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."
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.
Exact reason why there is no actual consistent non-contradictory atheism view, only agnosticism and theism can be logically sound.
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."
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.
If we know that it cannot work, then we have evidence of no X, where X is the possibility of homeopathy working.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Correct
How do I downvote this? You went to high school and learned the definition of a null hypothesis?
Welcome to HN where people who have not socially or emotionally developed much in their life share their HS tier thoughts.
Huh?
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?"
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.
It's also important to distinguish "I don't believe X" from "I believe not-X".
English is poorly suited to expressing this distinction.
No. What happened here is you confused semantics for logic.
[flagged]