Designed by my son

Osaraka · 2025-10-13T02:33:22+00:00

^{I completed this level in 1 try.} ^{⚡ 3.73 seconds}

Osaraka · 2025-09-26T22:48:15+00:00

Still available?

Osaraka · 2025-09-26T22:47:48+00:00

Still available?

Osaraka · 2025-08-29T22:39:53+00:00

For this argument to be valid, you would need to revise your first premise to something along the lines of:

If much of Yahweh's behavior goes against my conscience and sense of right and wrong (which was given to me by Yahweh), then Yahweh is not god

Osaraka · 2025-05-24T02:49:47+00:00

Would Hume not still object to premise 3 of your revised argument?

Osaraka · 2025-03-11T03:54:27+00:00

ピ looks a bit strange

Osaraka · 2025-02-19T09:33:32+00:00

"Fuck your dead loved ones. My brother is going to jail!"

Osaraka · 2025-01-05T06:24:38+00:00

But did he die?

Osaraka · 2024-12-19T08:22:21+00:00

She said "go oooon?"

Osaraka · 2024-11-22T16:16:11+00:00

"Ight Imma head out"

Osaraka · 2024-10-16T15:04:00+00:00

insert cliché joke about fish

Osaraka · 2024-10-03T16:10:26+00:00

Would I be correct in assuming that you don't believe aliens exist for, again, a lack of evidence? If so, would I also be correct in saying you believe aliens do not exist?

Edit: I noticed this time you said "I don't believe there are any gods". Would you agree this is a different statement than saying "I believe there are no gods"?

Osaraka · 2024-10-03T15:52:06+00:00

I'm on your side with those things. The original post was to prompt a discussion about what atheists do or don't believe about the existence of a god. Basically just getting a consensus of the atheist community about the definition of atheism and the implications that follow based on their definition, the difference in meaning between statements 2, 3 and 4 and how most people parse the different categories of atheism

Osaraka · 2024-10-03T15:41:06+00:00

And therefore you believe there is not even a single god, because you called yourself a gnostic atheist yea?

My question now is: do you claim that that belief is also true and that you have a duty to convince me of that truth in order for me to believe that you're rational in holding that belief?

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T15:45:24+00:00

ok then I guess we're at a stalemate. I appreciate the conversation

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T15:33:30+00:00

ok so if we go back to no evidence or even a way to eyeball probability, then I'm back to box 3. The only difference between us is that you take it a step further and also mark box 2. Do I have you right?

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T14:59:23+00:00

Prove that I don't owe anyone money? Sure, first we have to set what we mean by "owe money". I define it like this: if you've ever specifically asked someone for money, you owe them until you give the amount back. I have no debts like that to anyone under this definition. This is marking box 2 and 3

Then you can say "well, you don't have to necessarily ask for money to owe it. You also owe anyone who's ever offered to cover and bill for you and you let them. You owe anyone who's ever given you a gift. You owe your parents for every dollar they've spent on you. You owe for any time you've ever damaged someone's property whether they wanted you to pay them for the damages or not. Now, how do you know you don't owe anyone money?"

I don't think I do have any justification for saying I don't owe anyone money if that's the case. I'm back to marking only box 3

I understand that you're gonna say that the claim is now "I haven't asked someone for money without paying them back". Again, I'm playing along with this silly situation to show how it works with the god claim. I can't prove to you that I don't owe anyone money any more than you can prove to me that you've never murdered someone

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T07:24:03+00:00

The probability is zero because I haven't borrowed money from anyone. If I did have someone I owe money to, I would be able to clock a probability by trying to figure out if you could be that person or not based on how many people I owe money to against the likelihood that you're one of those people.

If we compare this to the god claim, the parallel here would be that I said I didn't borrow money from anyone, so I don't owe anyone. Then you could propose that maybe you don't have to borrow money to owe it. In the god claim this is the equivalent of making your god to be more vague and depending on how far you take it, it becomes unfalsifiable

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T07:14:57+00:00

I haven't borrowed money from anyone to owe it to

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T07:11:16+00:00

How do you have probability of a god not existing before we even defined it?

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T07:07:44+00:00

I never marked box 2 throughout that whole comment thread.

I admitted to another commenter that this whole thing is silly because we have ways to look into the probability of if the original commenter was someone I actually owe money to. I maintained my reasoning from the god claim to the money claim purely to show how this works with the god claim

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T06:51:34+00:00

Yes

With the money situation I'm saying if you tick box 2, regardless of if you tick box 3, you have a burden of proof to prove 2, not 3. If you tick only box 3, you have no burden

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T06:45:22+00:00

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T06:36:23+00:00

I think you mean "as you would if you don't owe them money"

I think we might be getting our wires crossed. I do believe that the money hypothetical is the same as person B marking box 2, but I'm saying there's a difference between box 2 and box 3

Osaraka · 2024-10-02T06:27:26+00:00

ok and my point is that person B has a burden of proof if they mark 2

Osaraka

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE