Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Atheists -what makes you so sure?

585 replies

OMG12 · 14/06/2023 19:12

I often wonder what makes atheists so sure that there isn’t a god. I’m not talking a particular iteration of the Divine, eg it’s easy to say I can’t believe there is a God because of childhood cancer, but that is predicated on the concept of a God who is only good and considers childhood cancer as bad and further is capable and willing to stop all bad things. I’m talking gods not religions here which a very different things.

Most cultures throughout time have have gods so it’s somewhat of an anomaly to not believe. I just wonder why people don’t believe. (And can we try and keep this a decent debate rather than any of the sky fairy shit those with an inability to debate a point beyond regurgitated social media soundbites seem limited to)

OP posts:
aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 11:08

Well if someone asked whether I believed in Leprechauns I would first ask them what they meant by Leprechauns then I would say I don’t know whether they exist. I have no experience either way. I don’t see how I could answer any differently. How do I know leprechauns don’t exist? What does it mean to “exist” anyway?

Most people wouldn't, though. They'd just say no. Most people these days are not that spiritual/likely to believe in the supernatural. This is the world you're living in.

Notlaughingalot · 02/10/2023 11:09

I would like to think there is a god, but with zero evidence it becomes impossible.

I do think that there is more on the earth than humans are equipped to perceive however. I'm thinking about ghost sightings and paranormal activity.

But a god in the sense of some being answering prayers doesn't add up for me. I know it does for a lot of people though, and their belief helps them to get through what can be a really desperate life.

Notlaughingalot · 02/10/2023 11:12

Twillow · 14/06/2023 19:54

It;s not an anomaly to not believe, it's (imo) a developmetal thing. Ancient cultures needed explanations for how the world works and a 'god' concept explained a whiole lot, plus the bonding rituals involved in life and death events kept communities together and therefore safer. Later on, religion evolved to be used by those in power to control their communities. Traditions die hard, as it were, and here we are today.
But as to why I am an atheist:

If god made the world, why? A social experiment e.g. to see if you are good and then punish you when you have no chance to redeem yourself makes no sense. That is not a kind god.

If god can intervene, why do such bad things happen to good and innocent people?
That is not a kind god.

Why does religion ask for belief without proof (i.e. faith)? It's just so convenient. For example, why don't angels appear in the world simultaneously, be filmed, speak to us. They don't. 'Miracles' always happen where they can't be proven.. To me, 'miracles' are merely wish fulfilment. Just as the 'signs' people believe they have seen - coincidence colliding with intention.

Then there is the hypocrisy of the church, the wealth and the abuse. I do not doubt there are many good people of faith, but surely a kind god would not tolerate the existence of the corrupt within its houses?

So we are left with the only realistic concept of any god at all, one that has no interest in our existence and therefore in our behaviour. We can do as we will. And believing all that I have said, I do not think that being an atheist makes me a bad person. I am no more perfect or imperfect than the next person. But I still have morals, love my family, find the world interesting and beautiful, and try to help others. I don't need a god for any of that.The statistics, incidentally, for non-believers vs believers in prison is really interesting - atheists are a tiny proportion overall

I just wish atheists had better community events and organisations - I am slightly jealous of churchgoers for that!

What a great post.

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 11:41

Well if someone asked whether I believed in Leprechauns I would first ask them what they meant by Leprechauns then I would say I don’t know whether they exist. I have no experience either way. I don’t see how I could answer any differently. How do I know leprechauns don’t exist? What does it mean to “exist” anyway?

Fair enough.

That's quite an unusual response (just an observation, not a criticism) to the question 'do you believe in leprechauns' though.

I wonder whether in reality, if asked in casual conversation, your response really would be 'what do you mean by leprechaun' 'I don't know one way or another' etc or whether you're treating this as a thought experiment so answering as one would if it was an exam question where you knew a 'no' would be marked down as not showing enough working out as such.

As I say, it's a very unusual response and I think perhaps the fact that's how your brain personally processes questions that others answer differently may be the key to your confusion over / inability to accept people saying 'I don't believe as there isn't sufficient evidence to meet my threshold required for me to believe something' as a perfectly valid and understandable response.

