Switching Religions, like switching toothpastes

Ryan, here's where the problem lies.

You expect the believers on this board to bear the burden of proof as to the existence of God. Why is that? If you are so tired of us believing this 'nonsense', and you start threads to try and debunk said 'nonsense', why would the burden of proof be on you us? It's not. It's on you as to the non-existence of God.

Just as you cannot disprove the existence of God, we cannot prove it to you. But then you take that as your 'proof' that God doesn't exist! It doesn't connect. It's not logical. It's a leap of faith on your part.
 
It should never be the burden of the non-believer to prove something does NOT exist.

And this isn't just religion, this is with anything.

If I thought there was an invisible elephant in my driveway it would not be up to you to prove it was not there...it would be up to the me, the person purporting that there is something out there which cannot be seen, to prove its existence. In the absence of such proof, I should not be able to say "well, YOU can't prove it's NOT there, so that's a leap of faith on your part".

Also, when it comes to religion, it would be impossible for anyone to "prove" to you that God doesn't exist, because you've convinced yourself that he does. That's quite convenient, I'm sure you can agree to that.

Tell us what it would take to "prove" to you that your God doesn't exist and then perhaps we could play ball. Until that point you're not being intellectually honest.
 
I also find it frustrating/irritating when it's said that the belief that there is no God is as big a "leap of faith" as the belief that there is one.

Belief that something that cannot be proven does not exist is logical. Perhaps you disagree with the belief, but you cannot disagree that it is the logical decision.

If I cannot see a duck on my roof, the belief that there is no duck is the logical belief. It is not a "leap of faith" in the same sense that it would be a "leap of faith" to believe a duck is actually up there.

This is the tactic of all believers. Reduce the rejection of God to a "leap of faith" in order to equate your belief in the supernatural to my belief in the actual. Sorry, that doesn't fly.
 
sawbonz - i understand where you're coming from. i tend to think of myself as agnostic with a strong lean to atheism.

i don't think it's fair to equate atheism and theism in the way you do, however. i think atheism has far more evidence on its side than you suggest, its just not "evidence" to the theism crowd. however, their view is clouded since they wouldn't accept anything as "evidence" that they are wrong.

show me a religious person who is open to the suggestion that god doesn't exist and i'll show you an agnostic.

but yes, the only perfectly logical position on the topic is agnostic...but only because the official position is "i take no official position".
 
netslave, "atheist" is the combination of two parts: A + Theist.

A=lacking
Theist= belief in deities
--->an atheist is one who lacks a belief in deities.

Lacking a belief in deities is the most basic rational structure of our minds because it is not part of the natural world, with natural being defined as that which we can test, experiment with, observe with our five senses, and interpret laws from. If we cannot ground our philosophy in these five senses, how do we distinguish that which resolves strictly in our minds with that which is actually part of the universe?

I like the Matrix analogy. The Matrix could theoretically be happening. But is it? Anything could be true, so how do we evaluate what is real and what isn't? Science is the best tool for that because it uses reason in cooperation with empiricism. That's not denying the beauty of love, art, and friendship, it's distinguishing between the natural world and the human mind, two equally amazing things.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top