Believing in things because it's existence is inconclusive leaves you open to believing a whole plethora of things. For no other subject are you, or any rational person, willing to accept that "X exists" is a true statement simply because an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There are millions of ideas you reject outright using this same type of reasoning ... the cognitive dissonance must be debilitating.
Belief is the natural occupier when truth is absent and as long as the belief doesn't step on the toes of science there is no problem with having one. It is perfectly natural for humans to have belief and unless your a robot you not having any beliefs whatsoever is worrying.billions, trillions, quadrillions
how could you conclusively say light bulbs aren't the making of the devil when god intended for light last only half a day?
what concrete evidence do you have to prove that plastic shopping bags AREN'T part of a global conspiracy to suffocate children :shytright:
where's the proof that shows shoes, sandals, and other footwear don't lead one's soul to hell? god told moses to take them off when he's on holy ground? you really think they're wearing them shyts in heaven? :brb: if you can't prove it, you lost
Belief is the natural occupier when truth is absent and as long as the belief doesn't step on the toes of science there is no problem with having one. It is perfectly natural for humans to have belief and unless your a robot you not having any beliefs whatsoever is worrying.
I don't reject ideas anyway, I just leave them as inconclusive until proven otherwise or unless I chose to believe it by my own choice like the idea of a higher power.
@ciroq drobama
Calm ya ass down. Jumping to conclusions like an idiot.
Wrong, your still not open to believe anything when I clearly said that the beliefs don't step on the toes of science.i don't think i sounded mad or jumped to conclusions. i was just pointed out what nomayo said, if you believe simply because there's no evidence then you're open to believe anything. i mean i'm supposedly jumping to conclusions, but joseph smith talked into a hat and had some shyt about gold stones? i don't fukking know, but you see mormons are alive and well today cuz people accepted their wasn't evidence to say otherwise-- aside from science that is.
and that's what i'm getting at. not so much knocking the belief in a higher power or (as i like to say) something more, but belief according to religions which steps all over the feet of science and common knowledge. you keep making it out as if you don't believe in a certain something, then you're "a robot". read back over the pic again and tell me who sounds like the real robot??? one bunny progresses on the evidence it finds, while the other can't help but repeat how 'it's a duck' when there's a gang of other meaningful questions they could be trying to solve. where's the last puzzle piece? why is a winnie the pooh puzzle in a box for a duck anyways? how did they get mixed up? etc
D
Wrong, your still not open to believe anything when I clearly said that the beliefs don't step on the toes of science.
I'm non-religious as well so if you are gonna join up with mayo and come at me then get your facts straight.
The discussion is about who this scenario can be applied to. I am saying that I cannot be applied to all of theism and I've yet to see you or mayo prove how it can be applied to all of theism.
Why? Because as I've said this cannot be applied to all of theism.
That's the thing you were never sure what I was arguing for. You just came in and jumped on mayo side.whatever breh you win. i'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore.
WHERE IS THE KNOWLEDGE IN THIS POST? PLEASE DON'T WASTE PEOPLE'S TIME. THANK YOU.
Poetic.
This post pretty much confirmed that you're a troll to those who didn't know.