4 pointsby cadabrabra2 hours ago7 comments
  • aristofun32 minutes ago
    Exact reason why there is no actual consistent non-contradictory atheism view, only agnosticism and theism can be logically sound.
  • Redster2 hours ago
    Agreed.

    It is also often a very bold claim to say "There is *no* evidence for X." The cases where you can truly say that are rare compared to how easily people (esp. non-experts) will say it. More often, it's more accurate to say, "I don't believe the arguments for X or evidence of X."

  • linasj2 hours ago
    Absence of evidence after you've spent a lot of effort looking for evidence IS evidence of no X.

    After doing a lot of research into homeopathy we are now very confident that it does not work and cannot work.

    • cadabrabra2 hours ago
      If we know that it cannot work, then we have evidence of no X, where X is the possibility of homeopathy working.
  • dekhn2 hours ago
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
  • buttstuff694202 hours ago
    How do I downvote this? You went to high school and learned the definition of a null hypothesis?
    • takklob30 minutes ago
      Welcome to HN where people who have not socially or emotionally developed much in their life share their HS tier thoughts.
    • cadabrabra2 hours ago
      Huh?
  • pfdietz2 hours ago
    And yet, people confuse the two.

    "There is no evidence for life elsewhere in the universe."

    "So you believe we're alone in the universe?"

    • cadabrabra2 hours ago
      It’s a common confusion, often subconsciously deployed in the context of trying to cope with the possibility of something undesirable turning out to be true.
      • pfdietz2 hours ago
        It's also important to distinguish "I don't believe X" from "I believe not-X".

        English is poorly suited to expressing this distinction.

      • buttstuff694202 hours ago
        No. What happened here is you confused semantics for logic.
  • cope1232 hours ago
    [flagged]