Inability to 'accept' might be the wrong word in the previous sentence, I don't mean it in an accusatory way I just see in this and other threads that you can't seem to move past the fact people simply say there isn't enough evidence for them to believe.

Original poster
OMG12 · 02/10/2023 11:50

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 11:41

Well if someone asked whether I believed in Leprechauns I would first ask them what they meant by Leprechauns then I would say I don’t know whether they exist. I have no experience either way. I don’t see how I could answer any differently. How do I know leprechauns don’t exist? What does it mean to “exist” anyway?

Fair enough.

That's quite an unusual response (just an observation, not a criticism) to the question 'do you believe in leprechauns' though.

I wonder whether in reality, if asked in casual conversation, your response really would be 'what do you mean by leprechaun' 'I don't know one way or another' etc or whether you're treating this as a thought experiment so answering as one would if it was an exam question where you knew a 'no' would be marked down as not showing enough working out as such.

As I say, it's a very unusual response and I think perhaps the fact that's how your brain personally processes questions that others answer differently may be the key to your confusion over / inability to accept people saying 'I don't believe as there isn't sufficient evidence to meet my threshold required for me to believe something' as a perfectly valid and understandable response.

Inability to 'accept' might be the wrong word in the previous sentence, I don't mean it in an accusatory way I just see in this and other threads that you can't seem to move past the fact people simply say there isn't enough evidence for them to believe.

I know that I’d answer in that way as that’s how I’ve answers similar questions. TBH I’d expect a similar response from many of my friends (some might believe in them though😀).

I accept that people will say “I don’t believe because there’s insufficient evidence” but my follow up question to that is, is their philosophy things needs to be evidenced according to scientific methodology in order for them to exist (let’s face it, in the history of humanity this is a fairly recent philosophy). What makes this philosophy any better than any other, apart from its the prevailing philosophy atm? Who’s to say in the quest to bring together the rules of quantum and classical physics an entirely new philosophy won’t appear, or as society changes scientific mythology won’t be replaced like it largely replaced religious frameworks within society? I guess that’s what I’m trying to find out.

OP posts:
monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 12:01

I think you have a really inquisitive mind and curiosity about how others think and how things work, which can be a really admirable quality.

Sometimes though, it can come across a little like you're determined to ask follow up questions until you get an answer that satisfies you personally, rather than being able to accept that people have a limit to the extent they think about a certain thing as in their mind it is quite simply resolved at a certain point.

And the asking follow up questions rather than saying 'thanks that's an interesting way of looking at it' or 'that's really different to my approach but I appreciate you sharing yours' etc at the point people have been clear they hold a very firm believe can come come across as you not accepting their personal beliefs as valid 'enough' for you.

Hope that all makes sense, again I'm not trying to be accusatory or critical, just honest.

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 12:08

@but my follow up question to that is, is their philosophy things needs to be evidenced according to scientific methodology in order for them to exist"

Yes.

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 12:19

my follow up question to that is, is their philosophy things needs to be evidenced according to scientific methodology in order for them to exist (let’s face it, in the history of humanity this is a fairly recent philosophy). What makes this philosophy any better than any other, apart from its the prevailing philosophy atm? Who’s to say in the quest to bring together the rules of quantum and classical physics an entirely new philosophy won’t appear, or as society changes scientific mythology won’t be replaced like it largely replaced religious frameworks within society? I guess that’s what I’m trying to find out.

Well, it's an educated guess obviously, but broadly speaking I think it can be said that knowing more, and making judgments based on actual provable knowledge rather than guesswork, is a good thing. Not doing so - whether it be dubious medical methods or invading a foreign land with no understanding of the indigenous population, is not generally a positive thing.

What we know to be true might change, but deciding that it no longer matters whether it's actually true or not would be an odd move and a step backwards.

Original poster
OMG12 · 02/10/2023 12:46

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 12:01

I think you have a really inquisitive mind and curiosity about how others think and how things work, which can be a really admirable quality.

Sometimes though, it can come across a little like you're determined to ask follow up questions until you get an answer that satisfies you personally, rather than being able to accept that people have a limit to the extent they think about a certain thing as in their mind it is quite simply resolved at a certain point.

