@themagicsandwichshow Silverman has it backwards. Being intellectually honest about "not knowing" something does not negate knowing. The issues is what "god" means. We know what Santa means, and we can prove there is not one, NOT because we think we know something, but because we know what Santa is. God is an abstract concept, and therefor saying there are or are no gods means nothing at all because it applies to whatever we want.
@TheCuriousWays look up "japan birth control and abortion" using abortion rather than condoms is the standard there, even though they actually outlawed the pill.
I saw those comments, AronRa, but they were just trolls messing with you. Believe me, I know the difference so you were heard and you were understood.
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I'm not absolutely sure of anything! And on many things I don't know anything about"
So allegedly there are people out there who use abortion as a means of contraception..? Forgive me, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid.
I mean, it's so much easier and cheaper to use condoms (or the pill if you're reasonably certain your partner is clean). Even planning on using the morning after pill is a stupid thing to do imo (due to very unpleasant side effects).
Anyone have some insight into that? I'm at a loss.
I'm gonna follow David Silverman logic and make a billboard saying "Atheism. You know Satan is your master." And then turn around and say we should focus on bigger issues if someone challenges me on it. >.>
I think I understand where Silverman is going. If we can't know that anything is (because we might be deluded), and we can't know that anything isn't (proving a negative, etc.) then the word is useless. So it has to be redefined. If, as AronRa says, "X is evidently not true", then it's fair to say "I know X is not true." I think that is a fair argument to make.
@themagicsandwichshow Silverman has it backwards. Being intellectually honest about "not knowing" something does not negate knowing. The issues is what "god" means. We know what Santa means, and we can prove there is not one, NOT because we think we know something, but because we know what Santa is. God is an abstract concept, and therefor saying there are or are no gods means nothing at all because it applies to whatever we want.
poorkinghaggard 1 month ago
@TheCuriousWays look up "japan birth control and abortion" using abortion rather than condoms is the standard there, even though they actually outlawed the pill.
GeatMaster 1 month ago
I saw those comments, AronRa, but they were just trolls messing with you. Believe me, I know the difference so you were heard and you were understood.
truvelocity 1 month ago
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I'm not absolutely sure of anything! And on many things I don't know anything about"
Richard Feynman.
mzyzer19 1 month ago
@Scraxs
It's clear you had no idea what Silverman was saying.
OvertAtheist 1 month ago
@xESOTERlC
"Thanks to the likes of Silverman, Atheism IS a religion"
It's pretty clear to me that "knowing" god doesn't exist, isn't a religion.
OvertAtheist 1 month ago
So allegedly there are people out there who use abortion as a means of contraception..? Forgive me, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid.
I mean, it's so much easier and cheaper to use condoms (or the pill if you're reasonably certain your partner is clean). Even planning on using the morning after pill is a stupid thing to do imo (due to very unpleasant side effects).
Anyone have some insight into that? I'm at a loss.
TheCuriousWays 1 month ago
'GOD' SPEED, SILVERMAN!
This is exactly what the world needs right now.
Domzdream 1 month ago
I'm gonna follow David Silverman logic and make a billboard saying "Atheism. You know Satan is your master." And then turn around and say we should focus on bigger issues if someone challenges me on it. >.>
Scraxs 1 month ago
I think I understand where Silverman is going. If we can't know that anything is (because we might be deluded), and we can't know that anything isn't (proving a negative, etc.) then the word is useless. So it has to be redefined. If, as AronRa says, "X is evidently not true", then it's fair to say "I know X is not true." I think that is a fair argument to make.
Kastagaar 1 month ago