The Illogicality of Jehovah's Witnesses

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,720
Trophies
2
XP
17,429
Country
United States
First, you've said that you don't care why people believe what they believe. The why is the rationality. If you reject the rationality, then that's on you.
I care why people believe what they believe. It's kind of the whole point. The problem is those who believe religious claims don't have good reason or evidence for their beliefs.

Second, "religious beliefs" is broadly interpreted and can mean anything. It can be applied to your pursuits.
I've been clearer than that. I've mentioned the "major religions," and I've mentioned theism broadly. None of these things are reasonable, as they haven't met their burden of proof.

It would also be okay if I only talked about "religious beliefs," since the word "religious" does in fact carry meaning.

Semantics are usually the difference between people, religions, cultures, and what the data implies in scientific research. If you are bored of semantics, you can just keep repeating your dull mantras.
I'm bored of you playing semantic games and trying redefine things into existence or rationality. I've been very specific about what I mean by what I say, but you've proceeded to ignore me and assert your own definitions as though they have any relevance to what I've said.

JW beliefs, like other religious and/or theistic beliefs, are without evidence demonstrating their truthfulness. This makes the beliefs equally "illogical," to use the word in the title of this thread. If you disagree, please provide evidence for the beliefs you're defending.

If your goal is to do a semantic dance and not address the topic at hand, I wouldn't bother.
 

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,167
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,513
Country
Japan
I care why people believe what they believe. It's kind of the whole point. The problem is those who believe religious claims don't have good reason or evidence for their beliefs.

So you assume to know what people believe and why they believe, and that it's not good enough reason for the activity of them believing something. I thought one has to be religious to be this kind of disregarding and condescending.

Maybe some people know god and are talking to him/her on the regular and you are just being left out of the loop.

If I told you that the planets are the gods, and the sun is the one true god, would that make you a believer? Or would you mock the sun?

JW beliefs, like other religious and/or theistic beliefs, are without evidence demonstrating their truthfulness. This makes the beliefs equally "illogical," to use the word in the title of this thread. If you disagree, please provide evidence for the beliefs you're defending.
Some JW beliefs are rational and based on evidence. Which beliefs are you talking about? Just the "religious" ones? Are all JW beliefs religious or not? All religious beliefs are equally "illogical"? Be clear.

It appears that you believe that you are the center of everyone's universe and that they should submit all evidence for your appraisal. Even if people were capable of doing that, I think your false sense of entitlement would be a deterrent from that happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nWo

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,637
Trophies
1
XP
4,381
Country
United Kingdom
It appears that you believe that you are the center of everyone's universe and that they should submit all evidence for your appraisal.
No, but if people want to be rational then they can't think irrationally.

You can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you really really wish.

Redefining what it means to be rational to make yourself feel better doesn't help.

I literally don't care if you want to believe, but if you try to justify why you believe then you are submitting your evidence for appraisal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lacius

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,720
Trophies
2
XP
17,429
Country
United States
So you assume to know what people believe and why they believe,
I never said this. What I did say was that religious and theistic claims haven't met their burden of proof.

Maybe some people know god and are talking to him/her on the regular and you are just being left out of the loop.
This claim hasn't met its burden of proof. If you can't distinguish between talking to god and talking to a hallucination, even if you're the one doing the talking, the claim that you're talking to a god is still unreasonable when it hasn't met its burden of proof.

If I told you that the planets are the gods, and the sun is the one true god, would that make you a believer? Or would you mock the sun?
The sun and the planets exist, but if you told me they're gods, I'd ask what you meant, and I'd ask you to demonstrate the claim.

If you claim they're gods as we normally use the word, that's definitely a claim that has a burden of proof. If you're just playing more semantic games to redefine god into existence, I'm wholly uninterested.

Some JW beliefs are rational and based on evidence.
Which ones?

It appears that you believe that you are the center of everyone's universe
Nope.

and that they should submit all evidence for your appraisal.
If they're going to argue to me that their beliefs are rational, you betcha, but it isn't about me. It's about meeting the claim's burden of proof so that it can be said the belief is reasonable.