And the asking follow up questions rather than saying 'thanks that's an interesting way of looking at it' or 'that's really different to my approach but I appreciate you sharing yours' etc at the point people have been clear they hold a very firm believe can come come across as you not accepting their personal beliefs as valid 'enough' for you.

Hope that all makes sense, again I'm not trying to be accusatory or critical, just honest.

It’s an interesting perspective. I guess how they take my interest is up to them. You see to me, when people aren’t willing to expand on their answers it makes me wonder why. I think that’s a natural response. You see, if people ask me why repeatedly trying to drill down into my thoughts, I don’t take offence, it’s useful to explore ideas, especially with those who think differently.

I find the whole concept of “thanks that’s interesting (when it really is not) pointless and boring. That kind of response had its place of course in say the office or school playground with school mums/dads, it has no place on a thread specifically aimed at exploring thoughts, it’s a place for debate. Someone coming on and say “cos there’s no evidence” and then not expecting further questions is pointless, it’s just repeating the obvious over and over why even get involved?

I think this is a fundamental issue in society today, people are so afraid of upsetting someone debate is dead. People just think they can state their position and drop the Mike like it’s a be all and end all. Anyone who says differently is stupid, or prejudiced, brain washed etc etc. The world would be a much better place if people were challenged more, if people thought more about their position.

OP posts:
Original poster
OMG12 · 02/10/2023 12:47

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 12:19

my follow up question to that is, is their philosophy things needs to be evidenced according to scientific methodology in order for them to exist (let’s face it, in the history of humanity this is a fairly recent philosophy). What makes this philosophy any better than any other, apart from its the prevailing philosophy atm? Who’s to say in the quest to bring together the rules of quantum and classical physics an entirely new philosophy won’t appear, or as society changes scientific mythology won’t be replaced like it largely replaced religious frameworks within society? I guess that’s what I’m trying to find out.

Well, it's an educated guess obviously, but broadly speaking I think it can be said that knowing more, and making judgments based on actual provable knowledge rather than guesswork, is a good thing. Not doing so - whether it be dubious medical methods or invading a foreign land with no understanding of the indigenous population, is not generally a positive thing.

What we know to be true might change, but deciding that it no longer matters whether it's actually true or not would be an odd move and a step backwards.

But what is truth? Can truth ever be entirely objective?

OP posts:
aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 12:54

But what is truth? Can truth ever be entirely objective?

This is exhausting. I agree with recent comments about your line of questioning - you know the answer to this. Yes. Things that we can actually see beyond reasonable doubt are the case.

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 13:08

It’s an interesting perspective. I guess how they take my interest is up to them. You see to me, when people aren’t willing to expand on their answers it makes me wonder why. I think that’s a natural response.

And it is a natural response to you, but other people have a limit of how many 'but why' extensions they wish to respond to. You write as if their unwillingness to discuss for as long as you want to / in the way that you want to is hiding something.

You see, if people ask me why repeatedly trying to drill down into my thoughts, I don’t take offence, it’s useful to explore ideas, especially with those who think differently.

I don't think anyone is offended? I'm certainly not. It's more that my interest in a topic might have a natural conclusion / limit and therefore it doesn't interest or benefit me to keep answering 'but why' extensions I guess.

I find the whole concept of “thanks that’s interesting (when it really is not) pointless and boring. That kind of response had its place of course in say the office or school playground with school mums/dads, it has no place on a thread specifically aimed at exploring thoughts, it’s a place for debate. Someone coming on and say “cos there’s no evidence” and then not expecting further questions is pointless, it’s just repeating the obvious over and over why even get involved?

Respectfully (genuinely!) being on the receiving end of your responses and tone can feel exactly like this, that you're repeating the same thing over and over so why would people keep responding if they'll get the same 'but why' type response no matter what they say? It's hard to write this without it sounding accusatory so please know it's in good faith!

I think this is a fundamental issue in society today, people are so afraid of upsetting someone debate is dead. People just think they can state their position and drop the Mike like it’s a be all and end all.

I don't think that is relevant to this thread. Nobody has behaved in a way (on either 'side' of atheism or belief) that is a 'mic drop'. It's not a mic drop to say you believe something and don't have further thoughts on it.

It's important to respect that someone has a limit to how much they want to continue discussing something and appreciate that it may not be because they're offended or upset, it may be just that they have no interest in discussing it further or discussing it in the quite rigid framework of questions you wish to.

