Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: When an initial premise has no supporting evidence, [View all]trotsky
(49,533 posts)40. Read. The. Post.
Here it is, to make it extra super easy for you:
Fuck this. Fine I believe the stunning lack of any evidence that your gods exist to be highly convincing. In all likelihood your gods do not exist.
You sir, on the other hand, appear to view the same complete lack of evidence for the existence of your loathsome gods to be a confirmation of their existence.
You sir, on the other hand, appear to view the same complete lack of evidence for the existence of your loathsome gods to be a confirmation of their existence.
At no point in this thread, anywhere in this forum, or anywhere on DU have I *ever* advocated for the existence of gods. Voltaire2 knows this. His reply was meant for you. He cleared up the confusion in post #33, re-asserting that the claim of confirmation bias was directed at YOU.
If this is the hill you've chosen to die on, so be it. This is probably one of your most humiliating defeats, and that's saying something.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
58 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations