[17:09] <+WaterBomb> that's not a fair argument to make
[17:09] <%Solace> you dont know if they wouldve regretted it
[17:09] <+WaterBomb> because we can't speak to them after they are dead
[17:09] <Snowflakes> they can't know
[17:09] <%Solace> or if they just felt they were put in that position
[17:09] <~Cathy> they don't exist after they're dead, WaterBomb
[17:09] <+WaterBomb> those who believe in an afterlife would argue with you
[17:09] <Snowflakes> the only way you can know if you regret a decision is what happens after
[17:09] <~Cathy> belief in an afterlife is irrelevant
[17:09] <+WaterBomb> I believe there is existence after death
[17:09] <~Cathy> you can believe an afterlife exists, but since it doesn't, believing in it is irrelevant
[17:09] <%TFC> wait what lol
[17:09] <%Solace> can we stick to the first argument i dont care as much abou tthe afterlife/not after life thing
[17:09] <%TFC> i dont think you can just say it doesnt exist
[17:10] <~Cathy> sure i can
[17:10] <~Cathy> it's just physics
[17:10] <jdarden> haha
[17:10] <+WaterBomb> it's fine TFC
[17:10] <%TFC> the thing in the argument is just
[17:10] <+WaterBomb> she can say it
[17:10] <%TFC> "it doesnt matter"
[17:10] <+WaterBomb> we can disagree
[17:10] <+WaterBomb> but since we disagree on that point
[17:10] <%TFC> because even if it did it makes no difference
[17:10] <+WaterBomb> there's no purpose to continuing the argument
[17:10] <~Cathy> if you think an afterlife exists, you need to propose some model of how people go from being a body to being in the sky somewhere
[17:10] <~Cathy> such a model would have observable effects
[17:10] <~Cathy> which don't actually happen
[17:10] <%TFC> you cant explain everything anyway
[17:10] <~Cathy> i mean, this is not even some controversial thing
[17:10] <Snowflakes> can't i just believe something exists without proof?
[17:10] <~Cathy> there is no afterlife
[17:10] <~Cathy> that is just reality
[17:10] <~Cathy> like is aid
[17:10] <+WaterBomb> cathy
[17:11] <~Cathy> you can believe it
[17:11] <%TFC> it is obviously controversial lol
[17:11] <~Cathy> but it doesn't make it exist
[17:11] <~Cathy> it doesn't
[17:11] <+WaterBomb> that's an incredibly arrogant statement
[17:11] <%TFC> the problem has existed for centuries
[17:11] <~Cathy> lol it's just physics
[17:11] <%TFC> there continues to be debate to this day
[17:11] <+WaterBomb> "lol it's just physics"
[17:11] <~Cathy> afterlifes violate conservation of energy
[17:11] <Snowflakes> no
[17:11] <+WaterBomb> you realize that most of science is "theory" right?
