Image transcription: a section of a Wikipedia article titled “Relationship with Reality”. It reads “From a scientific viewpoint, elves are not considered objectively real. [3] However,” End transcription.

  • @starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    17
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    There is evidence to suggest that the tooth fairy isn’t real–when tested, magic has consistently been shown to not exist. The only intangible forces that have been shown to act on things are gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces, none of which allows for teeth to turn into quarters. On top of that, most parents will admit that they made the tooth fairy up. It’s reasonable to say that there is objectively no tooth fairy because there’s evidence to suggest it can’t exist.

    There is evidence to suggest that Elvis Presley is dead. Here’s a transcript of the medical examiner’s report listing the likely cause of death as H.C.V.D. associated with ASHD. He would be 88 today, which, considering his lifestyle, would be an impressive age to reach without dying. It’s reasonable to say that Elvis is definitely dead, because there’s evidence to suggest he can’t be alive.

    There is no such evidence to suggest that there can’t be a creator deity. I don’t believe that there is, but I won’t make a truth claim without evidence. If you wanna say that the Christian god isn’t real, that’s fine. There are contradictions in their holy text that show that the god in their book cannot exist. But to say that no god can exist is a truth statement that lacks evidence. Saying it just makes you look like an edgy teenager who just figured out that they’re atheist. Makes you look like a fan of thunderf00t or Carl of Akkad.

    • when tested, magic has consistently been shown to not exist.

      Followed by:

      There is no such evidence to suggest that there can’t be a creator deity.

      Uh, OK.

        • Yes, made up. Just like deities made up in more ignorant times.

          Are you seriously arguing in good faith that “god” exists as anything more than a mass delusion? And you think not believing that is “edgy”? If so, I really think we’re done.

          • @starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            17
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Are you seriously arguing in good faith that “god” exists as anything more than a mass delusion?

            No! I’m saying that making a truth claim without evidence is necessarily irrational! I literally said that I don’t believe it. There is a difference between not believing something and believing not something.

            I think that centering your online persona around your lack of belief while making comments about how delusional someone must be to be religious is what’s edgy.

            • I would counter that your pedantic hair splitting is what is truly edgy. “I don’t believe in god, but I don’t believe in not god” makes no semantic difference and is rather perfect fence sitting.

              • @starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                57 months ago

                Okay buddy, you’ve convinced me. Gnostic atheism is much more reasonable and true than agnostic atheism. Saying “I don’t know and don’t much care” is so much edgier than naming yourself “sin free for 0 days” and claiming to know for an absolute fact that there is no god

                  • @starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    47 months ago

                    That’s precisely what I’m saying. If you can’t prove that something is true, it’s weird to go to such lengths justifying an affirmative belief that it’s true, instead of taking the position that you simply don’t know and therefore don’t believe any claims made about it either way.