And while you dismiss people's responses of 'cos there's no evidence', saying they should expect further questions... why? It's a perfectly valid and natural response to asking why someone doesn't believe in something. You are free to continue to ask why, but the question has been answered and for many people the answer is literally as simple as that.

I don't believe the sky is made of a cotton and linen patchwork quilt. Because I have zero evidence that it is. Responding to me asserting I don't believe it due to lack of evidence with 'but what is the sky' and 'but what do you mean by cotton? And linen?' would be to me a nonsensical response because I've made a statement with a clear reasoning. Lack of evidence.

Anyone who says differently is stupid, or prejudiced, brain washed etc etc. The world would be a much better place if people were challenged more, if people thought more about their position.

I think this is key, that because you believe strongly in a higher power that you think people not believing is a position worth 'challenging'. For many of us who are not believers, it's baffling people wish to encourage us to a 'challenge' or interrogate our lack of belief in a higher power, because it simply isn't a big deal to us.

I don't feel any more need to challenge or interrogate my personal absence of belief in god / higher power than I do my lack of belief in fairies or leprechauns or cotton and linen patchwork sky quilts. They have the same absence of impact on my life personally and to me the same absence of evidence to me personally.

Original poster
OMG12 · 02/10/2023 13:10

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 11:04

@OMG12 "So it’s basically boils down to a philosophy that all things can be proven (now or in the future) by scientific method?"

Kind of. I don't think of it as a philosophy though-just reality. There is a whole class of things that don't exist-fairies, leprechauns,unicorns...and it is reasonable to put everything paranormal/supernatural in the same class. Obviously, things can be taken out of that class and put in a different one should further evidence emerge.

from my perspective science methodology is a philosophy, it is a mechanism by which people seek to understand the universe and existence. It’s based on the belief that there is only an objective eternal physical truth which can be discovered through scientific methodology.
Theres a lot of assumptions in that position to me.

OP posts:
Original poster
OMG12 · 02/10/2023 13:12

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 12:54

But what is truth? Can truth ever be entirely objective?

This is exhausting. I agree with recent comments about your line of questioning - you know the answer to this. Yes. Things that we can actually see beyond reasonable doubt are the case.

Why is it exhausting? What do you think of my line of questioning. Well my position on whether truth can ever be entirely objective is no! So that’s my answer - what’s yours?

OP posts:
Londisc · 02/10/2023 13:18

Until at least one or two posters acknowledge that they are not as smart as they thought they were, that they have been compelled to question their atheism by the OP's contributions and enlighted with the view that the scientific paradigm is a faith system just like any other, then the OP will not be satisifed. It's like first term on a Philosophy 101 course. 💚

Original poster
OMG12 · 02/10/2023 13:30

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 13:08

It’s an interesting perspective. I guess how they take my interest is up to them. You see to me, when people aren’t willing to expand on their answers it makes me wonder why. I think that’s a natural response.

And it is a natural response to you, but other people have a limit of how many 'but why' extensions they wish to respond to. You write as if their unwillingness to discuss for as long as you want to / in the way that you want to is hiding something.

You see, if people ask me why repeatedly trying to drill down into my thoughts, I don’t take offence, it’s useful to explore ideas, especially with those who think differently.

I don't think anyone is offended? I'm certainly not. It's more that my interest in a topic might have a natural conclusion / limit and therefore it doesn't interest or benefit me to keep answering 'but why' extensions I guess.

I find the whole concept of “thanks that’s interesting (when it really is not) pointless and boring. That kind of response had its place of course in say the office or school playground with school mums/dads, it has no place on a thread specifically aimed at exploring thoughts, it’s a place for debate. Someone coming on and say “cos there’s no evidence” and then not expecting further questions is pointless, it’s just repeating the obvious over and over why even get involved?

Respectfully (genuinely!) being on the receiving end of your responses and tone can feel exactly like this, that you're repeating the same thing over and over so why would people keep responding if they'll get the same 'but why' type response no matter what they say? It's hard to write this without it sounding accusatory so please know it's in good faith!

I think this is a fundamental issue in society today, people are so afraid of upsetting someone debate is dead. People just think they can state their position and drop the Mike like it’s a be all and end all.

