Change my view: just as one can only truly be agnostic about god's existence, one can actually only truly be agnostic about the shape of the Earth.

[Deleted member 1862]

idk what this phobia is called but it hurts the back of my head seeing this shit

gross ngl

same jfl

 

[Deleted member 6873]

same jfl

cope it looks cool tbh tbh

 

[Cali Yuga]

Exactly, i've discussed these issues in others threads. If you'r truly agnostic or claim atheism you have THE OBLIGATION to go into epoke and shut your damn mouth because nothing is totally proven, not even the principle of non contradiction that we use to speak, or to move, or to think.

david hume got me actin strange he said knowledge i said tf is that

 

[Deleted member 3043]

david hume got me actin strange he said knowledge i said tf is that

tbh david hume has a very bad way of writing for non english native compared to somebody like Rousseau, but the points he makes are as efficient in potentiality than what does modern epistemology regard the way of debunking atheism, and scientist that try to trash talk faithful people while they don't know the limits of their positions, making them more believers than believers themselves because the later are humble to admit they believe while the former believe that they know while they believe.

 

[Cali Yuga]

Science itself is good in theory, bad in practice in most things. The very people who are said to keep us healthy (medical professionals) actively poison most of the population with prescribed opioids and other pharmaceuticals. Most "confirmed" theories like the earth's shape fall flat on their face when you think about it for even a moment tbh. I don't know what the earth's shape really is, but no science has given a good explanation as to how the fuck this ball is apparently spinning around the sun at this breakneck speed just to do one revolution a day yet you don't feel any of it AND the water sitting in oceans isn't disrupted yet we can visibly tell that any movement force acting on water causes water to change it's fluidity. Best case scenario is just to develop your own worldview and ask your own questions.

science isnt good or bad

its just a method that can give us probabilistic information about causal relationships in the external world but you cant derive what you OUGHT to do with that information from the information itself

whats bad is the modern religious devotion towards so called 'science' i.e. the scientific institutions which claim expert status and which most normies treat as infallible

reddit i fucking love science elon musk gleaming pickle rick space rocket bro, god isnt real now take this tasty vaccine and eat this bug paste because meat is changing the weather its SCIENCE what are you a SCIENCE DENIER

 

[Cali Yuga]

tbh david hume has a very bad way of writing for non english native compared to somebody like Rousseau, but the points he makes are as efficient in potentiality than what does modern epistemology regard the way of debunking atheism, and scientist that try to trash talk faithful people while they don't know the limits of their positions, making them more believers than believers themselves because the later are humble to admit they believe while the former believe that they know while they believe.

big agree that humes writing style is aids

hes just a good example of an athiest skeptic type who is actually pretty consistent

 

[MedMaxxing]

science isnt good or bad

its just a method that can give us probabilistic information about causal relationships in the external world but you cant derive what you OUGHT to do with that information from the information itself

whats bad is the modern religious devotion towards so called 'science' i.e. the scientific institutions which claim expert status and which most normies treat as infallible

reddit i fucking love science elon musk gleaming pickle rick space rocket bro, god isnt real now take this tasty vaccine and eat this bug paste because meat is changing the weather its SCIENCE what are you a SCIENCE DENIER

Science as a concept is very very good in theory to use observation to describe what you see. I am talking more so about the bastardized modern version of the word that has become synonymous with "I have the science to back me, you're wrong I don't care about your arguments" ad hominem spam you see on a daily basis in any form of media. At it's very core, the idea of creating a hypothesis and observing changes to confirm or deny leaves open the chance for it to be wrong or right. It's a really good concept but it's been horribly executed on a grand scale.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

by that logic, how does that debunk the hypothesis that we can't be sure of earth's shape?

and to piggyback off of that, why couldn't we then be sure of god's potential existence?

@africancel you pussied out at this point

address it

 

[Deleted member 6273]

true i suppose.

but then, by that logic, how does that debunk the hypothesis that we can't be sure of earth's shape?

and to piggyback off of that, why couldn't we then be sure of god's potential existence?

We can never know anything with absolute certainty, the evidence overwhelmingly points in one direction and we can infer that to be the truth, the same way you believe you were born, or you will die or your name is whatever it is but cannot construct an absolute proof cause absolute proofs don't exist.

We can technically never prove nor disprove god's potential existence but why would you believe in sth with no proof or any evidence behind it.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

We can never know anything with absolute certainty, the evidence overwhelmingly points in one direction and we can infer that to be the truth, the same way you believe you were born, or you will die or your name is whatever it is but cannot construct an absolute proof cause absolute proofs don't exist.

