Yes, belief without evidence is peak narcissism in my eyes

it is the definition of delusion

Yes, they shouldn’t because they have no evidence and are therefore arrogantly asserting something they have no reason to believe

Reread what he said, you’re the one without anything to offer… it’s honestly embarrasingly arrogant

I never denied the possibility, I denied we should believe in those things

it sounds incredibly arrogant to me to assume you know something without evidence

No neither do astrophysicists, they think it might be true with healthy skepticism

or they have proven it true with observation, neither of which applies to religion

are you confident you’re not the arrogant one?

be·lief



noun

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

“his belief in the value of hard work”

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

“I’ve still got belief in myself”

Which is completely different from a hypothesis, which is that something might be true and we should test it

be·lief noun

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

“his belief in the value of hard work”

\2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

“I’ve still got belief in myself”

I don’t believe in anything without evidence and if I do I seek to correct that

belief without evidence is a failure of the mind

i don’t assume the vast majority of astrophysics is true

neither do astrophysicists

Evidence exists for astrophysics

I do not, why would I?

nobody asserts that, they assert that we don’t know, which is accurate it is religion that asserts it happened through magic

Because science doesn’t assert all hypothesis are true

That just leaves you with the conclusion that “there is no current explanation” not that you can make whatever you want up.

I do understand that it is something people made up without any evidence.

I am this arrogant about anything without evidence, if you present evidence, then I have a reason to believe.

All religion is untested made up nonsense, no exceptions.

If you make it up without evidence, it can be thrown out without evidence. Athiests make no claims, there’s nothing to throw out.

The real answer to these questions is “we have no idea”, everything else falls under russel’s teapot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

In that instance, the claim is “There is evidence of X problem”

They then provided the evidence of that problem and were ignored, the burden of proof was on the person making the claim that there was a problem, and there was a problem, they provided proof, and were ignored.

This has nothing in common with the previous scenario.

That’s making a positive claim about a negative outcome. “There is enough evidence to be confident there aren’t structural problems” is what they’re really saying.

This doesn’t work for god because there’s nothing to check, there’s never been any evidence for god, but there’s been plenty of evidence for structural issues existing.

The second one is wrong, there is no god is not a claim that requires evidence in the same way there are no fairies in my fridge doesn’t require evidence

…Do you not realize that the same goes for god?

This guy eats babies

prove me wrong