this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025

142 points (95.5% liked)

World News

47218 readers

2304 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

142

Amid Rising Heat, Hajj Becomes Test of Endurance for Pilgrims and Saudi Arabia (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 3 days ago by TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The hajj, one of the largest annual human gatherings in the world, begins on Wednesday in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Amid rising temperatures and logistical challenges, the pilgrimage has increasingly become a test of endurance both for pilgrims and the Saudi government.

Millions of Muslims from around the world travel to the city to take part; Saudi Arabia said 1,475,230 pilgrims from abroad have arrived since Sunday. Last year, the Saudi government said more than 1,300 pilgrims died, many from Egypt. Most of those who perished had been unregistered, Saudi officials said, meaning they had made the trip without the permits that gave them access to heat protections.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DragonSidedD@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Atheists don't need to disprove theists any more than they need to disprove Leprechauns. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -5 points 2 days ago

Do you believe in atoms? If so, prove them!

And no, linking to Wikipedia articles or to books about physics is no proof. That is just scriptures.

[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Which is a different way of stating you are incapable of proving what you believe just like they are.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lack of belief is not belief in nothing.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The assertion that there is no God cannot be proven as you cannot prove a negative.

There assertion that there is a divine entity cannot be logically demonstrated in any valid way logically speaking.

The validity of either claim cannot be tested and thus have the same overall value and it is a matter of which you choose to accept.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lacking a belief in God is not asserting there is no God. I don't know how to dumb this down any more.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lacking a belief in God, asserting there is no God, and asserting there is a God are all equally impossible to prove provided that by “God” we mean an omnipotent omipresent being.

I dont know how to make that any clearer.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

"I make no claim"

"You can't prove it!"

I mean, yeah, because no claim is being made. Do you genuinely not understand the difference between no claim and a negative claim? Even if you think they're the same thing, the burden of proof is still on the person making the positive claim.

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The assertion that there is no God cannot be proven as you cannot prove a negative.

Correct, no one argued that.

There assertion that there is a divine entity cannot be logically demonstrated in any valid way logically speaking.

Correct again.

The validity of either claim cannot be tested and thus have the same overall value and it is a matter of which you choose to accept.

Do you really mean that?

If I were to accuse you of something terrible like being a child molester with absolutely zero evidence...

That's valid? You can deny it, but your denial is of equal value to my accusation right? So if everyone in this comment section chooses to believe you molester children from now on... do you have a problem with that?

The reason I'm an atheist is the same reason I don't believe you're a child molester yet. I think there is a burden of proof of evidence that would need to be met before the accusation needs to be taken seriously.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There is no evidence of me being a child molester AND if I were there would be proof that’s why your example is a false equivalence.

If the Christian God exists, for example, there would be no way of knowing for certain because that God would be omnipresent and thus would be everything. If God is everything what do you compare it to?

If you spend enough time focusing on the truth of this you will eventually conclude you cannot prove your belief like they cannot prove theirs so neither side has anything demonstrable.

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

if I were there would be proof that’s why your example is a false equivalence.

Not necessarily. This is lemmy, you're on a completely anonymous account. I wouldn't expect to have any proof.

Maybe you just didn't get caught yet.

If the Christian God exists, for example, there would be no way of knowing for certain

I was willing to grant you the philosophical God argument, but if you want to evoke the Christian God you're now making a whole bunch of positive claims.

Why don't we look at the evolutionary record and see whether all of humanity comes from Adam and Eve or if animals evolved from a common ancestor?

We can look for evidence of a flood, or an exodus and see there is none.

We can track the history of Yahweh, and how he was syncretized with El and Baal from Caananite faiths, and morphed over centuries from a local Storm/war God to the only God.

The early Israelites engaged in polytheistic practices that were common across ancient Semitic religion, because the Israelite religion was a derivative of the Canaanite religion and included a variety of deities from it, including El, Asherah, and Baal. Initially a lesser deity among the Cannanite pantheon, Yahweh in later centuries became conflated with El; Yahweh took on El's place as head of the pantheon of the Israelite religion, El's consort Asherah, and El-linked epithets, such as ʾĒl Šadday (אֵל שַׁדַּי‎), came to be applied to Yahweh alone. Characteristics of other deities, such as Asherah and Baal, were also selectively absorbed in conceptions of Yahweh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

We can compare the contradictions between the behavior of the Old Testament God and Jesus to conclude like early Christians such as Marcion of Sinope Yahweh and Christianity are incompatible

Study of the Hebrew Bible, along with received writings circulating in the nascent Church, led Marcion to conclude that many of the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with the actions of Yahweh, characterized as the belligerent god of the Hebrew Bible. Marcion responded by developing a ditheistic system of belief around the year 144.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

We can compare the Gospels and see where they copied stories from the Iliad/Odyssey.

