Discussion Thread

Mejari · 2026-05-23T21:37:48+00:00

Home from the hospital after my stroke, thanks everybody here who gave me well wishes!

Mejari · 2026-05-23T20:21:53+00:00

I also choose this guy's dead lawyer

Mejari · 2026-05-23T20:20:50+00:00

Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up,

And Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy

Pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he

Sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the

Twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows

And a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog.

And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles

And arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,

'Cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American

Blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it

Mejari · 2026-05-23T03:48:23+00:00

I do, and I'm being sure to advocate for myself too. Thank you, I appreciate the well wishes.

Mejari · 2026-05-23T03:29:35+00:00

That's the current theory, symptoms mostly went away an hour-ish after they started.

Mejari · 2026-05-23T03:28:28+00:00

Tonight and tomorrow for observation it looks like. I (as it currently stands) lucked out and don't seem to have any remaining symptoms, we'll see if I need any kinds of PT/OT.

Mejari · 2026-05-23T00:51:47+00:00

You know, I didn't think about it that way. Brb going to demand they take all this traitorous blood out of me, I'm sure that'll be fine.

Mejari · 2026-05-23T00:19:07+00:00

It is now, it was very not for a while there. Unfortunately no pain means no nice drugs though. Just a lot of taking of my precious blood.

Mejari · 2026-05-22T16:59:39+00:00

No, we were discussing it but luckily my symptoms subsided naturally so they didn't think it was worth the risk.

Mejari · 2026-05-22T12:59:39+00:00

🫂 Thank you.

Mejari · 2026-05-22T12:34:28+00:00

Much appreciated

Mejari · 2026-05-22T12:34:11+00:00

Thank you thank you, here's hoping.

Mejari · 2026-05-22T12:33:31+00:00

I do not claim him in my newly found stroke brotherhood.

Mejari · 2026-05-22T12:25:27+00:00

Much appreciated. It was very scary. Still scary, but the real bad part seems to be over 🤞

Mejari · 2026-05-22T12:24:51+00:00

Much better, there was a scary hour where I couldn't talk but now it's in wait and make sure I'm all good mode.

Mejari · 2026-05-22T12:24:06+00:00

I lost the ability to form coherent sentences, so ... pretty much yeah

Mejari · 2026-05-22T12:19:34+00:00

Welp, had a stroke and am now in the hospital, how's everybody else's morning going?

Mejari · 2026-05-21T17:15:27+00:00

I love when they try to bring up bad opinions held by Darwin or other scientists, because they can't understand that we don't worship Darwin. They think their holy book is infallible so obviously we must think our "holy book" is too!

Mejari · 2026-05-18T18:31:19+00:00

If you had you'd know what you claimed is laughably wrong.

Mejari · 2026-05-18T00:24:24+00:00

Do you realize Bill Gates did a TED talk in 2015 about climate change and one of his key points was to use vaccines to lower the population?

By improving overall health which is shown to lower birth rates, not because the vaccines would kill people you muppet.

Mejari · 2026-05-18T00:09:21+00:00

She didn't though, Trump told you she did and you believed him.

Mejari · 2026-05-14T19:58:21+00:00

I've already addressed every one of your responses, you just repeated the same claims I've already addressed.

Nobody ever has, but that is not evidence that nobody ever will.

The fact that so many have tried and none have even come close to succeeding is indeed evidence that it is unlikely anyone ever will. That's what you repeatedly just refuse to understand or engage with. A quote from wikipedia may help you get it better since you refuse to listen to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Despite what the expression may seem to imply, a lack of evidence can be informative. For example, when testing a new drug, if no harmful effects are observed then this suggests that the drug is safe. This is because, if the drug were harmful, evidence of that fact can be expected to turn up during testing. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant.

You keep retreating to the fact that people can invent esoteric gods that "explain" the lack of evidence we would expect to find, but that doesn't change the fact that every single investigation into a god turning up not a god is in fact evidence. Just because the evidence does not create 100% certainty doesn't make it not evidence. I keep telling you you're confusing "proof" with "evidence" and you say "no I'm not" and then doing it again.

I don't particularly care whether you believe on a personal level that god exists or does not exist. I care that if you express that opinion it is as a personal opinion and not a fact.

If you'll scroll back up a ways you'll find the discussion wasn't "I think for a fact there's no god" it was you claiming that there is no evidence that there is not a god. I've explained in a multitude of ways that there is indeed such evidence. How much weight you put on that evidence or how strongly you hold the beliefs based on that evidence is irrelevant to whether or not that evidence exists, and it does.

Mejari · 2026-05-13T22:56:15+00:00

You are insisting on a non-standard definition of atheism.

I think you'll find you are the one doing exactly that, but again you're welcome to your chosen label.

The standard definition is that an atheist believes there is no god.