[17:11] <~Cathy> lots of things are debated
[17:11] <+WaterBomb> we could argue this all night
[17:11] <~Cathy> that doesn't mean the arguments are good
[17:11] <+WaterBomb> it isn't going to go anywhere
[17:11] <+WaterBomb> so I'm stopping
[17:11] <~Cathy> there's nothing to argue
[17:11] <~Cathy> there is no afterlife
[17:11] <%TFC> theres nothing to argue because youre being ignorant as fuck
[17:12] <+WaterBomb> I'm not being baited into this
[17:12] <%Solace> ok ok ok ok
[17:12] <~Cathy> go ahead and tell me how an afterlife works then
[17:12] <+WaterBomb> I refuse
[17:12] <~Cathy> propose a physical model that explains how a person goes from being a body
[17:12] <%Solace> well anyway
[17:12] <%TFC> i already said
[17:12] <~Cathy> to being somewhere else
[17:12] <%TFC> not everything can be explained
[17:12] <%Solace> back to the thing we can //actually argue//
[17:12] <%TFC> im alive
[17:12] <+WaterBomb> trying to argue with someone who is unwilling to listen is a waste of time
[17:12] <%TFC> how i can explain something i have yet to go through
[17:12] <+WaterBomb> so let's change the subject
[17:12] <~Cathy> everything that actually exists can be explained
[17:12] <%TFC> i dont believe that either
[17:13] <%TFC> the odds of not existing are much greater than the odds of existing arent they
[17:13] <+WaterBomb> everything can be "explained", what matters is whether people accept that explanation
[17:13] <~Cathy> the odds of existing are 100%, given that you exist
[17:13] <+WaterBomb> not all explanations are popular, that's all
[17:13] <~Cathy> most probability arguments about life are all wrong
[17:13] <~Cathy> the chance of life existing is 100%
[17:13] <~Cathy> anyway
[17:13] <~Cathy> i'll entertain the notion of an afterlife when you explain how it doesn't violate conservation of energy
[17:13] <~Cathy> until then, there's really no doubt that it doesn't exist
[17:14] * %prem (prem@one.piece.is.the.best) Quit (Ping timeout)
[17:14] <%Tobes> lol...
[17:14] <%TFC> ok he was right
[17:14] <%Tobes> why do conversations like this always happen here
[17:14] <%TFC> i should not have been baited into something as stupid as that
[17:15] <~Cathy> there's nothing wrong with this conversation
[17:15] <Snowflakes> cause when they would happen in PS chat we stop them
[17:15] <%Tobes> yes there is lol
[17:15] <~Cathy> if you think what i'm saying is "stupid", it means you're not a critical thinker
[17:15] <~Cathy> i'm asking for a model
[17:15] <~Cathy> i'm providing critical analysis
[17:15] <%Tobes> you're writing off people's beliefs like they're worth nothing
[17:15] <+WaterBomb> it's just people asserting their opinions, in the end Cathy and I are still polite and respectful of each other
[17:15] <%TFC> no its stupid because it was brought up for 0 reason
[17:15] <+WaterBomb> regardless of our disagreement
[17:15] <%TFC> just out of ignorance
[17:15] <~Cathy> i'm asking for some basis for those beliefs
[17:15] <%Solace> ya i agree with tfc
[17:15] <~Cathy> believing in impossible things is stupid
[17:15] <%Solace> we were having a better conversation before
[17:15] * jdarden backs away
[17:15] <%Solace> . . .
[17:15] * jdarden (Mibbit@synIRC-4E206B.hsd1.de.comcast.net) has left #showup
[17:16] <+WaterBomb> "impossible" is not the same as "improbable"
[17:16] <~Cathy> i mean, there are so many impossible things
[17:16] <~Cathy> i mean
[17:16] <~Cathy> you haven't even provided an improbable model for an afterline
[17:16] <~Cathy> there is no model at all
[17:16] <%Arcticblast> like Flare Blitz Flareon
[17:16] <%TFC> the existence of an afterlife is irrelevant to the previous argument
[17:16] <+WaterBomb> ugh this is a really hard trap to not fall into
[17:16] <%Arcticblast> is impossible
[17:16] <~Cathy> any model will violate conservation of energy
[17:16] <~Cathy> it's not a "trap"
[17:16] <~Cathy> it's an interesting discussion
[17:16] <~Cathy> i'm interesting in the proposed model
