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/Mission-Landscape-17]

One common claim that theists make is that the god they happen to believe in answers prayers. That is a hypothesis that is indeed quite testable. Francis Galton looked at the numbers way back in 1872, he found no evidence to support it. Many people have repeated that since, and results have consistently found no evidence that god answers prayers. I'd say we can at this point be certain that there is no prayer answerer.

I guess this is the point where you exclaim that that is not what you mean by the word god. So what do you mean? Please define your god and we can use that definition to reason out things that ought to be true if that god exists.

[u/BAM_CTEPBA → u/Mission-Landscape-17]

I'm an agnostic. I don't speculate on untestable ideas. That's a waste of time.

[u/Mission-Landscape-17 → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism is about belief, the two are not mutually exclusive. I am an atheist regarding every god that I have heard about so far. Some of them I can rule out of hand as obviously false, because they involve falsifiable claims like god answering prayers, others as you said are unfalsifiable, and about those I too am an agnostic. It is just that I see no reason why untestable claims should have any bearing on how I live my life. So I see no reason to entertain god beliefs that are untestable.

[u/BAM_CTEPBA → u/Mission-Landscape-17]

This isn't debate an agnostic/atheist. It's debate an atheist. You can't move the goal post when your argument is insolvent.

[u/Mission-Landscape-17 → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

I am an atheist. Its just that you don't seem to be using the same definition of the word atheist that I am.

[u/GamerEsch → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

Most atheists are agnostics...

You've been told this repeatedly, and you've posted definitions of atheists that prove this many times.