• Cabrio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      That’s because for someone who requires evidence before belief there’s rarely been major unexplained phenomena to convince them of the existance of said power from any source.

      I can imagine even the most cognizant person running into problems with assigning things to a god without civilisations aggregated knowledge of concepts like atomic principal, meteorology, astrology, germ theory, social studies.

      Imagine seeing tornados, or super cell storm structures, flooding, plague, tsunami’s, all without a hint of understanding of weather, or germs, or global tidal movements, knowledge that’s only been globally accessible to the common man in literally the last 30 years.

      The normal person’s aptitude to reject god comes down to the ability to understand and explain anything that would prior be considered an unexplainable phenomena, which relies entirely on their grasp of the combined knowledge derived from all civilisations past.

      Education resolves superstition.

        • Cabrio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Wow you read all that and missed mine.

          Yes they do, because they attribute the powers of nature to god where Athiests do not because they understand the causation and effect.

            • Cabrio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              No I’m not, I’m explaining the differential in information processing, if you think I was trying to flaunt some superiority you’re still just as ignorant about what I was saying.

              I’m stating they see their gods as all powerful because they attribute the natural phenomena to being of a deities impact rather than something that is just naturally occurring.

              My second point was that without the combined knowledge and technological advancement of all of the world’s societies there’d be significantly more religious people (as proven by historical record) because they wouldn’t have the tools and knowledge to come to any other conclusion.

              So no, you didn’t get my point, and you only think it’s irrelevant because you’re too stupid to realise I was agreeing with you.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, that’s one of many reasons why the term “Sky Daddy” makes me cringe if used unironically.