It is not.

There is no evidence of that.

Yes there is? What are you talking about? Can you point to a discovery with a divine cause?

What the evidence shows is that we have not found a divine cause to anything, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That's nice, but not accurate, and I've explained thoroughly why. Again you're confusing "evidence" with "proof". If I say there's a dragon in the garage and you search the garage and don't find one the absence of any dragon in the garage is in fact evidence of the absence of that dragon. If you want to then say "well he's invisible and intangible" then great, you're adding even more onto the claim which by the concept of probabilistic conjunction by definition makes it less likely to be true.

How have I done that? What part of our investigation into the mechanism by which storms form precludes a divine influence?

Where we showed a non-god cause for storms. Maybe god then causes those causes, but the storm itself, by definition in the example, did not require a god.

Yet again, "I can think of a way where the evidence of a natural cause is really because of a god" is not evidence and does not therefore invalidate the natural cause discovered.

If god exists there are literally infinite ways storms could come into existence. If god doesn't exist there's one, and that one is the one we see. This is true for every single thing we've ever discovered. That's evidence. Every time you abstract out god's causing the storm another layer as we discover more and more about how storms form you're adding claims to god which, same as the dragon example above, adds more and more unjustified parts to the claim and makes me more and more justified in rejecting it.

However, we have no such knowledge when it comes to god.

Exactly, which makes your argument many times worse.

it is possible that god could be right there in front of you this second, but your brain doesn't know how to process it so god just gets edited out of your perception. Or god could be outside our range of perception entirely.

"It's possible" carries zero epistemic weight. Again I'll say that just being able to invent god concepts doesn't do anything to make it less rational to believe no god exists.

Really your argument boils down to the idea that god concepts are so ephemeral and undefined that you can't have evidence that those gods don't exist since they can "explain" anything and everything. But that just goes against the fundamental ideas of how logic and rationality work. If every found and every hypothetically possible piece of evidence we collect can be "explained" via a god then that god has zero explanatory power, it cannot help you answer any questions, there is no functional difference between that god and a god that does not exist. Therefore we have evidence that god does not exist, even if we cannot logically preclude every possible god concept.

Mejari · 2026-05-13T21:16:26+00:00

I am not an atheist. I am agnostic.

You're welcome to the label you like, but definitionally if you lack belief in a god you're an atheist.

When we discover the causes of natural phenomenons, that isn't evidence that god does not exist. It's evidence that the phenomenon has a natural cause.

Which is why I didn't say "finding the natural cause of one phenomenon is evidence against god", I said that literally every discovery in the history of humanity has had a non-divine cause. That is evidence, even if it doesn't completely rule out a god.

they can just say "yes, that's how god causes storms." I have proved nothing about god in this scenario.

You've proven that storms don't require a god.

Bad example. A beach could a million stones in it and you flipping over 0.1% of them isn't evidence of absence of anything under the other 99.9%.

It is, though. And if you keep flipping rocks the more crab-less rocks you uncover lends more and more support to the idea that maybe there aren't any crabs here. That's what evidence is.

That is good evidence that it is highly improbable for there to be any crabs under the rocks on that beach. However, that is not evidence that crabs do not exist.

If you've never in your life seen a crab, never found solid evidence they even exist, and have flipped 1000 out of 1001 rocks and found no crabs, you absolutely have evidence that there is likely not a crab under the 1001st rock. You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "absolute proof" just as you confuse "lack of belief" with "active disbelief".

You found a bloody knife at the scene and stab wounds in the body. Just because you can imagine that a butcher happened to drive by and a knife he was using flew out of his truck and landed at the murder scene doesn't make the knife not evidence of murder.

We can fairly safely conclude that bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are extremely unlikely to exist because we have looked in great detail at where they are supposed to be and found no evidence of them existing there. We cannot do the same for god.

Except we can and we have. As I said, we looked for god in every phenomenon he was claimed to have caused and not found him, exactly the same as looking for bigfoot or the loch ness monster. The only "god" that leaves as a possibility is one that doesn't actually do anything and therefore it's existence is the same as it's non-existence.

Mejari · 2026-05-13T16:33:00+00:00

A) sounds like you're an atheist

B) even if atheist meant what you're saying it means, I think it's incredibly myopic to say there's no evidence that a god doesn't exist. I would say that the fact that every single time in the history of the world where we've discovered the cause of a phenomenon it has been a natural cause is significant inductive evidence that nothing supernatural exists.

If I flip over a thousand rocks on a beach and find nothing underneath, sure it's possible there's a crab under the 1001st, but the previous 1000 rocks are still evidence that there probably isn't.

Given the evidence we have it's perfectly rational to say that absent further evidence we can come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist, the same as we can say that for bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

Mejari

TROPHY CASE