[ SECRET POST #2664 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2664 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #381.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry then, but usually I assume that if there's no proof that something exists, then it doesn't exists.

[(Anonymous)]

Uh...wow, that kind of makes you a really crappy excuse for an atheist? It makes zero logical or scientific sense whatsoever -- it's like saying that because a year ago, there was no proof that the Higgs boson existed, it didn't exist.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt - Exactly this: "it's like saying that because a year ago, there was no proof that the Higgs boson existed, it didn't exist."

You can go back 10, 20, 50 years and see many scientific arguments about 'impossible things' because there wasn't proof at the time. And time rolls on, and we learn new things, and all of the sudden the impossible is actually fact.

[(Anonymous)]

Science and mythical creatures aren't the same. Unless you can prove me that there are unicorns out there, I'm gonna believe that unicorns don't exists.

[(Anonymous)]

DA
But being an atheist just means you believe there's no deity. Nothing to do with science, necessarily.

[neurotic]

Yeah, that's right. I mean, that's how Science works. That's how being a Scientist works. If there is no proof that something exists, then it doesn't exist. You can't go about Science go 'welllll.... since something might exist, we should do things differently.'

Basically. Say as a scientist, I've never seen a green apple. Thus, my theory is that green apples don't exist. As long as there is never a green apple to see, I can't include it in my theories about red apples.

But the pretty cool part about being a Scientist, is that if someone shows up and gives me a green apple, I don't lose my shit, and start screaming at them, or trying to kill them. I go 'Whoa! That's a green apple! I was wrong. Green apples exist! This is proof!!'

[diet_poison]

ia. You can't disprove the existence of something just because you can't prove it either. It's fine for people to believe in a deity or not, but saying "you're objectively wrong" is also obnoxious on both sides.

[(Anonymous)]

But saying that people are objectively wrong to believe in some of the accompanying trappings of religion is a different story. Usually people don't just claim God exists. They claim a whole store of concomitant beliefs, supposedly documented in a Book that has no provenance, containing a number of events which are very *easily* disproven by Science.

And when my freaking tenured biology professor tries to teach me the precepts of Creationism in a State University Biology 101 class? That's when I very forcefully say, "You're objectively wrong."

[diet_poison]

um, I know lots of religious people who say you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. In fact those are the kinds of religious people you are talking to on this thread. You seem to be addressing people who aren't here when you're referring to people trying to scientifically document God.

And I feel like this should be obvious, but believing in a literal Genesis =/= everyone who believes in God.

[(Anonymous)]

...what?

That is a terrible assumption to make. A lack of proof indicates an absence of sufficient evidence for a phenomenon, not that said phenomenon doesn't exist or isn't possible.

[(Anonymous)]

Then am I suppose to put ghosts, dragons, unicorns, wizards, hobbits and vampires under the "maybe they do exists" category?

[(Anonymous)]

The trouble is that, when it comes to almost all of those things, we have evidence to suggest that they can't exist, or that they have existed in less fantastical forms and were exaggerated in the service of storytelling.

There can be evidence against something, just as there can be evidence for something. When there's an absence of either, then we cannot say that the phenomenon does not exist; we can only say that we currently do not know whether it does.

[diet_poison]

Technically, yes.

You are not obligated to believe they exist, but you cannot conclusively disprove it.

(Well, you could make a case, for, say, wizards, but not really for ghosts. for example)

[(Anonymous)]

And this is why the hardcore atheists need to get off my awesome agnostic train.