Odyssey Location Mark Location

Athena descends like a bird 1.319-324 Spirit descends like a dove 2:1-2 Sailors volunteer to follow Athena 2.383-413 Fishermen volunteer to follow Jesus 1:16-20 Nestor’s feast for 4500 men 3.1-68 Jesus’s feast for 5000 men 6:30-44 Menelaus’s wedding feast 4.1-67 Jesus’s feast for 4000 8:1-9 Odysseus enters city behind mules 6.252-261 Jesus enters city on an ass 11:1-11 Alcinous’s prolific figs trees 7.112-121 Jesus curses unprolific fig tree 11:12-14 Blind Demodocus among sailors 8.471-473 Blind man at “House-of-fisherman” 8:22-26 Lotus-eating, forgetful comrades 9.62-107 Forgetful disciples at sea 8:19-21 Polyphemus the cave-dweller 9.105-525 Dangerous demoniac from caves 5:1-20 Aeolus’s bag of winds and gale 10.1-55 Jesus calms winds and sea 4:35-41 Cannibals at the harbor 10.76-136 Hostile Pharisees at the harbor 8:10-13 Following a water carrier to dinner 10.100-116 Following a water carrier to dinner 14:12-16 Circe turns soldiers into swine 10.135-465 Jesus sends demons into swine 5:1-20 Odysseus’s last supper before Hades 10.546-561 Jesus’s last super and Gethsemane 14:32-42 Death of young Elpenor 10.546-560 Flight of naked young man 14:43-52 Blind seer Tiresias 11.90-94 Blind seer Bartimaeus 10:46-52 Death of Agamemnon at a feast 11.409-430 Death of the Baptist at a feast 6:14-29 Burial of Elpenor at dawn 12.1-5 Young man at tomb at dawn 16:1-4 Eurylochus’s vow 12.298-305 Peter’s vow 14:26-31 Eurylochus’s broken vow 12.367-396 Peter’s broken vow 14:66-72 Eumaeus’s Phoenician nurse 15.417-491 Syrophoenician woman 7:24-30 Odysseus’s transfiguration 16.172-301 Jesus’s transfiguration 9:2-13 Suitors plot to kill Telemachus 16.383-385 Vinedressers kill the beloved son 12:1-12 Conspiracy to kill Telemachus 17.182-213 Conspiracy to kill Jesus 14:10-11 Penelope’s hospitality 17.534-547 Generous widow at temple 12:41-42 Irus the beggar 18.1-94 Barabbas the brigand 15:6-15 Telemachus’s amazement at house 19.35-43 Disciples’ amazement at temple 13:1-2 Penelope’s request for a sign 19.102-271 Disciples’ request for a sign 13:3-8 Prophetic oak at Dodona 19.296-307 Prophetic fig tree 13:28-31 Eurycleia washes her master 19.370-575 Woman anoints Jesus 14:3-9 Eurycleia’s recognition of Odysseus 19.474-486 Peter’s recognition of the Messiah 8:27-30 Odysseus slays suitors in his house 22.17-86 Jesus expels merchants from temple 11:15-19 Contested authority over the house 22.221-233 Contested authority over the temple 11:27-33 Odysseus hacks to death evil slave 22.474-477 Bystander slices off a slave’s ear 14:43-5

https://testimonia.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/MacDonald.Mimesis.pdf

Or also where they contradict each other

If you spend enough time focusing on the truth of this you will eventually conclude you cannot prove your belief like they cannot prove theirs so neither side has anything demonstrable.

I don't think theist Christians would agree with that though. Quoting Tertullian:

We do not worship your gods, because we know that there are no such beings. This, therefore, is what you should do: you should call on us to demonstrate their non-existence, and thereby prove that they have no claim to adoration; for only if your gods were truly so, would there be any obligation to render divine homage to them. And punishment even were due to Christians, if it were made plain that those to whom they refused all worship were indeed divine. But you say, They are gods. We protest and appeal from yourselves to your knowledge; let that judge us; let that condemn us, if it can deny that all these gods of yours were but men.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm

When it comes to a philosophical creator god I agree with your statement, this view describes agnostic atheism.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You night wanna look up the history of philosophy of the middle ages, they do a lot of fancy reasoning to make Faith and empiristic data work. They couldn't really find a way, so you might have the same trouble. Beautiful aruments, though.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I have read them. The fact is you cannot prove either position. You only have the one that makes sense to you. In my case it is atheism but knowing I cannot prove my belief there is no God can you see why a believer might not be willing to dismiss their beliefs without proof?

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The scientific method needs no proof to believe in. It embraces fallacy and tries to disprove rather than prove. This is way stronger as it argues from known things.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The scientific method cannot be used to determine the truth of an inherently untestable claim. That's why untestable claims are called unscientific because science has nothing to do with it and cannot by the inherent limits of the method.

For example, Abrahamic faiths assert that there is an omnipresent being that comprises the totality of everything. If such a being could exist then there could not be anything to compare it to as a control. Hence, you would not be able to use the method to test if this God exists as you have no not-God as a point of comparison.

The scientific method has limits. Hopefully you were taught that you use philosophical logic to determine validity of untestable claims.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That's why the scientific method is created, to keep to the things we can know about.

For things we cannot know, there's your space for faith. But it's more of a 'credo quia absurdum', than anything else.

You're perfectly fine in believing what you wish, but you're not trying to know. There's no apriori. Like Godel proved there's no way for logics to be coherent enough to prove anything outside of it.