lol

@chuckayy *You

That was an intentional excessive letter

@Deleted User I thought you knew Russel's teapot

To demonstrate I was stretching it out in my head

this is the equivalent of arguing against religion with a 17th century christian

its a waste of time team

@waiting for silksong I did.

^^^^

Maybe you just didn't understand it?

^ to chuck

If Christians are wrong, then how did everything come to be?

@waiting for silksong Nah. I do. It's funny because Bertrand Russell was an atheist

@Cheeki Breeki allah

Throttles

lol

It's used against people who shift the burden of proof onto atheists.

I don't think he would say there is no possibility of god existing

the burden of proof is on either if they are being assertive

He was a positive atheist.

and given lack of evidence either side is simply theoretical

@Deleted User this is semantics atheist and agnostic are interchangable sometimes

its fine to have a theory but having belief in something without evidence is called: faith

@waiting for silksong He argued against a metaphysical being.

So you're telling me that you've studied philosophy but are saying that we have to disprove something instead of prove?

@chuckayy Are you a weak or strong agnostic?

I'm 99% sure that he never argued that there could not possibly be a god

Stop using metaphysics God fucking dammit

i lift mad weight

strong

You don't understand the word

@waiting for silksong He did. Dude you can search this

Nazi can you go into vc?

Wasn't he converted to a religion later in his life lol?

You're citing someone who changed his mind?????

No he didnt

Are you dumb?

He didn't convert LOL

read that buddy

here

there nobody who studies philosophy who would agree with you