has killed people. By that logic, scientific studies have killed people due to eugenics. Should that mean that we should ban the study of science or even genetics? Absolutely not!

What do you categorise as "forcing their beliefs on other people"?

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee -3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I wonder what the hundreds of thousands burned alive for not being Christian would say to your comment.

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 8 points 7 months ago

See, I could reply to this with "nothing, because there's no afterlife". That's what's irritating: taking figures of speech or offhand comments based on this old idea of God and opting to be a humourless little twerp about them.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 7 months ago

Where does the Bible say to burn people alive for not being Christian?

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

'one of these days, boris, we're going to look into our microsocopes and find ourselves staring into gods eyes and the first one who blinks is going to lose his testicles'

[–] moon@lemmy.cafe 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

import god

It's just a namespace

[–] RohanWillAnswer@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Tolkien called this idea “sub-creation,” suggesting that only God could create, in the complete sense of the word. But that humans, being made in God’s image, would by their nature strive to create. Anything we create uses what God gave us and would therefore be a lesser order of creation, thus sub-creation.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

A step further and we can see the hubris in some religious ideas about not using manmade stuff because we're "playing god". If God didn't want us to have it, we wouldn't have it. That cancer treatment or dialysis is god sending you the help you prayed for.

[–] craftyindividual@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

Is he holding a christingle or sputnik?

[–] RadicalEagle@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

At some point God might say "I don't know if I can make it better than this, but I'll give it a try if you'll help me out."

[–] Tier1BuildABear@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You think the guy that made open ai made everything it'll come up with?

[–] Doods@infosec.pub 1 points 7 months ago

If the open AI guy made the training data, the hardware, and every electron, then yes.

[–] KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What? Most religious dogma is predicated upon free will, meaning we are capable of rearranging things according to our own machinations.

It would be like bacteria in a petri dish reorganising and reproducing, but it's still creation in a sense separated from the creator.

[–] Lolman228@kbin.social -5 points 7 months ago

If God exists, and God owns everything, does that mean that I'm shitting God's pants?

[–] db2@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] GregorTacTac@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)