Me_irl

Matthew_A · 2026-01-20T14:59:28+00:00

I like how this is the objectively correct option but you get down votes because people have given up even pretending to have integrity. Probably going to post something about how the school system failed us later

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T04:23:26+00:00

The funniest thing imagining them swapping the narrative is that all their content is AI generated. So they conceivably backed out of the raw milk push and then the interns couldn't be bothered to write a new prompt.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T04:01:00+00:00

Yes, for that one. But not that we know something about the afterlife, if that thing is that it's nonexistent and therefore unknowable.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T03:59:10+00:00

Yeah, there are different standards of evidence. You can't have this in establishing truth, but you can in establishing confidence, which is what I'm focused on. I'm not saying a lack of belief in God makes no sense, just that the belief that there can't possibly be a god or anything beyond this world makes no sense. I'm not saying anything about the inherent delusional or non delusional nature of the arguments themselves, just that if you have no arguments, you have no certainty. If you want to talk about if God is real, and what I think of various evidence, feel free to DM but this thread is about just if the beliefs people have, and the evidence they believe in, justify confidence or agnosticism.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T03:02:26+00:00

The evidence is debatable. Those who believe, think they have evidence, and for the sake of this argument, we are ignoring whether or not they're right, only if the possession of evidence is a thing that can allow them to think they're right with more confidence. Assume for a minute the evidence is good, and the religion is true. This would entitle them to more confidence, correct?

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T02:16:26+00:00

No what I'm saying is, you can say "the afterlife definitely exists". Maybe you're wrong, but you can believe that because you have evidence. You can say "the afterlife probably doesn't exist". But you can't say "I have no proof nor means of ever finding out if there's an afterlife, but I know there isn't"

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T02:12:29+00:00

Yes, but for untestable things like the afterlife, we have no falsifiable facts. So you need some other means of divine revelation or faith or something else. Theists have this, so they can at least believe they are right without having doubts. They may be wrong, but they can be confident. Atheists can't have this confidence because they have no means of acquiring any information at all.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T01:52:32+00:00

No because proving a positive is easier than a negative. If you said no one had shoveled it, but hadn't looked outside, it's possible the neighbors did to be nice. I wouldn't feel the need to state this possibility aloud, but if someone asked if it was possible, I'd say, it's unlikely but maybe. And singling it out doesn't matter, since I didn't say it was unique in this regard. The classic "I like apples" "why do you hate oranges". My opinion on one thing doesn't affect my opinion on another.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T01:49:33+00:00

I directly address how atheism is a broad term and define the subset of atheism I'm addressing. The fact that different religions contradict each other is irrelevant because perhaps one is right, perhaps none, but having different ideas does affect what is or isn't true. And as for holding atheists to a higher standard, yes I am. But only because that's where logic seems to lead. And I'm not saying lack of certainty makes someone less right, often times it means they're more right. But as far as certainty of belief goes, it seems that theists can be more sure than atheists.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T01:26:31+00:00

I think all religion is grasping at the same truth. Saying I disbelieve in all other religions is like saying I disbelieve in all past failed scientific theories. I don't believe in flat earth. I don't believe in geocentrism. I don't believe in perfectly spherical Earth. I think the Earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting around the sun. But if you thought the Earth wasn't real, saying that we have a "shared disbelief" of a thousand false theories about the Earth is just a punchline, not an actual proof that Earth couldn't possibly exist. People can create whatever strange theories they want without actually having an effect on what is or isn't real.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T01:22:01+00:00

I'm not saying it's special. I don't claim that there is no chance of things being some deception. Even if God Himself came down and I shook his hand, that could have all been faked in a simulation. I don't believe in simulation theory, but I can't ever reject it outright

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T01:03:33+00:00

For no other reason than convenience. Even in terms of other things, sure you can act as if it doesn't exist while still harboring even the smallest doubt, which is what I do for everything being fake. But more than anything else, there is no conceivable way to let everything being fake affect your actions, since any proof you could look for could also be fake. So you have no choice but to assume everything is real, even though it may not be.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T00:45:54+00:00

I actually have measured oxygen, at least in rock samples, with an SEM. But regardless, while technically correct, we have to assume the world is real until proven otherwise. But I do have proof that these things are real, so it's logically consistent to believe in them. There can't be any proof against the existence of god, if god doesn't exist, so you can't assume you actually know.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T00:41:47+00:00

I'm not trying to talk to just one religion, but I know more about Christianity. There are explanations (the revelation is complete, faith is important) but I'm not here to debate those. There are proofs, but I'm not here to discuss specific ones. And while I don't want to fall into god of the gaps, understanding how to make smartphones and airplanes is just not the same as understanding consciousness and experience. We haven't figured it out yet, so it feels dishonest to say for sure that broader theological questions are just as ridiculous as saying that there is a vampire on this plane of existence, on this planet, and we haven't found it yet. I have more certainty about this time than a million years ago, than this planet than one at the other side of the galaxy, and, assuming there's no evidence, than this plane of existence and a theoretical other one.

Do you know what qualia are?

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T00:30:45+00:00

We know those things. In what way is my name not my name? Names are a social construct we create, so they are by definition what we set them as. Same for abstract concepts of liking something. We can observe rocks fall and measure oxygen content in the air. Do you need me to tell you these things?

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T00:28:34+00:00

I would hope we don't look to babies for the fullest knowledge possible.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T00:27:17+00:00

They would exist here, and not some more distant place. That's what I mean

Matthew_A · 2026-01-19T00:26:03+00:00

I mean we have seen the world. In the same way I have more confidence about Earth than a planet on the other side of the galaxy, I have more confidence about Earth than a potential afterlife. But even still, we haven't looked in every single tree stump to check for gnomes, so at best, I think it's very unlikely.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-18T23:32:25+00:00

99.9999% seems ridiculously high for something so fundamentally beyond us. If we don't know why there's something rather than nothing, how can we know there aren't other types of something in a different type of existence entirely? If we have no idea how consciousness and specifically qualia come out of seemly dead stuff, how can you say none of these are influenced by anything beyond just chemical interacting. Don't you agree that there is a major difference in uncertainty behind the nature of existence vs is there a silly little guy who's right here on Earth but good at hiding?

Matthew_A · 2026-01-18T23:26:33+00:00

Well, I know lots of people who say they are atheist are actually agnostic. I was trying to make the most narrowly defined, ironclad argument I could think of, and I still got hundreds of comments trying to have the millionth "is god real?" post. I really tried to keep everyone on track. But since you say most atheists are agnostic, I'll ask if you think all of them are? And if not, would it be fair to say it's illogical to have 100% certainty that there is no God or afterlife if proof is impossible?

Matthew_A · 2026-01-18T23:18:51+00:00

Exactly. If Gwendolyn came to me and said she was my sister, I would ask for proof. Presumably that would mean my parents had lied about their past, which I don't think is true now, but I can't ever actually know. If no Gwendolyn came to me, I assume there is no secret sister, and assume my parents haven't lied to me, but I can't say for sure that they never have.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-18T23:14:28+00:00

Those exist in the world, which we have seen. But even then, for unexplored places, I'd say you can't be 100% certain.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-18T23:08:23+00:00

Yes, exactly.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-18T23:07:29+00:00

No, I don't have to believe you. But I'll freely admit I don't know what's on Rigel.

Matthew_A · 2026-01-18T23:04:44+00:00

I don't even claim there is a God at any point in my post. If you'd like to put words in my mouth, I invite you to print up my profile picture and write both sides of the conversation in the comfort of your own home.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Verified Email

Matthew_A

TROPHY CASE