I don't think that is relevant to this thread. Nobody has behaved in a way (on either 'side' of atheism or belief) that is a 'mic drop'. It's not a mic drop to say you believe something and don't have further thoughts on it.

It's important to respect that someone has a limit to how much they want to continue discussing something and appreciate that it may not be because they're offended or upset, it may be just that they have no interest in discussing it further or discussing it in the quite rigid framework of questions you wish to.

And while you dismiss people's responses of 'cos there's no evidence', saying they should expect further questions... why? It's a perfectly valid and natural response to asking why someone doesn't believe in something. You are free to continue to ask why, but the question has been answered and for many people the answer is literally as simple as that.

I don't believe the sky is made of a cotton and linen patchwork quilt. Because I have zero evidence that it is. Responding to me asserting I don't believe it due to lack of evidence with 'but what is the sky' and 'but what do you mean by cotton? And linen?' would be to me a nonsensical response because I've made a statement with a clear reasoning. Lack of evidence.

Anyone who says differently is stupid, or prejudiced, brain washed etc etc. The world would be a much better place if people were challenged more, if people thought more about their position.

I think this is key, that because you believe strongly in a higher power that you think people not believing is a position worth 'challenging'. For many of us who are not believers, it's baffling people wish to encourage us to a 'challenge' or interrogate our lack of belief in a higher power, because it simply isn't a big deal to us.

I don't feel any more need to challenge or interrogate my personal absence of belief in god / higher power than I do my lack of belief in fairies or leprechauns or cotton and linen patchwork sky quilts. They have the same absence of impact on my life personally and to me the same absence of evidence to me personally.

Well it’s interesting isn’t it? If people don’t wish to engage and just want to put “I don’t believe in God any more than leprechauns”, I then ask a question about their answer people have I guess 1 of 3 possible responses, Explain why, walk away because they’re not willing to engage any further (for whatever reason) or switch to an ad hominem argument. I always find the last extremely disappointing. No one is forcing anyone to engage.

I wonder whether these limits on discussion apply to all conversations?

“I watched (new tv programme) last night, it was fantastic”- response “Great thanks- interesting”, or would a better response be “oh great, what’s it about?” “Who’s in it?” What other programmes do you like? “What was great about it?” “Oh I might watch that, what sides it on? Is it similar to x programme?”

Regarding saying the same thing over, well yes, this is my position on the same answer to the original question, that can hardly be surprising can it to people who love replicable results😀.

OP posts:
Original poster
OMG12 · 02/10/2023 13:30

Londisc · 02/10/2023 13:18

Until at least one or two posters acknowledge that they are not as smart as they thought they were, that they have been compelled to question their atheism by the OP's contributions and enlighted with the view that the scientific paradigm is a faith system just like any other, then the OP will not be satisifed. It's like first term on a Philosophy 101 course. 💚

Did you study ad hominem arguments?

OP posts:
aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 13:31

Why is it exhausting? What do you think of my line of questioning. Well my position on whether truth can ever be entirely objective is no! So that’s my answer - what’s yours?

Because you've asked so many times and people have answered. No, not everything is subjective. Opinions are subjective, but facts, such as that the grass is green and that antibiotics help infections, are not. Occasionally something we thought was proven beyond doubt may turn out to be flawed or even wrong, but still, most facts are objective.

Original poster
OMG12 · 02/10/2023 13:50

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 13:31

Why is it exhausting? What do you think of my line of questioning. Well my position on whether truth can ever be entirely objective is no! So that’s my answer - what’s yours?

Because you've asked so many times and people have answered. No, not everything is subjective. Opinions are subjective, but facts, such as that the grass is green and that antibiotics help infections, are not. Occasionally something we thought was proven beyond doubt may turn out to be flawed or even wrong, but still, most facts are objective.

But is the grass green? The Dugum Dani people only have two colour words - white-warm” and “dark-cool” following the Sapir -Whorf theory is grass green to them?

Do antibiotics help infection? Or long term are they making the situation worse? I would argue everything is subjective in the end surely.

OP posts:
aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 13:54

*But is the grass green? The Dugum Dani people only have two colour words - white-warm” and “dark-cool” following the Sapir -Whorf theory is grass green to them?