[17:16] <%Solace> you could argue that after death there's a state the mind goes into
[17:16] <Snowflakes> i'm a brain in a jar
[17:16] <Snowflakes> what's it to you
[17:16] <%TFC> you can make up a whole bunch of hypothetical shit
[17:16] <%TFC> none of us know
[17:17] <%Solace> which would be "the afterlife"
[17:17] <%TFC> this isn't the sixth sense
[17:17] <%Solace> where your mind basically triggers things that you would associate with happiness
[17:17] <%TFC> we aren't dead
[17:17] <%Solace> and thats that
[17:17] <%Tobes> this is assuming that the current model of physics is completely unflawed
[17:17] <%Solace> theres no way of knowing
[17:17] <%Tobes> which is not a certainty
[17:17] <~Cathy> the only assumption you need to disprove an afterlife is conservation of energy
[17:17] <~Cathy> which is probably the most sure thing in physics
[17:17] <~Cathy> and it also disproves Solace's model
[17:17] <+WaterBomb> implying conservation of energy is not just another scientific "theory"
[17:17] <~Cathy> the brain is still a real thing that can be studied after death
[17:17] <~Cathy> within a few hours of death, nothing is going on in there
[17:18] <~Cathy> it eventually decays completely
[17:18] <+WaterBomb> but I'm not prepared to argue physics because I know very little about it
[17:18] <%Solace> ive enver taken physics so there u go
[17:18] <Snowflakes> brains trick you into thinking the brain deteriorates
[17:18] <+WaterBomb> XD
[17:18] <Snowflakes> this is what i love about futurama
[17:18] <%Solace> the brain named itself
[17:18] <~Cathy> yes, Snowflakes, there's definitely a Descartes argument possible
[17:18] <~Cathy> but it's irrelevant
[17:19] <Snowflakes> futurama creationist episode
[17:19] <Snowflakes> was the best one ever
[17:19] <~Cathy> of course our senses can't be trusted
[17:19] <~Cathy> but we can't talk about about anything interesting without putting some sense in them
[17:19] <~Cathy> so bringing up that they can't be trusted in random arguments is basically irrelevant
[17:19] <%Solace> i think that there are some things that people believe blindly
[17:19] <%Solace> and that's always going to be the case
[17:19] <Snowflakes> you thought the current topic was interesting, others didn't
[17:19] <Snowflakes> i'm sure we could find somebody who would find it interesting cathy
[17:19] <~Cathy> anyway, i've actually heard one argument that explains how there could be an afterlife
[17:20] <~Cathy> this argument http://www.simulation-argument.com/
[17:20] <~Cathy> that argument is basically the main flaw with my argument
[17:20] <~Cathy> http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
[17:21] <+WaterBomb> I think we can all agree this is actually the Matrix
[17:21] <%Solace> lol
[17:22] <Snowflakes> i figured i was keanu reeves
[17:22] <+blarajan> just read the above conversation
[17:22] <+blarajan> my respect for two users dropped significantly
[17:22] * +blarajan (~blarajan@synIRC-B3C6F21C.wireless.umd.edu) has left #showup
[17:23] <Snowflakes> damn
[17:23] <Snowflakes> if he's gunna say that just say the 2 users
[17:23] <Snowflakes> we can assume
[17:23] <Snowflakes> but what if he was saying it about ME?!
[17:23] <%Solace> it's fien im asking the most important question to him
[17:23] <%Solace> is it me?!?!!
[17:23] <Snowflakes> lol
[17:23] <+WaterBomb> he left
[17:23] <%TFC> well i can guarantee
[17:23] <~Cathy> i'm guessing i'm one of them, but who cares
[17:23] <%TFC> it wasnt me
[17:23] <Snowflakes> i figure it was the 2 extremes
[17:23] <%TFC> my first reason would be his answer of
[17:23] <~Cathy> i don't really understand why people get so uppity about these discussions
[17:23] <Snowflakes> so cathy and wb
[17:24] <+WaterBomb> and I'm pretty sure he was referring to  NixHex and kupo
[17:24] <%TFC> "ha i never respected you tfc"
[17:24] <~Cathy> people are fine with arguing everything else
[17:24] <%kupo> ?