We can technically never prove nor disprove god's potential existence but why would you believe in sth with no proof or any evidence behind it.

my name? I can't "prove" that?

also, there is "evidence of god", just like there is "evidence" of earth being spherical

 

[RecessedCel5]

We can never know anything with absolute certainty, the evidence overwhelmingly points in one direction and we can infer that to be the truth, the same way you believe you were born, or you will die or your name is whatever it is but cannot construct an absolute proof cause absolute proofs don't exist.

We can technically never prove nor disprove god's potential existence but why would you believe in sth with no proof or any evidence behind it.

because it explains why everything happens . if you dissect everything into the smallest of levels possible , you won't be able to know what triggered that in the first place as an agnostic

 

[Deleted member 6273]

my name? I can't "prove" that?

yes you can not prove it absolutely without a shadow of a doubt.

also, there is "evidence of god", just like there is "evidence" of earth being spherical

What evidence.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

What evidence.

ask a religious person tbh. I'm not trying to evangelize in this thread

 

[Ocelot]

itt @africancel brutally iqmogging jbmaxxer

 

[Deleted member 6273]

because it explains why everything happens . if you dissect everything into the smallest of levels possible , you won't be able to know what triggered that in the first place as an agnostic

You're making an assumption that there is a reason things happen at all and of course I wouldn't be able to know since I and practically every human doesn't have absolute knowledge o the universe, but I would not go around making assertions which have no evidence.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

itt @africancel brutally iqmogging jbmaxxer

massive cope.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

You're making an assumption that there is a reason things happen at all and of course I wouldn't be able to know since I and practically every human doesn't have absolute knowledge o the universe, but I would not go around making assertions which have no evidence.

I'd say there is a reason for all things, it's just hard to determine all the original reasons

 

[Deleted member 6273]

I'd say there is a reason for all things, it's just hard to determine all the original reasons

ok let me play your game XD.

Can you prove it.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

ok let me play your game XD.

Can you prove it.

how am i supposed to prove a reason for all things happening while simultaneously saying some things we can't know

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

once again, you're trying to turn this into a debate.

the counterargument is that they are faked btw in case you were too low iq to realize that. (not saying they are, but you can't know for certain)

To me that is not the counter argument

To me the counter argument could be that our perception is somehow wrong, that our eyes and mind have limitations that can't process how really the earth is and we only can see it as round from far distance, i think especially nowadays we are too arrogant about ourselves and we think we can possess and know all the knowledge

Not meaning im agree with this, it is just more realistic than "they faked everything"

Science is constantly with the premise "We thought that "x" was "y" but now we discovered that it is not", science is constantly changing

 

[Deleted member 6273]

I'd say there is a reason for all things

You said this.

how am i supposed to prove a reason for all things happening while simultaneously saying some things we can't know

You have been asking people for proof to validate their beliefs itt in regards to the shape of the earth, so I'm asking you, can you prove there is a reason for all things.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

You said this.

You have been asking people for proof to validate their beliefs itt in regards to the shape of the earth, so I'm asking you, can you prove there is a reason for all things.

nope, see the word "agnostic" in the thread title

 

[Deleted member 6273]

nope, see the word "agnostic" in the thread title

huh? You clearly said this

I'd say there is a reason for all things

You didn't even say you think or believe, you said it with some conviction.

Aside from that, it's not really my point what I said still stands, by your logic we can never be absolutely sure about anything because to be absolutely sure you require absolute knowledge. What do you think can be proven given your limitations of what constitutes a proof.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

huh? You clearly said this

You didn't even say you think or believe, you said it with some conviction.

Aside from that, it's not really my point what I said still stands, by your logic we can never be absolutely sure about anything because to be absolutely sure you require absolute knowledge. What do you think can be proven given your limitations of what constitutes a proof.

direct personal observation

 

[Deleted member 6273]

direct personal observation

Can you prove that your direct personal observation is perfectly and objectively accurate.

Remember there are many delusional people, schizo etc. Some people have implanted false memories of what they beleive was direct observation

 

[Deleted member 4612]

Can you prove that your direct personal observation is perfectly and objectively accurate.

Remember there are many delusional people, schizo etc. Some people have implanted false memories of what they beleive was direct observation

true, but does being schizo mean you cant read a receipt?