Women's clothes?

[I_am_not_mafia]

If you can't prove a negative then why do you claim there is no God as if you know?

The very concept of a god is illogical and contravenes what we know about the laws of physics.

The probability of there being something that you would recognise as a god is negligible.

Do you worry about a meteorite falling on your head when you go outdoors? No. You act as if it won't happen because it is so unlikely.

[Losty]

Cleveland rocks.

Cleveland sucks. Cleveland is the stinky dirty armpit of America. But the Drew Carey show is awesome.

[c172]

Boy, I got ninjaed on that one.

[popsthebuilder]

If you can't prove a negative then why do you claim there is no God as if you know?

The very concept of a god is illogical and contravenes what we know about the laws of physics.

The probability of there being something that you would recognise as a god is negligible.

Do you worry about a meteorite falling on your head when you go outdoors? No. You act as if it won't happen because it is so unlikely.

What? The belief in a creative force(God) in no way contradicts the observations of scientific laws made observable by GOD.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The very concept of a god is illogical and contravenes what we know about the laws of physics.

The probability of there being something that you would recognise as a god is negligible.

Do you worry about a meteorite falling on your head when you go outdoors? No. You act as if it won't happen because it is so unlikely.

What? The belief in a creative force(God) in no way contradicts the observations of scientific laws made observable by GOD.

The belief doesn't. You can believe anything you like without contradicting scientific laws.

But the existence of an actual god as you probably would define it (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal etc) contravenes the laws of thermodynamics for a start. And if an entity is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics then how can it even think?

But of course I'm guessing here what your definition of a god would be and I don't want to strawman you, so please provide a concise definition of what is and isn't a god and we can then discuss it.

[popsthebuilder]

If you can't prove a negative then why do you claim there is no God as if you know?

I only claim, that no one has presented sufficient evidence for the existence of gods and until someone does - I'm going to disregard gods, in the same way I disregard Tooth Fairy, Aliens and Underpants Gnomes.

If your waiting on someone else to prove it to you you may be waiting a while. No real truth can be expressed by another, fully.

I wish you the best.
Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Yeah, right.
This study of yours were used to access the opinion of a bunch of faculty participants.
Opinion is not evidence, this opinion of a bunch of faculty participants is not anything near a 100 miles of evidence for women around the world being oppressed and discriminated against by a pay gap, all it shows is that the very few amount of participants in the study are highly opinionated, perhaps sexist, nothing more.

So what exactly would be evidence? Whatever is presented to you, you say it is not evidence. You've not only moved the goal posts, you've now removed them from the field completely. Just like a theist when presented with evidence of evolution.

You do realise that as with all scientific studies, there's never a single bit of evidence that proves something either true or false don't you? You are guilty of Binary religious thinking

This is why we collect a body of evidence and create theories which are testable. This was just one piece of evidence. There are plenty of other studies:

https://www.hastac.org/blogs/superadmin/...Dh.twitter

http://www.thelocal.de/jobs/article/wome...s-than-men

If you want to realize how dismissible these "studies" are, go to google and search for "a study confirms that god exists" or "researchers prove god"
You will be presented with "proofs" for Hell, Heaven, God and more atrocities.
It's always advisable to take these things with a grain of salt.

How exactly are they comparable? Just saying they are comparable without describing why is pointless and can be ignored.

You have theories. Conspiracy theories.
You don't have evidence.

Say you conducted a study, you select a random 10,000 people and you ask them if they have had an experience with God, say the majority of them reply with "Yes, I've had an experience with God.". Will this prove the existence of God?
No.
Because they are not evidence.
If you want people to believe such a strong claim you are making you'd want very strong evidence, opinions are easily dismissible, so better luck next time.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

And by the way, what is that dumbass going on about? Can someone introduce the concept of burden of proof to him? .__.

[I_am_not_mafia]

You have theories. Conspiracy theories.
You don't have evidence.

Yet you can't even say what evidence you would accept. This tells me that whatever I come up with you will say isn't evidence, despite the numerous statistics and studies given to you.

Ironic really that you are using the exact same tactics that creationists use to dismiss evolution.

[popsthebuilder]

And by the way, what is that dumbass going on about? Can someone introduce the concept of burden of proof to him? .__.

The burden of proof goes both ways

I say there is a God

You say there is no God

Burden is equal

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.