[17:24] <Snowflakes> because they have emotional sensitivity directed towards it
[17:24] <Snowflakes> just like you do with certain situations
[17:24] <Snowflakes> which i won't mention
[17:24] <~Cathy> that's different
[17:24] <Snowflakes> it isn't
[17:24] <%Solace> there are "hot topics"
[17:24] <~Cathy> it's completely different
[17:24] <+WaterBomb> I'm confused
[17:24] <%Solace> not the horrible store
[17:24] <~Cathy> we're talking here about physics
[17:24] <Snowflakes> and believes
[17:24] <%Solace> but topics that people feel strongly about
[17:24] <~Cathy> the existence of an afterlife or not is purely physics
[17:24] <%Tobes> cathy I would think you of all people would respect emotional sensitivity about issues
[17:24] <~Cathy> not emotional sensitivity about physics
[17:24] <%Solace> [5:24pm] blarajan: i didn't even have any respect for you!!!
[17:24] <%Solace> lmao tfc
[17:24] <~Cathy> in case you haven't noticed, i'm interested in subjects like math and physics
[17:24] <%Solace> u know this guy
[17:25] <~Cathy> i don't consider them emotional
[17:25] <%TFC> yea i can read blara like a book
[17:25] <%Tobes> I don't care if you consider them emotional or not
[17:25] <%Tobes> but other people do
[17:25] <~Cathy> consider this
[17:25] <~Cathy> discussing evolution by natural selection will also be emotional for some religious people
[17:25] <~Cathy> but it's just biology
[17:25] <Snowflakes> indeed
[17:25] <~Cathy> natural sciences should be a safe discussion
[17:25] <%Solace> it should
[17:25] <%Solace> but it isn't
[17:26] <Snowflakes> talking about genders should be safe discussion
[17:26] <%Solace> there are people who will argue to the death about intelligent design
[17:26] <~Cathy> do you seriously not see the flaw with this analogy Snowflakes
[17:26] <+WaterBomb> natural sciences is a safe discussion, if that's where the discussion stays
[17:26] <~Cathy> we're talking about the difference between personal identity, and wrong beliefs about the universe
[17:26] <+WaterBomb> but it wasn't where it stayed
[17:26] <%Tobes> "wrong beliefs"
[17:26] <%Tobes> ...
[17:26] <~Cathy> believing in wrong physical principles isn't an identity
[17:26] <~Cathy> it's just wrong
[17:26] <%Tobes> you can disagree with people's beliefs
[17:26] <+WaterBomb> you left sciences and made a blanket statement about the afterlife, which isn't even relevant in a science discussion
[17:26] <%Tobes> but for fuck's sake
[17:26] <Snowflakes> the problem i have it
[17:27] <%Tobes> don't be so condescendingly blatant about it
[17:27] <%Solace> there are some people who dont believe there are more than two genders, cathy
[17:27] <~Cathy> i made the "blanket statement" because it's obvious
[17:27] <Snowflakes> is the emotional attachment people have
[17:27] <%Limi> an afterlife doesn't have to be material
[17:27] <+WaterBomb> lol
[17:27] <%Solace> despite the fact that peopel will argue there is only a gender binary
[17:27] <+WaterBomb> not sure why I'm even bothering
[17:27] <%Solace> ther are things outside of that too that others will argue
[17:27] <%TFC> why did afterlife even come up lol
[17:27] <~Cathy> i mean, there is a key difference between statements about physics ("there is an afterlife") and statements about social constructions like gender
[17:28] <%TFC> im surprised an argument about the existence of God hasnt started
[17:28] <%Tobes> beliefs are just as much a part of a person's identity as gender
[17:28] <~Cathy> my comments basically apply to god anyway
[17:28] <%Solace> the big g
[17:28] <~Cathy> sure, but beliefs can be wrong
[17:28] <%TFC> an argument of God does not end lol
[17:28] <%TFC> it is just a spiral
[17:28] <~Cathy> if people decide to identify wtih wrong beliefs
