Message from @Selganor
Discord ID: 617948469474099222
I think there's a branch of philosophy related to proofs and shit
The same logic that leads towards anarchy leads toward atheism
☝💯
Since you’re an ancap
I'm agnostic
If you want to keep your arguments close to your chest or develop them elsewhere
I’m agnostic to a prime cause or not, and if so, what it is.
I’m atheist towards a creator and involver.
I’m anti theist towards religion
If nothing changes with some assumption(say, deism) then it *could* still be true, and therefore the assumption cannot be disproven
I can make specific channels for each topic
Isn't a creator the same thing as a prima cause
I need a logical defense for atheism
A creator is a prime cause, but a prime cause doesn’t have to be a creator being
Lets say the BOP is on me
False
That’s switching the burden
He claims its an atheist cliche to claim that
Burdens on the one with the claim
But he tricks people into making claims
Religion can’t prove it beyond personal experience, which where does that get you in court and science
He could say that atheists are claiming that God doesn't exist
Doesn’t matter, not the atheist burden to reach
We’re claiming there’s no evidence so why believe
Isn't that agnostic
No evidence
Why not believe in ra, oden, Zeus, etc
Atheist say they *know* God doesn't exist
Agnostic is unsure
Agnostics say that they don't give a shit
Atheist is against the idea of a deity due to a lack of evidence
Lack of evidence is not proof
Then they’re more atheist technically, agnostic is curious, but waits for evidense
Btw opinions? https://youtu.be/wtibnUWp_TE
So what about elves?
Does the logic apply
Why do these people look like potatoes
If not with science, law, etc, why with religion?
Maybe because they are mashed together
Because those are empirical sciences
Why should religion if the claims are to be taken serious not be the same