Even if people were capable of doing that, I think your false sense of entitlement would be a deterrent from that happening.
I don't feel entitled to anything. If, however, someone is going to argue to me that a claim has met its burden of proof when it hasn't, evidence needs to be presented.
 

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,167
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,513
Country
Japan
I never said this. What I did say was that religious and theistic claims haven't met their burden of proof.


This claim hasn't met its burden of proof. If you can't distinguish between talking to god and talking to a hallucination, even if you're the one doing the talking, the claim that you're talking to a god is still unreasonable when it hasn't met its burden of proof.


The sun and the planets exist, but if you told me they're gods, I'd ask what you meant, and I'd ask you to demonstrate the claim.

If you claim they're gods as we normally use the word, that's definitely a claim that has a burden of proof. If you're just playing more semantic games to redefine god into existence, I'm wholly uninterested.


Which ones?


Nope.


If they're going to argue to me that their beliefs are rational, you betcha, but it isn't about me. It's about meeting the claim's burden of proof so that it can be said the belief is reasonable.


I don't feel entitled to anything. If, however, someone is going to argue to me that a claim has met its burden of proof when it hasn't, evidence needs to be presented.

Looks like you are the one dancing around, and fishing for someone to provide evidence for what YOU believe about something. Drab.

No, but if people want to be rational then they can't think irrationally.
Lol. Stoooned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nWo

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,720
Trophies
2
XP
17,429
Country
United States
Looks like you are the one dancing around, and fishing for someone to provide evidence for what YOU believe about something. Drab.
I don't believe theistic claims are true, let alone reasonable, so I'm definitely not asking for someone to provide evidence for what I believe. Are you reading my posts?
 

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,167
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,513
Country
Japan
I don't believe theistic claims are true, let alone reasonable, so I'm definitely not asking for someone to provide evidence for what I believe. Are you reading my posts?
This is a good post, despite the attempt to remain patronizing. Find the religion who hurt you and confront it. That's all I can really recommend.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,720
Trophies
2
XP
17,429
Country
United States
This is a good post, despite the attempt to remain patronizing. Find the religion who hurt you and confront it. That's all I can really recommend.
When a person has to resort to personal attacks and unfounded assumptions about motives for posting, instead of actually addressing the point, it usually means their position is bad.

If you ever feel like sharing evidence for the truthfulness and reasonableness of theistic claims, do let me know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmandaRose

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,167
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,513
Country
Japan
When a person has to resort to personal attacks and unfounded assumptions about motives for posting, instead of actually addressing the point, it usually means their position is bad.

If you ever feel like sharing evidence for the truthfulness and reasonableness of theistic claims, do let me know.


If your position is this:

I don't believe theistic claims are true, let alone reasonable

Then I am in no position to disagree with you.

But through a lot of what you actually said, there appears to be trauma that should probably be addressed.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,720
Trophies
2
XP
17,429
Country
United States
Then I am in no position to disagree with you.
This has been my position since the beginning.

But through a lot of what you actually said, there appears to be trauma that should probably be addressed.
By no reasonable measure could a person claim from my posts in this thread that I'm a victim of any sort of trauma. You're just being an asshole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmandaRose

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,167
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,513
Country
Japan
This has been my position since the beginning.


By no reasonable measure could a person claim from my posts in this thread that I'm a victim of any sort of trauma. You're just being an asshole.

Denial is the first stage. Even at risk of being called irrational, I have faith in you @Lacius.
 

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,167
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,513
Country
Japan
If you're going to reject skepticism and logic by making unsubstantiated claims, then you aren't much different from the JW and the other theists.
I noticed that you didn't actually accuse me of rejecting skepticism and are trying to change the subject.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,720
Trophies
2
XP
17,429
Country
United States
I noticed that you didn't actually accuse me of rejecting skepticism and are trying to change the subject.
If you're making unsubstantiated claims, you're rejecting skepticism. I'm also not sure in what world I'm changing the subject. The point was always about skepticism and logical soundness.
 

