|
I believe it takes more of a leap to say there is no God than it does to say there is a God. To say
there is no God says that you know everything about everything. Which no one knows that much.
Also, there is plenty of evidence that God exists for those that are willing to open their eyes to
see it. Evidences exist in the physical world, the spiritual world, through philosophy and reason,
and in our selves. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Without knowing anything about you, should I assume that you are a sick and venal career criminal
(rape, child molestation, theft, murder, etc.) or should I assume that you have never been
arrested nor committed a crime? Since I don't know you, you expect me to the latter, and I do.
And yet, without any evidence to demonstrate a "god", you assume that one exists while atheists
refuse to believe in something in the absense of evidence. We assume false until proven true
about "god" in the same way we assume it about you and any criminal activity you might engage in.
Atheists apply the same burden of proof in all cases, yet hypochristians like you want different
standards. If you really want to prove that you "walk with cheezus", then do it: You're presumed
guilty until proven innocent if you are ever charged with a crime.
Or, you can stop acting like most christians and actually show some decency by accepting the fact
that "false until proven true" applies to your "god". If you do, that doesn't prevent you from
believing in it or being convinced, it merely prevents you from claiming it's proven and prevents
you from trying to force that belief on others.
Oh, wait, I forgot: Forcing your belief onto others is your intent and goal. How silly of
me.
Edit:
If godbots want "true until proven false" for their "god", then it applied to them too: guilty
until proven innocent if they're accused of a crime.
If godbots want "innocent until proven guilty" for themselves, then their "god" myth is false
until proven true.
Demanding it be any other way is hypochristianity (or whatever cult a godbot belongs to).
|
| |
 K9  25 Sep 2008 04:29
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
When forced to make a decision logic dictates you must assume that for which there is no evidence,
does not exist. So no; Atheism does not represent the same leap of faith that religion does. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I follow the falsification principle, lack of evidence that something does not exist is not evidence
it does exist. There is no evidence that God doesn't exist, but there is also no evidence that many
things exist, this doesn't prove or even suggest their existence.
Indeed (due to the falsification principle) I believe that due to the entirely un-disprovable nature
of God it is a nonsensical concept. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We don't "jump to conclusions" on this. We ARRIVE at a conclusion based on the evidence. I don't
believe in gods for the same reason I don't believe in elves, fairies, the Bogeyman, Santa Claus,
Bigfoot, flying saucers, and the Bermuda triangle. (Which I or other family members have overflown
about 40 times.) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This statement is flawed! Atheists believe there is no god based on lack of evidence. Theists
believe there is a god on FAITH. Faith has nothing to do with evidence. The statement is FLAWED. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kk listen There is zero evidence of gods existence. If the idea of god had never occurred in
anybody's mind would we be jumping to conclusions by saying god doesn't exist? No its just that
since the idea of god occurred and people have become so affiliated with it that its now a belief to
not belief in god.
There can't be evidence for the lack of existence because if it never existed then it never left
anything behind to show it didn't exist. Your logic is flawed because you are assuming that evidence
can exist for the inexistence of something. Take dragons for a example there is no evidence of their
existence and since most people don't believe in them they are thought of as unreal now if most
people thought that god didn't exist it would be considered as inexistant also. Common opinion is a
very powerful thing. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Religious and non religious people have no evidence anyway. So it doesn't matter. One old dusty
book is not evidence of a deity. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I made a judgement based on the lack of evidence. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
