
I absolutely AM certain! Because there’s actually mountains of evidence to point to one side, and a dusty old book and some unproven eyewitness accounts to justify the other. Religion was a perfectly valid explanation thousands of years ago when nobody knew how anything worked, but now that we do, it’s just childish
Tbf atheism was never even supposed to be a road in the first place. It’s nothing more than a bunch of humans observing the natural world as it exists around us, and then discovering that it just happened to disprove religion. Darwin didn’t come up with his theories because he was trying to piss off the church, he was just the first who noticed the world as it exists. To even compare it to religion in most ways is completely farcical
This is gonna blow your mind but the people who believe in God also are just observing the natural world as it exists around us. That's what everyone does. And no, there's no evidence that definitively goes one way or the other. I was hoping you were being facetious but it's clear you're actually just oblivious and think you have all the answers. Spoiler alert - nobody has the answers.
The difference is that I only believe irrefutable evidence. Do you know what constitutes true, irrefutable evidence? The standards are extremely rigid. Nobody has all the answers, but at least science admits that it doesn’t. Y’all claim not to have the answers personally, yet you still magically attribute everything to god, which is claiming to have an answer by definition, that answer is just a magical sky wizard
It's not claiming to have the answer. It's called faith. How you prove your food isnt poisoned when you eat so you chemically test every meal you have? Do you prove the bottle you picked up from the pharmacy isn't laced with cyanide before you take it? No. You don't. You have faith. So don't say you only believe irrefutable evidence, if you did, you would understand you can't prove there's no God.
This is a reeeeally bad analogy. I trust that my food and meds aren’t poisoned because there’s extremely strict standards for each, and it all has to previously have been PROVEN safe for human consumption. They’re also regularly sampled by professionals for contamination to routinely prove that they’re still safe. Same reason why I wouldn’t take a sandwich that some random stranger off the street offered me.
It literally IS claiming to have an answer, the claim is just that it’s all god’s doing. Doesn’t change the fact that at the end of the day, there’s MOUNTAINS of irrefutable proof for evolution and nothing truly irrefutable to prove the existence of god. I always believe whatever has the most evidence to support it. If god came down from the heavens tomorrow and revealed himself to me, I’d believe in him in a heartbeat
There is proof for evolution sure, I never said otherwise. THAT IS NOT PROOF GOD DOESNT EXIST. You still can't provide proof God doesn't exist. You're just too blinded by your own anger to realize that you don't know. And I don't know. I never claimed to have irrefutable proof. But I choose to have faith based on my observances. Not saying you have to choose to have faith in that, but everyone has faith in something.
Because the restaurant worker has their income tied to working there, and if they work at a restaurant, they can’t exactly afford to lose their source of income. I also paid for the food, there’s incentive on both sides for it to be safe for consumption. I also know that the food at restaurants comes from licensed distributors, absolutely none of that applies to the random guy handing out sandwiches on the corner Again, your analogy is utter dogshit
There have been many instances of laced drugs and food, if you're too lazy to google that's on you. YOU LITERALLY SAID ALL THE PROOF SAYS HOD DOES NOT EXIST. Cant even read your own sentences dawg. And paying for food ain't gonna stop a crazy bastard, neither is a paycheck. You have faith. If nothing i'm saying is making sense you're just too stupid to understand basic reason and you're conversing in bad faith so for that reason I will no longer respond. You'll understand this when you grow up 👍
A) that’s not how burden of proof works. If you make a claim, YOU have to be the one to provide evidence. B.) I also never explicitly said that it perfectly disproves the existence of god himself, just religion and a lot of the claims it makes, as we’d previously discussed how it’s impossible to prove a negative C.) the analogy is still dogshit because the likelihood of being poisoned by someone on the street is 100x that of being poisoned in a restaurant