Snowflake? Coming from the guy that's clearly triggered himself by my argument. I have no problem with people arguing against religion. I just don't like people who think they can say a god doesn't exist simply because they don't know. Thanks for the definition of science, but it doesn't help you. They experiment. They don't make definitive statements on what they do not know, unlike what you did. I simply pointed out that your statement was flawed from the start because of your hypocrisy. You can't say that a god exists, nor can you say that one does not exist - at least, not without being hypocritical anyways. Sorry if you can't have a discussion without getting upset. Don't put your beliefs out there if you're unwilling to have them challenged.

Except that's not a fact. Proof is required to say something exists, yes, but lack of proof does not allow you to say that something does not exist. Common sense, and science, will tell you that.

It's impossible to argue with someone who cherry picks what they deem as evidence. There's plenty of evidence - not empircal - but evidence nonetheless that supports the idea of metaphysical beings. There's books from witnesses to events they describe from many religions. That doesn't prove anything, but it most definitely creates a basis for the not-so-far-fetched idea of there being a metaphysical being greater than humans.

You can't say that there are no living organisms on Earth that aren't known to mankind simply because they aren't yet discovered. Just as you cannot say that there is no god just because you don't have proof. Argue against a religion all you want, but please, be intelligent with your argument, otherwise I can easily argue against your incorrect statement as I just now did. But please, continue to defer to calling me a triggered snowflake when you don't have a good response.

I thought you were trying to insult me at first and then I read what you quoted lol. I was gonna +rep but gotta spread.