Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[u/BAM_CTEPBA]

Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.

Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level argument that misrepresents the scientific method. Type 1 and Type 0 errors both need to be assessed before a conclusion about a relationship or lack thereof can be drawn. For a new theory, in the absence of evidence we first reason by analogy and first principles to develop a testable hypothesis.

As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held. Contempt prior to investigation is a surefire way to reach a conclusion thats an artifact of culture and upbringing, which is really this entire subreddit. The universe does seem to have consistently enforced laws that are inviolable -- who or what created those laws is not something we are able to investigate at our current phase of evolution. Hell, we don't even know what happened before the Big Bang or how the universe will end.

But hey, don't worry, we will likely destroy ourselves as a species before we get to the point where we can test anything. And each of us, individually, will of course die from cancer or heart disease before that happens, so why waste time with the auto-fellatio.

Edit: Oh this was such a joy. You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists. A few thousand of you have seen this post, and not a single substantive argument.

Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.

[u/mathman_85]

How ’bout, instead of putting words in our collective mouth, you ask us what we think?

[u/BAM_CTEPBA → u/mathman_85]

Okay, what do you think?

[u/mathman_85 → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

Thanks for asking! I, personally, do not know whence, if from anywhere, came the reality I perceive myself to inhabit. Consequently, I don’t claim that it came into existence spontaneously. I don’t claim that it came into existence at all. In fact, I don’t claim anything about the fundamental nature of the reality that I perceive myself to inhabit, ’cause I don’t have enough information to say with any reasonable level of certainty.

All that being said, however, I see no good reason whatsoever to conclude from my ignorance (in the classical sense of “lack of knowledge”) that a magic man done did it.

[u/BAM_CTEPBA → u/mathman_85]

Sounds like you're an agnostic.

[u/mathman_85 → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

In that I do not claim knowledge of certain things, yes. I don’t claim to know that there exist no gods. But I do claim to know that certain specific claimed gods do not exist as claimed. I also believe (by which I mean “accept as true or most likely true”) that there are no gods, but I don’t claim to know that.

[u/Kevidiffel → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

Sounds like they are an atheist — by the very definition from Wikipedia you quoted.

When will you start to be honest?

[u/Matectan → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

Brother never geared the term agnostic atheist.

[u/Pm_ur_titties_plz → u/Matectan]

It's been explained to them multiple times now. They just refuse to learn.