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,167
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,513
Country
Japan
If you're making unsubstantiated claims, you're rejecting skepticism. I'm also not sure in what world I'm changing the subject. The point was always about skepticism and logical soundness.
Whatever you believe, shifty. I still think it is irrational to make definitive claims about people you don't know or understand, but you obviously think that you have it all figured out.

But I respect you not believing in a claim.
 

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,637
Trophies
1
XP
4,381
Country
United Kingdom
I still think it is irrational to make definitive claims about people you don't know or understand, but you obviously think that you have it all figured out.
All we can make a decision on, is how you conduct yourself here.

You make definitive claims about people here all the time, so are you agreeing that you are irrational?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tabzer

september796

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
246
Trophies
0
XP
824
Country
Cote d'Ivoire
It is not a philosophical argument. That was my point: There is a difference between something being philosophically possible (since you can't be 100% certain of just about anything, many things are unfalsifiable, and there's no good solution to hard solipsism) and something being demonstrated to be actually possible. Pixies, God, and a tails coin flip are all philosophically possible. I can't disprove them, and for all I know, the reality I'm aware of isn't even the true reality. However, only the tail coin flip has been demonstrated to be actually possible.
When I asked how a pixy is philosophically possible I'm wondering which characteristic you aretaking as a base and how you can demonstrate that specifically a pixy is possible. Because if the same argument can be use to demontrate basically everything that can come out of your mind then is hardly logical. God is a different story because what we're really pursuing is the possibility of one first cause aka one initiator/creator/whatever you wanna called it.

I never said science is an avenue to absolute truth. It can only tell us what's likely true, and it's limited by the evidence we have. As far as I'm aware, no one has successfully presented an avenue to absolute truth. The three sciences, broadly, are the best and only tools we have.
I never said you did. But yeah, I know science is not perfect ofc. Something that is based on constantly doubting the propositions that are made can't be perfect, and sadly it is the only tool we have, yes. Our beliefs based on scientific evidence need a bit of faith too after all; things that we repeat and do on a daily basis that we take for granted just because, or maybe with sound evidence that we carelessly ignore. I don't think that makes us irrational. This topic is way deeper than I'm able to comment anyway (the multiple psychological reasons why we repeat these sorts of 'rituals' everyday).

Faith certainly is an excuse people give when they don't have good reason or evidence. Otherwise, they'd just present the evidence instead of giving up and waving the white flag of surrender (faith). If you're using a definition of faith that means hope, then that's irrelevant. We know that whether or not we hope something is true is irrelevant to whether or not it is actually true. Hope is not an avenue to truth.
People may use faith -and whatever else- as an excuse/flag of surrender/etc, I guess. But faith really is kinda what I said in my previous post. Its profound meaning is way up high. Maybe down to earth it could mean as if it's a puzzle piece to supply our lack -or low level- of spiritual comprehension skill. I say that we as humans aren't capable of fully understand a thing, let alone the concept of god. That's why -I think- faith is a necessary piece for some religions concept of salvation.

