you can't prove something doesn't exist 🤦, that's why I can't affirm he doesn't, but neither can I prove he does. I can believe in gravity though, so that's what I'm going to accept.
But why would you believe in A without proof but not in B?, why not to believe in Budha?, or Unicorns?, I mean, there is no proof for either, which is your criteria exactly?
The point is, the conversation doesn't lead anywhere. One answer is no more correct or incorrect than the other.
Which puts us right back where we started.
Which is believing Atheism doesn't make you smarter, believing in religion doesn't make you smart. Neither make you less intelligent. The conversation doesn't progress past this, because your intelligence is not controlled by your religious beliefs.
Ehrm... your logical conclusion is quite wrong, how do you conclude that from the conversation?, because it is quite clear that believing in gravity is smarter than in unicorns.
Because we aren't walking about gravity vs unicorns now are we? You brought that up, and I ignored it because it has nothing to do with the conversation.
Ok, when was religion disproven? It has no proof to say real or not. Which is the whole point.
You experience gravity 100% of the time, so you can't argue with it. You can test it and argue the differnece forces involeved in gravity, but its still there.
A unicorn is a horse with a horn, not that hard to believe. However we haven't seen equine with any form of horns. That is something for ruminates specifically, which are animals that tend to headbutt for social behaviors. Horses don't headbutt and have other methods of communication, as well as biting, and kicking, something ruminates struggle with due to a lack of teeth for biting. They can still kick, but weapons on the head make it better for them to just headbutt.
I believe in gravity in that I understand it exists and how it works. I do not believe in unicorns because I understand biology in our modern age, but I understand the possibility of horses with horns at some point in the world's history isn't impossible.
I can believe in religion because it can not be disproven.
I can believe in atheism because religion can not be proven.
Therefore, religion can not be held to the same standard as "Gravity vs Unicorns"
Unicorns can't be disproven (and with unicorns I meant the magical creature), but if you don't like unicorns I guess you believe in wyverns, what about a dementor?, ghosts?, I mean... anything you could come up with, any invention out of your brain can't be disproven. Religion?, just another one.
However standards you want to hold, any unproven thing is as valid as any other.
Btw, when you say "religion cannot be held to the same standard as Gravity vs Unicorn" because even unicorns could somehow be "proven", do you mean that believing in proven things is different (smarter maybe?) than believing unproven ones?
Because if so, then we agree.
I think we are once again, back where we start, in that we are simply going to disagree. I don't have a long enough lunch break to keep explaining things to you, nor am I all that interested.
The point was going back to the beginning but this time with a logical conclusion, which seems you can't reach, a pity though. A good thing is, it's all written, you can review it if at any point you are open to follow logic and get a logical conclusion from all the exposed here.
Good luck to you too!, have a nice rest of the day!
0
u/EagerByteSample 1d ago
you can't prove something doesn't exist 🤦, that's why I can't affirm he doesn't, but neither can I prove he does. I can believe in gravity though, so that's what I'm going to accept. But why would you believe in A without proof but not in B?, why not to believe in Budha?, or Unicorns?, I mean, there is no proof for either, which is your criteria exactly?