[17:28] <~Cathy> they can't expect us not to point out that they are wrong
[17:28] <%Tobes> gender identity can also be wrong
[17:28] <~Cathy> there's no right to believe in wrong physical principles
[17:28] <~Cathy> no they can't
[17:29] <~Cathy> that's the key difference here
[17:29] <@Hugendugen> you should be able to respect their decision
[17:29] <~Cathy> gender identity isn't a statement about the world
[17:29] <@Hugendugen> even if you're sure it's wrong
[17:29] <@Hugendugen> respect the fact that it means something to them
[17:29] <~Cathy> it's just another wrong understanding of physics, Hugendugen
[17:29] <%Limi> an afterlife doesn't need to have any sort of energy, does it
[17:29] <@Hugendugen> even so
[17:29] <%TFC> who knows limi
[17:29] <~Cathy> some people might think acceleration due to gravity near the surface of earth is 3 metres per second squared
[17:29] <~Cathy> that's wrong
[17:29] <%TFC> we cant, we aren't dead
[17:29] <~Cathy> i'm going to tell them it's wrong
[17:29] <~Cathy> it's just as wrong as thinking an afterlife exists
[17:29] <%Solace> im dead and gone
[17:29] <~Cathy> there's no reason to respect belief in wrong physical principles
[17:30] <%Solace> ask me questions about the afterlife
[17:30] <%TFC> heres one
[17:30] <~Cathy> the gender analogy seriously doesn't work
[17:30] <%TFC> if God truly existed and an afterlife were real
[17:30] <%TFC> he could say
[17:30] <%TFC> "fuck it I'm God"
[17:30] <+WaterBomb> the problem comes when you attach the word "wrong" to "anything that differs from my opinion"
[17:30] <@Hugendugen> if someone asks you to stop talking about something, you should at least respect that request
[17:30] <%TFC> and break any counter argument
[17:30] <~Cathy> i disagree Hugendugen
[17:30] <%Tobes> [17:30] <+WaterBomb> the problem comes when you attach the word "wrong" to "anything that differs from my opinion"
[17:30] <%Tobes> this
[17:30] <%Tobes> for fuck's sake
[17:30] <~Cathy> only if the request is well-founded
[17:30] <%Tobes> this
[17:30] <~Cathy> seriously, i like to talk about math, physics, biology
[17:31] <+WaterBomb> yes
[17:31] <~Cathy> those should all be safe subjects
[17:31] <+WaterBomb> they are
[17:31] <~Cathy> some people will be upset by a discussion of evolution
[17:31] <+WaterBomb> but you intentionally deviated from that subject
[17:31] <+WaterBomb> you weren't discussing math and science
[17:31] <~Cathy> yes i was
[17:31] <~Cathy> whether an afterlife exists is literally a pure question of physics
[17:31] <@Hugendugen> even if you're certain someone is wrong in a belief, if certain discussions lead to emotional distress, I think it's important to respect that
[17:31] <%Limi> does an afterlife have to be material
[17:31] <@Hugendugen> it's a matter of empathy
[17:31] <%Limi> you are making assumptions about the physics of an afterlife
[17:31] <%Limi> how do you know?
[17:31] <+WaterBomb> but it isn't, because an afterlife argument is an argument BETWEEN science and religion
[17:31] <%Tobes> anything that is a "pure" question of physics
[17:32] <%TFC> if an afterlife existed God could break a law of physics because God is God
[17:32] <~Cathy> these are valid points, Limi; you're free to discuss them
[17:32] <+WaterBomb> it's not pure science
[17:32] <%Solace> everyone believed that if u could swim u were a witch and that was considered fact.
[17:32] <Snowflakes> cathy do you think people can interprate things in various ways?
[17:32] <~Cathy> although the main discussion is largely over now
[17:32] <%Tobes> is wholly dependent on the current model of physics being infallible
[17:32] <%Tobes> hint: it might not be
[17:32] <~Cathy> you're free to argue that, Tobes
[17:32] <~Cathy> i mean, what's your point?
