Zacryon

Woher weißt du das?

Nein Pascal, ich denke nicht.

Was ist denn der Hintergrund davon? Klingt so unpassend zum Rest.

Und Menschen leiden zu lassen, nur weil der politische Wille fehlt, scheint mir halt auch nicht der richtige Weg.

Dieses Leiden kann politischen Druck erzeugen. Kein schöner Weg, aber besser als auf willkürliche Spenden angewiesen zu sein und das Glück zu haben in der richtigen Branche dafür zu arbeiten. Abgesehen davon: sprich mit dem Chef. Je nachdem lässt sich da auch einiges machen. Ich bin nicht verantwortlich für das Gehalt der Angestellten eines Betriebes, genausowenig wie sie für mein Gehalt verantwortlich sind.

Das ist nicht korrekt. Friseure, Taxifahrer, Boten, Spediteure, Handwerker, Hotelerie

Stimmt, mein Fehler. Korrektur:
Zumal Trinkgeld eh nur in einigen wenigen Branchen ein Ding ist.

da wahrscheinlich häufiger in Blumen und Schokolade statt Bares für die Kaffeekasse

Laut meinen Kontakten nichts dergleichen. Und wäre auch kein Hilfsmittel, um finanzielles Leid zu schmälern.

Hiwis bekommen zum Dank auch mal einen Gutschein, usw.

Echt? In meinen Jahren als HiWi hatte ich nie soetwas gesehen. Muss aber sagen, dass ich durch Bafög + Wohngeld + Job ganz gut zurecht gekommen bin, anders als einige meiner Kommilitonys. Und wer von den abertausenden HiWis bekommt Trinkgeld? Im Grunde niemand soweit ich weiß. Weil es einfach keine etablierte Tradition in den jeweiligen Branche ist.

Wenn man schon Trinkgeld gibt, um das finanzielle Leid anderer zu mindern, dann doch bitte gleich für ausnahmslos alle im Niedriglohnsektor, statt den Schwerpunkt auf einige wenige zu legen. Oh, und was ist mit jenen, die so im finanziellen Pech sind, dass sie obdachlos sind? Sollte man die nicht eher priorisieren?

Prinzipiell solltest du nicht von deinem Verhalten auf andere schließen😉

Ich weiß nicht, wie du darauf kommst, dass ich das tun wüde.

You can't prove nor disprove that you're a big brain floating in the void just imagining the world around you. ( Boltzmann Brain)

Proving a concept which is unverifiable by nature is impossible. On that level of argumentation everything is as valid as anything else if you label one of such concepts as "true". Either all religions are wrong or all are right. Either you are a Boltzmann brain or you are not and you are really here. Who knows, maybe you are a pink giant elephant, hopping around on the moon, imagining the world around you as it is. Why not believe in that?

I see the Epicurean paradox as another a tool to unveil the unverifiable nature of christian fairy-tales. As if that were still necessary.

As if the christian God had a problem with killing, considering they are a mass murderer compared to their angel.

Furthermore, why did they create an angel which became "evil" in the first place? This brings us right back to the Epicurean paradox.

Thereby implying that everything becomes meaningless and there is no point in believing anything.

But God told humans what good and evil is, therefore human's evil is at least a subset of God's evil.

So at the end of the day, who cares what someone else believes to cope with that?

I care as soon as religion causes suffering. Which was and still is the case. (Sorry, have to say it again.)

but at the end of the day bad shit just happens and we should do our best to stop it, regardless of whos fault it is.

Agreed.

Athiests claim to not believe in a god but then blame a god for when bad things happen

Personally, I can imagine that's frustration coming from people who may have been raised in a religious household. But I can't speak for all. Haven't heard from such a phenomenon though.

Why waste so much energy disproving its existence?

I hope it doesn't annoy you, as I said in it other subcomment trees already, but I feel the need to say it for potential other readers:
Because organised religion has caused and does still cause a tremendous amount of suffering.

Just ignore the crazy religious people

That is easier said than done if the crazy religious, spiritual, superstituous people don't ignore you and murder you for supposedly being a witch. Sounds medieval, but it isn't. https://www.dw.com/en/witch-hunts-a-global-problem-in-the-21st-century/a-54495289 Or if you are being beaten and killed for being homosexual. https://www.dw.com/en/iran-defends-execution-of-gay-people/a-49144899 Or if you are being "honour killed" because you didn't want to live in a forced marriage and wear a head scarf. https://www.dw.com/en/honor-killings-in-germany-when-families-turn-executioners/a-42511928

Long story short: too many religious people suck a lot. Worsened by their need to expand their religion by proselytizing the naive and thereby nurturing more maniacs.

Why waste so much energy disproving its existence?

To mitigate suffering and save lives in the long run.

Religion has and always will exist.

Probably true but changeable by peacefully reducing member counts of religions.

It’s a way for people to cope with their insignificance, cope with unfairness, and grapple with the concept of death and accepting its inevitablity

Which shows the need for further societal support solutions on a larger scale which do not need religion to function. Think of better education, better access to medical and psychological help as a start.

as long as it’s not hurting someone else

That's the problem with most organised religions.

Or maybe they have an afterlife of imeserable bliss to offset the injustice they experienced in life. There can always be a different reason thought of, but to conclude to one or the other side is illogical.

It's important to set clear definitions of what one understands as "truth", "reality" and therefore "logical" to be able to have a meaningful discussion about this. And on the level of credibility, believing in stuff one religion preaches is as much worth as the other religion which at the end of the day is worth shit as there is no way to verify those. If I would say Iwe were giant pink elephants, hopping around on the moon and only imagining the world around us as we believe it to be, there would be no way to prove or disprove this as it is unverifyable in its nature.

Therefore, I prefer to label conceptions as truths which can be proven by the scientific method as its the best tool we have to produce verifiable facts about us and the world around us. Even if that would be an illusion, it's at least a reasonable attempt.
I'd rather admit that I don't know something than to just assume some sky grandpa or transcendal elephant goddess did it that way.