/sci/ - Science & Math

No.1593272
my face when you is a gay

GO ATHIESM

>>1593272
>>1593276

>Two beliefs claiming to hold the *absolute* truth battling it out.

>Implying Atheism is an absolute belief.

atheists,hahaha

>>1593284
>implying atheist claim to know the absolute truth

>>1593288

>implying saying "THERE IS NO GOD" isn't an absolute statement

keep on trolling

>>1593284
>implying that atheism requires faith
>implying that the burden of proof does not lie with the people that are claiming an all knowing creator cares what I do late at night with my wee-wee

>>1593298

>implying you can rationally conclude that there is/isn't a god
>implying that there isn't the possibility of another deity that humanity hasn't turned into a religion yet

>>1593297
it aint easy :(

>>1593310

it is when you have already acquired first grade logic

My name is boxxy

hey

>>1593303
Implying that claiming there is a creator is equally logical as not believing there is a creator until proven otherwise.

>>1593334
Fuck! forgot my greentext in all my rage.

>>1593293
>implying athiest say "THERE IS NO GOD" instead of "I remain unconvinced that a god exists."

>>1593334

>implying you were already implying the "until proven otherwise" tidbit throughout this entire argument

>>1593337
>implying atheists ever consider the latter statement

>>1593342
>implying they don't
Find an atheist who claims there is no such thing as gods and punch them in the face.
Then go hang out with more agnostic atheists.

Hitchen's hair is ridiculous in that picture.

He should get some eyeliner to continue the robert smith look

>>1593349
>agnostic atheists

>>1593349
Jennie confirmed for retard.

There is no god. Period.

>>1593352
Well, that's out of the question now, isn't it? He lost all of it due to chemotherapy.

>>1593367
>herp

You see, God must exist, because it's annoying when people say he doesn't.

If god doesn't exist, then why does the Bible exist?

BEAT THAT ATHEISTS

>>1593382

>my face when this thread

>>1593371
Agreed, but to claim you have special knowledge that there isn't is absurd.

99.999998% sure there is no god. Still makes me an agnostic atheist.

Even Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He says there's ALMOST no chance that there is a god.

>>1593349
find somebody that thinks they are superior because they use the word agnostic, and punch them in the face for being a pretentious cunt.

are you agnostic towards unicorns? Faeries? No you are not because there is no evidence for them. Just as there is no evidence for a god.

>>1593417
I am, ive never seen one, but i have no reason to think they are not just rare, or hiding.

Since i do not need to make any decision based on their existence or non existence, i am free to remain ambiguous on them.

>>1593417
there is no evidence that they don't exist either. It's scientifically incorrect to say that they definitely don't exist without having absolute proof that they don't.

>>1593428

>> Implying absolute proof exists

>>1593429
>implying I implied that by saying there isn't any

>>1593417
99.999998% don't believe in unicorns nor faeries. Also depends on the definition of unicorns and faeries.

Also, not believing that something exists is different than believing that it doesn't exist. That's what's I'm getting at. It's no the case that I believe that no gods exist. It's the case that I'm just not convinced enough to believe any exist (and probably never will. Fucking 99.99998%)

>>1593425
ugh. Suppose I told you that I found a rare leaf in my garden. I went on to explain that this rare leaf isn't actually a leaf. It's a faeries wing. I then ask you for $1000 so i can afford some expensive equipment to test this wing for faerie stuff.

how would you respond.

>>1593428
it's scientifically incorrect of me to say with absolute proof that you even exist (even if I meet you in real life - what if you're a government's advanced android being tested in the field?)

>>1593443
"I'd like to see evidence that your claim is correct. Until you provide evidence, I remain unconvinced."

NOT
"LOL UR DUMB. I BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE LYING! LOLOLO"
because ^ that isn't how scientific method works.

>shig !!kJ/Piy6Safk

fucking blocked

>>1593432
you are missing my point. I can definitively say that faeries do not exist. It is a fact.

why do you force me to say that they might exist?

>>1593457

Just because you say something is definite doesn't make it so. You can say whatever the fuck you want with whatever level certainty you want, but it doesn't change anything.

>>1593446
your point being?

>>1593457
Provide observational evidence that faeries don't exist.

And when you can't, try to realize that you can't say with 100% certainty that anything is non-existent.
If I were to say:
"I can say definitively that white crows do not exist."

>>1593470

How the fuck is it possible to provide observational evidence that something doesn't exist? That's a complete fallacy.

everyone saying something definitely doesn't exist fails at the scientific method

>>1593474
To disprove X, show that X itself is logically contradictory or that X implies verifiable sentences which are then shown to be false.

With the latter approach, one can always save the X-hypothesis by introducing auxiliary hypotheses, though. This is seen to weaken the X-hypothesis nonetheless.

That said, in everyday conversations we frequently just outright state that something doesn't exist. It's only when talking about gods that religious people feel the need to point out that philosophically speaking, we can't know. Weird.

>>1593457
Provide observational evidence that faeries don't exist.

And when you can't, try to realize that you can't say with 100% certainty that anything is non-existent.
If I were to say:
"I can say definitively that white crows do not exist."
It would require me to check every single crow that ever existed, exists currently, and every crow that may come into existence. While it would only take one crow to show that white crows do exist; when i say no white crows exist, i have to check every fucking crow, and when i check more, more keep coming into existence.

If you want to show evidence that faeries don't exist, you'll have to check every part of the universe continually, because faeries may pop up in a spot that you've already checked and ones may still be in a spot you haven't. You don't know the nature of the universe as well as I don't. All we know is the observational data we have on hand.

Right now, there is no evidence saying there is a god. But as Sagan said "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." We could always find evidence tomorrow that god exists, or that there is, indeed, a flying teapot in mars.

Though, we can be 99.99998% sure there aren't.

>>1593453
cute

>>1593467
I am aware that we are talking semantics and that we are really both on the same page. However, this topic annoys me to no end. I am the kind of person that likes to be certain. when somebody says 1+1 could possibly be something other than 2 they are simply wrong. there are things you can be certain about, and to me I believe Ive seen enough evidence to settle this issue.

>>1593482
the christian god can be disproven, but the idea of a god can't

>>1593485
Everyone will agree that we're certain about math and logic, though it's doubtful even these things survive some of the more powerful sceptical arguments (evil genius for instance).

Like I've said before, you're entitled saying that you know things don't exist, imo. This is just how we use language. If there's no evidence for something, we consider it to be false provided it's a priori probability is really low.

In philosophy though, we tend to be really nitpicky and as it turns out, proving negatives is fucking impossible unless the entity in question is actually logically impossible.

>>1593417
Everyone should be agnostic regarding unicorns, flying spaghetti monster, etc. When something can not be disproven, claiming to have special knowledge about the non-existence of something is just as bad as believing in god.

If something can not be disproven, then even if though the probability is infinitesimally small, you can never be absolutely sure it is 0.

However, this makes the existance of god, jesus and krusty the clown equally probable in the real world.

>>1593494
I agree. Which is why I'm certain some versions of the cristian god aren't real: Depending on how we define the properties, an omni3 god is impossible.

But then you get theists to modify say "benevolent" to mean something completely different from how you'd use "benevolent" or "good" in any other context...

>>1593505
well said.