[17:32] <~Cathy> you could have made those points during the main discussion
[17:32] <~Cathy> they aren't relevant to whether it was about physisc
[17:32] <~Cathy> it was clearly about physics
[17:32] <%Tobes> ok so you admit I could not be wrong in assuming an afterlife exists if it fits an as-of-yet undiscovered correct model of physics?
[17:33] <~Cathy> it's a valid point to propose some unknown physics, but i would probably expect better than hand waving
[17:33] <~Cathy> like an actual model
[17:33] <~Cathy> but it's certainly something we could discuss
[17:33] <%Tobes> do you admit it is not 100% impossible
[17:33] <%Tobes> that is all I am looking for here
[17:33] <~Cathy> sure
[17:33] <~Cathy> i mean, i say it's impossible because the chance is extraordinarily low
[17:33] <~Cathy> not because it's literally impossible
[17:33] <+WaterBomb> I'm not a science person so I'm ignorant on the subject, but isn't science itself largely a collection of well-supported theories?
[17:34] <+WaterBomb> this is an honest question
[17:34] <~Cathy> and Hugendugen, it's fair to say that if something distressed somebody, perhaps it's not necessary to discuss it in this channel
[17:34] <~Cathy> no one actually disclosed distress however
[17:34] <+MichelleBranch> what did i walk in on
[17:34] <Snowflakes> hell in a bottle
[17:34] <%TFC> me being hungry
[17:34] <%Tobes> ok, so, since you can not say with 100% certainty that this assumption is incorrect
[17:34] <@Hugendugen> ok I didnt actually read the whole conversation, it was just the vibe I picked up
[17:34] <%Tobes> you cannot say "your beliefs are wrong"
[17:35] <%Tobes> in this instance
[17:35] <~Cathy> "your beliefs are wrong" is shorthand for "your beliefs are almost certainly wrong"
[17:35] <~Cathy> the chance of them being right is so low that i approximate it as 0
[17:35] <~Cathy> but i realise it's not exactly 0
[17:35] <%Tobes> which can be further shorthanded to "I disagree with your beliefs"
[17:35] <~Cathy> that's just shorthand
[17:35] <%Tobes> which people find much more palatable
[17:35] <%Tobes> and would not cause this shitstorm
[17:35] <~Cathy> i mean, we're talking about a chance that is vanishingly close to 0
[17:35] <%Tobes> I don't care about how close to 0 it is
[17:35] <%Tobes> people perceive it as greater than that
[17:35] <%Tobes> and that perception is important to them
[17:36] <%Limi> all under the assumption that an afterlife is physical
[17:36] <%Tobes> they do not like people trivialising it
[17:36] <@Hugendugen> anyway, when someone believes very strongly in something, even if it is wrong, you can go about the discussion in a lot of different ways. It's a matter of tone
[17:36] <~Cathy> Limi, that argument has no merit for various reasons
[17:36] <~Cathy> you should have made it during the main discussion
[17:36] <%Tobes> just as I'm sure you do not like people trivializing your gender identity
[17:36] <~Cathy> i would have responded to it
[17:36] <~Cathy> i don't understand why you people keep making that analogy
[17:36] <%Tobes> it is a sensitive issue that you have displayed no tact in whatsoever
[17:36] <~Cathy> this is an issue of physics
[17:36] <%Solace> cathy i think the point is that to some people it's an issue of beliefs
[17:37] <%Solace> i dont necessarily think theyre the same but it depends how you look at it
[17:37] <~Cathy> belief in (almost certainly) wrong physical principles is not some protected thing
[17:37] <+WaterBomb> ok so
[17:37] <+WaterBomb> we've gone from
[17:37] <+WaterBomb> "obviously wrong"
[17:37] <+WaterBomb> to
