zzzzzz

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

No, my claim is that you are religious for asserting that there definitely isn't a ball while at the table.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It turns out there is a world outside of the womb.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

The belief "there is no God" is not implied by the absence of evidence for God. The absence of evidence for something implies the belief "I do not know if the thing exists". Atheism requires a logical mistep. It is unreasonable to jump from an absence of evidence to a claim on non-existence.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (5 children)

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll find that I did not claim to know what anyone believes inside the womb.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children)

Sure. And, you're free to leave the table. You have the freedom to decide the question is uninteresting or contrived or whatever and never think about it again. Others, however, think the question is interesting enough to pursue. Some of those people go on to report discovering evidence for God through first-hand experience. Those people might all be morons or delusional. The only way you have any chance of knowing for sure is to keep an open mind and try to find the evidence yourself. But, again, no one's forcing you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It is a question that occurs to all who are sufficiently curious. It is a corollary of the question "Why does anything exist?".

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (10 children)

While in the womb, there was no evidence (that you could understand) of a world outside the womb.

But, it turns out, there is.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (13 children)

The burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim. You are making a claim (God does not exist). If you want to think logically, the correct conclusion, in the absence of proof, is "I don't know".

For example. Let's say I have 100 opaque cups set upside down on a table and ask you the question "Is a ball under one of these cups?". It would be logically inappropriate to conclude that there is not until you have looked under every cup. Even if you looked under 99 and found nothing, it would not be proper to extrapolate that there is no ball. Do you understand?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 years ago (36 children)

No, you're religious because you are drawing conclusions that are not supported by evidence.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I don't see Cryptomator in the comparison. Doesn't it have a similar feature set?

view more: ‹ prev next ›