@emlynaddison @atlanticcanuck @mrozatheist That is only semantics. To deny the proposition, "Witches exist," is to assert, "Witches do not."
@jlr3 I don't need to for our experiential reasoning contradicts the possibility in the first place. For the same reason that I don't need >
-
-
@emlynaddison it implies a very high improbability, but it does not prove impossibility.
-
@jlr3 If you entertain the 0.001% possibility that French-Speaking Octopus Asteroids *could* exist then our known reality is meaningless. -
@emlynaddison make a claim of knowledge without evidence. That's the whole point of being a rationally thinking atheist to me.
-
@jlr3 ie: To say that "anything could theoretically exist" is just being pointlessly academic for the sake of superficial rectitude. -
@emlynaddison that's fair. I still can't claim myself to be gnostic on the subject without feeling intellectually dishonest.
-
@jlr3 I don't perceive any dishonesty in asserting confidence in things based on our experiential understanding of the physical world. >
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.