I don't know for sure what it means for something to be described as "perfect," there has been no demonstration that anything perfect exists, and there has been no demonstration that perfection (depending on how it is defined) is actually even possible. Claiming something exists and tacking on the "perfect" adjective doesn't exclude it from having a burden of proof with regard to its existence or its actual possibility of existing.
I'm not even arguing about the burden of proof thing you keep asking. My point was that the god claim has its rational basis since you called that irrational for not having an evidence, but at this point I won't bother about the meaning of a word. We can sorta reach the meaning of perfect by our natural reasoning, that begins by understanding the first nearby things we have in sight in early age, things that were given to us: the tree, the river, etc. Our first approach is through our senses. Then we are able to analyse and think 'What's the cause of the tree?, what's the cause of fire?, what's the cause of heat, etc... All in all the world is ordered by causes and effects. But it would be logically absurd if we imagine that causes and effects track down infinitely. That is a circular logic. So there comes the first cause, and by force it has to be uncaused.
So, this uncaused thing has to be the most perfect, but given that we can't understand perfection since our own intellectuality is imperfect, the only resource we have is to first understand imperfection and then, by denial, get a glimpse of what perfection could be.
If something is corruptable or dies or is damageable or transforms is imperfect. Then, by denial, perfect has to be the opposite: permanent and eternal, immutable.
Now, one thing that we know that gets corrupted/changed/corroded/etc is matter. Perfection, therefore, has to be immaterial.
And because things that are subject to change, to evolve, to transform, etc are naturally subject to time, by force the perfect has to be out of time.
Everything that materially exist has a cause. There comes that God (what we call perfection) has to be cause uncaused. Whether it is a being or a thing is irrelevant here. BTW this also demonstrate that if god exist he is one and not many.
But still we could ask how does it exist... it must have a beginning, a creator, otherwise what is prior to god? Well that question wouldn't apply. There is no 'before' as that is a time concept and, according to this reasoning, he is out of time, he's pure eternity. The problem is that we are not able to think the world without the time. But all those characteristics (eternal, immutable, immaterial, timeless) are of what religions and people in general define as God.

There is no first cause argument I'm aware of that demonstrates a god's existence or the actual possibility that a god exists. A first cause to the universe hasn't been demonstrated, the need for a first cause to the universe hasn't been demonstrated, and even if we assume the universe has a first cause, there's no reason to think it's a god. All first cause arguments are unsound, and many of them are also invalid. "Everything has a chase" is a common first premise, but that hasn't been demonstrated, and it would also mean god has a cause (lol). "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" tries to fix that obvious blunder by religious zealots, but it still hasn't been demonstrated to be true and should be rejected. Even if we pretend that this premise is true, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the first cause has to be a god or even god-like; there are lots of other possibilities.
As I've said many times, this is just a logical thought on the possibility. Logic can only demonstrate a positive claim not a negative one and I'm not saying this is a proof or anything btw. Anyway, Idk exactly what you expect by demontration but I'm sure we'll be out of luck. Really, what demonstration would an atheist accept for the conclusion that there is a god? what sort of specific proof would an atheist accept for someone to be god? What would that being/thing have to be able to do? What would he have to show us or do to us in order to believe? I'm not even sure but in the meantime we may be filling that gap with nonsense.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,720
Trophies
2
XP
17,429
Country
United States
I still think it is irrational to make definitive claims about people you don't know or understand
It isn't irrational to acknowledge that theistic claims have not met their burden of proof.

When I asked how a pixy is philosophically possible I'm wondering which characteristic you aretaking as a base and how you can demonstrate that specifically a pixy is possible. Because if the same argument can be use to demontrate basically everything that can come out of your mind then is hardly logical.
Yes. That is my point. There are two kinds of "possible."
  1. When something cannot be absolutely disproven. We can call this "philosophically possible." Just about every claim that could ever be made, even the false ones, fall in this category. That includes gods, pixies, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, etc., so it's fairly useless when talking about what is/isn't possible.
  2. When the actual possibility of something has been demonstrated. Neither pixies nor gods fall in this category.
God is a different story because what we're really pursuing is the possibility of one first cause aka one initiator/creator/whatever you wanna called it.
The existence of a god, let alone the actual possibility a god could exist, hasn't been demonstrated.

Our beliefs based on scientific evidence need a bit of faith too after all
Faith is the belief in something without evidence, so no.

People may use faith -and whatever else- as an excuse/flag of surrender/etc, I guess. But faith really is kinda what I said in my previous post. Its profound meaning is way up high. Maybe down to earth it could mean as if it's a puzzle piece to supply our lack -or low level- of spiritual comprehension skill. I say that we as humans aren't capable of fully understand a thing, let alone the concept of god. That's why -I think- faith is a necessary piece for some religions concept of salvation.
If you're using the word "faith" to be synonymous with a religious belief, then it can't be used to justify the belief; it is the belief.

If you're using "faith" to mean belief without sound reason or evidence, then I agree with you that faith is "necessary" for religious belief.