Do antibiotics help infection? Or long term are they making the situation worse? I would argue everything is subjective in the end surely.*

Well you do that, then, because whatever different words people use for them there are quite obviously more than two different colours, and as an immediate cure, antibiotics do demonstrably help infection.

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 14:03

I then ask a question about their answer people have I guess 1 of 3 possible responses, Explain why, walk away because they’re not willing to engage any further (for whatever reason) or switch to an ad hominem argument. I always find the last extremely disappointing. No one is forcing anyone to engage.

Finding it extremely disappointing is quite a disproportionate reaction to strangers not wishing to further engage, though. Nobody is forcing you to either and it's healthier not to get so emotionally invested in 'challenging' people's beliefs that you feel that way.

I wonder whether these limits on discussion apply to all conversations?

“I watched (new tv programme) last night, it was fantastic”- response “Great thanks- interesting”, or would a better response be “oh great, what’s it about?” “Who’s in it?” What other programmes do you like? “What was great about it?” “Oh I might watch that, what sides it on? Is it similar to x programme?”

A better analogy for your interactions would be the other person saying 'I watched (new show) last night, it was fantastic' then you saying 'I didn't like it, what did you like about it?' Then them telling you what they liked about it, then you saying 'why is that something you like?' Then them saying why they like it. And you saying 'but why do you like that and not the opposite thing that I like?' And them saying a couple of reasons that they like the thing in question. And you saying 'but why is that an adequate enough reason for you to like the thing in question?' Can you see how exhausting and pointless that exchange would be for the other party?

Original poster
OMG12 · 02/10/2023 14:06

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 13:54

*But is the grass green? The Dugum Dani people only have two colour words - white-warm” and “dark-cool” following the Sapir -Whorf theory is grass green to them?

Do antibiotics help infection? Or long term are they making the situation worse? I would argue everything is subjective in the end surely.*

Well you do that, then, because whatever different words people use for them there are quite obviously more than two different colours, and as an immediate cure, antibiotics do demonstrably help infection.

Actually there’s a spectrum of light. Are there more than 2 colours (that’s why I suggested you refer to the Sapir-whorf theory.

Do antibiotics help infection? This isn’t universally true. The most you can probably get is a high probability (which seem to be getting lower). Prescribing them is also very much subjective weighing up benefits and harm.

OP posts:
CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 14:09

@OMG12 "You see to me, when people aren’t willing to expand on their answers it makes me wonder why."

I am happy to expand on my answers. I just don't know what you want me to say.

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 14:14

@OMG12

You said the following earlier.

I believe in divinity as source of everything, good and bad, I don’t believe in a god controlling everything. I believe in a god that created the laws that science now observes, I believe that science doesn’t have the answers to how and why at a deep enough level, eventually you will get to a lack of knowledge- you could follow Arthur C Clarke and assume that eventually science will provide the answer, but that’s based on a belief system the same as my understanding- but I might well be wrong in those beliefs, I have reasons that lead me to believe they’re right but would always be open to being wrong.

I don't understand how you think your belief framework is so different logistically than that which you seem unable to grasp or respect in other people.

"I believe X for 'reasons that lead me to believe X is right but would always be open to being wrong'" is what a number of those who don't believe in a higher power due to lack of evidence have said to you throughout the thread.

Their 'reasons' are different to yours and they have a different threshold when it comes to the evidence they personally require.

They believe X due to a lack of evidence for Y but if evidence for Y was provided, their belief could change. Exactly the same as you say your beliefs could change as you're open to being wrong.

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 14:15

Yes, there are clearly more than 2 different colours that millions of people can unanimously agree to have physically seen with their eyes.

And regardless of whether you think giving antibiotics has had a negative impact long term or whether they always work or work perfectly, it is proven that they do aid the symptoms of infection.

At the risk of sounding like a flouncer, I have to agree that this is repetitive to the point it is not enjoyable to engage in the conversation. The above were clearly just flippant examples and it is tiresome trying to debate with somebody so extremely pedantic and determined not to accept the point behind what people are saying to them. I do not agree with you that no truth can ever be objectively true. I think that's absolute nonsense and the fact evidence of truths that are universal is all around us.

Swipe left for the next trending thread