I understand what you’re doing, but that’s not how that argument works. You can’t even prove metaphysics exists or is a fruitful endeavor (which is hotly argued as irrelevant in academic circles) let alone that the burden is actually on magical believers to justify themselves, not the other way around. Fence sitting while using the kind of language you use tells me you’re a pseudointellectual, which will fool many on here, hence the voting trend, but not all of us.
I don’t think you understand logic. You’re saying “all religion is wrong.” This is a stronger claim than “this specific religion is correct.” See, if someone says “there’s a giant kettle in space,” they need to justify that position. If someone else comes along and says “not only is there no giant kettle in space, there are no valid theories other than my perspective,” now the burden of proof is on the larger claim that everything is wrong and only this singular perspective is correct because, surprise surprise, it’s a repackaging of the first argument with the added attack on everything else.
I’m not on the fence. If you’re not a determinist and you believe in science you’re an idiot. I also understand others might have found meaning in some other way, no matter how dumb it is.
I tried to stick to smaller words this time. Was that better?
I understand what you’re doing, but that’s not how that argument works. You can’t even prove metaphysics exists or is a fruitful endeavor (which is hotly argued as irrelevant in academic circles) let alone that the burden is actually on magical believers to justify themselves, not the other way around. Fence sitting while using the kind of language you use tells me you’re a pseudointellectual, which will fool many on here, hence the voting trend, but not all of us.
I don’t think you understand logic. You’re saying “all religion is wrong.” This is a stronger claim than “this specific religion is correct.” See, if someone says “there’s a giant kettle in space,” they need to justify that position. If someone else comes along and says “not only is there no giant kettle in space, there are no valid theories other than my perspective,” now the burden of proof is on the larger claim that everything is wrong and only this singular perspective is correct because, surprise surprise, it’s a repackaging of the first argument with the added attack on everything else.
I’m not on the fence. If you’re not a determinist and you believe in science you’re an idiot. I also understand others might have found meaning in some other way, no matter how dumb it is.
I tried to stick to smaller words this time. Was that better?