Adding terms like "spiritual," "religious," "salvation," etc. to a claim does not exclude the claim from having a burden of proof, and if the claim hasn't met its burden of proof, it's irrational to believe the claim is true.

I'm not even arguing about the burden of proof thing you keep asking.
That's too bad, since it's literally the entire point, and nothing else matters. A claim always has a burden of proof, and if evidence hasn't been provided to believe a claim (whether it's physical evidence, a logically sound syllogism, etc.), it is irrational to accept that claim as true. If your goal is to argue that theism is rational, get to the point and provide the evidence.

My point was that the god claim has its rational basis since you called that irrational for not having an evidence
Theistic claims have not met their burden of proof. If you want to argue otherwise, provide the rational basis for believing in god.

We can sorta reach the meaning of perfect by our natural reasoning, that begins by understanding the first nearby things we have in sight in early age, things that were given to us: the tree, the river, etc. Our first approach is through our senses. Then we are able to analyse and think 'What's the cause of the tree?, what's the cause of fire?, what's the cause of heat, etc... All in all the world is ordered by causes and effects. But it would be logically absurd if we imagine that causes and effects track down infinitely. That is a circular logic. So there comes the first cause, and by force it has to be uncaused.
  1. First, you did nothing here to define what it means for something to be "perfect," but I don't think we need to continue down that path. It's irrelevant.
  2. If you are going to argue that there was a first cause to the universe, you need to provide evidence for it. Up until this point, you've just been asserting it without justification. How did you rule out the universe not having a beginning? How did you rule out the universe beginning to exist but not having a cause (causality is a property of the universe, so when you say the universe requires a cause, you're nonsensically saying causality requires a cause). Even if you ruled out all other possible explanations that we have (you didn't), the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true. If you're going to assert the universe requires a "first cause," you need to provide evidence for this claim.
  3. Even if you were to establish the universe had a cause (you haven't), where is your evidence that the cause is God? How did you rule out atemporal causes (e.g. How did you rule out the universe in the future causing itself in the past?)? How did you rule out naturalistic processes causing the universe? Again, even if you ruled out all other possible explanations that we have (you didn't), the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true. If you're going to assert God is the "first cause" to the universe, you need to provide evidence for this claim.
In summary, there's no evidence that the universe requires a "first cause," and even if it did have a cause, there's no evidence that God was that first cause. Comically, any reason you have to exclude "God" from needing a first cause can potentially be applied to the universe itself or natural processes that hypothetically caused the universe. "God" has zero explanatory power and only serves to add a extra questions for no reason.

So, this uncaused thing has to be the most perfect
You haven't come close to defining what it means for something to be "most perfect," and you haven't come close to providing evidence for the claim that an uncaused thing has to be "perfect," let alone exists.

but given that we can't understand perfection since our own intellectuality is imperfect, the only resource we have is to first understand imperfection and then, by denial, get a glimpse of what perfection could be.
We can't talk about what perfection could be without defining what it even means. In addition, speculating about what perfection could look like doesn't demonstrate it exists.

If something is corruptable or dies or is damageable or transforms is imperfect. Then, by denial, perfect has to be the opposite: permanent and eternal, immutable.
You haven't demonstrated that something "eternal" exists or has to exist, and even if you did, you haven't demonstrated it's God.

Everything that materially exist has a cause.
You haven't demonstrated this to be true. For example, while the formation of my computer had a cause (I built it), we are talking about "formation" as the rearranging of atoms and molecules to form my computer. When we are talking about the "cause to the universe," you don't actually have any examples of anything coming to exist when it didn't exist before, let alone coming to exist via a cause. You haven't demonstrated the need for a cause to the universe. See above.

Even if you did demonstrate that everything that materially exists has a cause, you haven't demonstrated that cause is a god.

There comes that God (what we call perfection)
"Something perfect had to have created the universe."
"Perfect = God"
"Therefore, God exists."

I hope you can see this is a wholly uncompelling argument. It's just a blind assertion.

There comes that God (what we call perfection) has to be cause uncaused.
Demonstrate this.

Whether it is a being or a thing is irrelevant here.
The word "God" comes with baggage. Are you saying "God" can be unintelligent and indistinguishable from a natural process? Are you just using it synonymously with "first cause"? You haven't demonstrated that a first cause is required or exists, but that would at least get rid of one of the problems with your argument (that the first cause argument doesn't actually lead to the conclusion that an intelligent or personified god exists).

In other words, if the first half of the first cause argument were logically sound (it isn't), it would only demonstrate a first cause and nothing more. You seem to be agreeing with this.

BTW this also demonstrate that if god exist he is one and not many.
The first cause argument is not a sound argument, but even if it were, you're just blindly asserting "there can only be one." Lol.

But still we could ask how does it exist... it must have a beginning, a creator, otherwise what is prior to god? Well that question wouldn't apply. There is no 'before' as that is a time concept and, according to this reasoning, he is out of time, he's pure eternity. The problem is that we are not able to think the world without the time.
Any reason you can give for why God does not require a cause can potentially be applied to the universe or the natural processes that caused the universe. There is no rational basis for asserting that a god is required.

But all those characteristics (eternal, immutable, immaterial, timeless) are of what religions and people in general define as God.
These might be characteristics that some religious ascribe to God, but they aren't synonymous with God. Every major religion I'm aware of ascribes a lot more characteristics than these to their gods.

As I've said many times, this is just a logical thought on the possibility.
Nothing you've said demonstrates that a god is actually possible, let alone exists. Saying "maybe the universe has a cause and that cause is god" is an unsubstantiated claim.

Logic can only demonstrate a positive claim not a negative one and I'm not saying this is a proof or anything btw.
If you're saying that your arguments don't demonstrate the existence of a god, then belief in that god is irrational, regardless of whether or not a god might exist.

Anyway, Idk exactly what you expect by demontration but I'm sure we'll be out of luck. Really, what demonstration would an atheist accept for the conclusion that there is a god? what sort of specific proof would an atheist accept for someone to be god? What would that being/thing have to be able to do? What would he have to show us or do to us in order to believe? I'm not even sure but in the meantime we may be filling that gap with nonsense.
I don't know what would count as evidence that demonstrates a god's existence, but that's not my problem; it's the problem of the claim if it's as unverifiable as it is unfalsifiable.

However, if a god exists, if it's all-knowing, if it's all-powerful, and it wants me to believe in its existence, then that god knows the answer to the question of what it would take to convince any rational skeptic of that god's existence.

@september796, I've enjoyed our conversation, but unless we distill this conversation down to its main point(s), it's just too many things to respond to in any reasonable amount of time. Because you and I are so thorough, the conversation has ballooned with each of our responses.

I politely ask, if you respond to my post, that we reboot and focus on just the following question: What can you say that demonstrates the existence of a god? (we don't need to focus on whether or not it's possible). If the answer is "nothing," then we should be in agreement that belief in a god is irrational. If the answer is "the first cause argument," then I'd like a numbered syllogism with premises and conclusions so we can very quickly reject bad premises and irrelevant conclusions. The syllogism for what's probably the most common first cause argument looks like this:
  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause, and that cause is God.
#1 is unsubstantiated and should be rejected, so the argument is already unsound.
#2 is unsubstantiated and should be rejected, which also makes the argument unsound.
We don't have to pay attention to #3 since the first two premises have been rejected. In addition, if we were to assume the truthfulness of the first two premises, the cause of the universe being God doesn't logically follow the first two premises, so the argument is invalid in addition to being unsound.
 
Last edited by Lacius,

tabzer

etymological
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,167
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,513
Country
Japan
It isn't irrational to acknowledge that theistic claims have not met their burden of proof.
How do you acknowledge that something didn't happen in the infinite space of existence?

Sounds pretty irrational.

"Hey, look! There it isn't!"
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName: https://youtube.com/shorts/MtTzQVdt1Ok?feature=share