[17:37] <~Cathy> like seriously if somebody claims that acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the earth is 3 m/s^2
[17:37] <~Cathy> are you going to tell them they're wrong
[17:37] <+WaterBomb> "almost certainly wrong"
[17:37] <%Solace> we do protect peoples religions though
[17:37] <~Cathy> or that they're almost certainly wrong
[17:37] <~Cathy> barring some unknown physics
[17:37] <~Cathy> you're just going to tell them they're wrong
[17:37] <+MichelleBranch> i don't understand the point in ever making reference to someone's religion
[17:37] <~Cathy> there's no need to qualify it
[17:37] * Zarel (~aeo@yes.im.aeo.stop.asking) has joined #showup
[17:37] * ChanServ sets mode: +ao Zarel Zarel
[17:37] <Snowflakes> or you could be respectful and let them believe what they will
[17:38] <Snowflakes> because like you regardless of what you/they say they wont' change their mind
[17:38] <%Tobes> acceleration due to gravity is not the same thing as the belief in an afterlife
[17:38] <~Cathy> of course iti s
[17:38] <~Cathy> they're both claims about physics
[17:38] <~Cathy> and wrong claims given above are wrong
[17:38] <@Hugendugen> <~Cathy> like seriously if somebody claims that acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the earth is 3 m/s^2
[17:38] <%Limi> ._.
[17:38] <%TFC> you could mathematically prove your acceleration
[17:38] <@Hugendugen> if they believed in it strongly enough that they'd shape a large part of their life around it
[17:38] <+MichelleBranch> religion is not like an incorrect math fact
[17:38] <%TFC> there is your difference
[17:38] <@Hugendugen> I probably would be somewhat careful in the discussion, yes
[17:38] <~Cathy> religion is different from claims about the world
[17:38] <~Cathy> it would be possible to have a religion that doesn't make wrong claims
[17:39] <%Solace> but some peoples religions say the earth is 6000 years old
[17:39] <~Cathy> but a claim like "there is an afterlife" is a claim abotu the world
[17:39] * %LightBlue (Mibbit@Rolling.around.at.the.speed.of.sound) has left #showup
[17:39] * Frizy (~Frizy@synIRC-2EEE4890.lns2.cha.bigpond.net.au) has joined #showup
[17:39] * ChanServ sets mode: +h Frizy
[17:39] <~Cathy> and it's (almost certainly) wrong
[17:39] <%Tobes> "there isn't a model for god's existence"
[17:39] <%Solace> which is scientifically incorrect (as far as we know)
[17:39] <~Cathy> barring totally bizarre new physics
[17:39] <%Solace> but people believe in it
[17:39] <~Cathy> yes, Tobes, god doesn't exist either
[17:39] <%Tobes> oh boy here we go
[17:39] <%TFC> but you can't prove that
[17:39] <%TFC> i already said it
[17:39] <%TFC> that argument does not end
[17:39] <Snowflakes> idc what your believes are cathy but i'd enjoy it if you stopped generalizing your believes as everyone's
[17:39] <%TFC> it spirals
[17:39] <%Tobes> ok look
[17:39] <%Tobes> I'm an atheist
[17:39] <%Tobes> but you cannot just go and say
[17:40] <~Cathy> i recognise that there's a very slightly above zero chance that these beliefs are right
[17:40] <~Cathy> but it's like my gravity example
[17:40] <%Tobes> "god does not exist and you're wrong if you think otherwise"
[17:40] <~Cathy> the chance is so close to 0 there's no need to qualify it
[17:40] <Snowflakes> it's not your idea that we disagree with, it's how you're presenting it
[17:40] <Snowflakes> or at least that's my part
[17:40] <%TFC> how do you even put a number on it
[17:40] <@Hugendugen> as I said, it's a matter of tone
[17:40] <Snowflakes> you can say you don't believe in god
[17:40] <+MichelleBranch> why is the chance close to zero anyway
[17:40] <Snowflakes> but you cannot imo say god doesn't exist
[17:40] <@Hugendugen> not content