[TRIGGER WARNING] how does religion exist in educated first world countries?

[Jubel]

bias is inherent in every situation

then why do i have to fall under a super-specific label when one really loose one will do.
agnostic is fine enough as it is.

gnostic theist - 100% certain supreme being

you're a belieber

gnostic atheist - 100% certain no supreme being

not a belieber
simple as that

how that even classifies as agnosticism  i'm not even sure

[Ad Bot]

[Foxscotch]

bias is inherent in every situation

uh... don't think so
it's not really your business to tell someone they have to pick one thing or another anyway

[Akio-]

not necessarily
agnostic alone means that you think it's impossible to know. you don't have to "lean towards" anything

I think he was referring to a chart that has been going around, because it said something like that.

[Daswiruch]

uh... don't think so
it's not really your business to tell someone they have to pick one thing or another anyway

i said as far as i know bro

I think he was referring to a chart that has been going around, because it said something like that.

this

then why do i have to fall under a super-specific label when one really loose one will do.

because

bias is inherent in every situation
there is no true neutral

also it was a pissy suggestion, not a law, nor rule

[Bluesax]

Because people who are dogmatic will just ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

[Frequency]

the reality of the holocaust is debated also

really?

Because people who are dogmatic will just ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

wouldn't atheists and/or evolutionists do the same if God himself made his existence completely apparent to them?

[Akio-]

Because people who are dogmatic will just ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

this goes both ways

[Ipquarx]

this goes both ways

you can't ignore what hasn't been presented
(hard evidence of a deity, that is)

[Daswiruch]

Because people who are dogmatic will just ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

this goes both ways

humans, in general, seem to be naturally stubborn
i have no way of proving this though so my evidence is purely anecdotal

[Clownfish]

this thread is borderline arguing we're like fale debating
like when you see two guys talking and they got their teeth barred
one's about to tear the other one apart but they just keep pretending like it's fine
that's this thread right now

you can't ignore what hasn't been presented
(hard evidence of a deity, that is)

come off it already
we get your point

[Steve5451²]

Because people who are dogmatic will just ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

yeah but there's no evidence when it comes to religion. That's why it's called faith.

[Akio-]

you can't ignore what hasn't been presented
(hard evidence of a deity, that is)

Like I stated before, whatever you perceive as hard evidence is what you believe. I'm not trying to argue here because let's face it: there is no right or wrong. Saying there is means bias.

[Epicduke]

science doesn't undermine faith

[#Jeetlor]

Just because theres no legitimate evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Ipquarx]

Like I stated before, whatever you perceive as hard evidence is what you believe.

Actually no, there is an objective right and wrong in logic. It's called formal logic. (Yay university classes coming into use!) Hard evidence (A 100% proof that a deity exists) would take the form of a valid Aristotolian Syllogism or Propositional Argument with proven premises.

Most of what we see in everyday life doesn't use this, but this is what constitutes a 100%, hard proof.