(December 3, 2011 at 6:54 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: So basically, Lucid, you are arguing that since arguments fall short for proving or disproving a god, you say that it is fine to be a theist in this situation, but atheists have to go even further to argue their postion.
That atheism is not a simple disbelief, but an active belief that a god doesnt exist.
So, in a sense, you are arguing that belief in a god is the default position? And those who disagree have to prove beyond a doubt that a god does not exist.
..and since it is impossible to confirm with 100% accuracy that a god exists or not, the atheist is doomed to fail because he cannot support his belief that a god doesnt exist.
It almost seems like it's all been set up.
How can one disprove the non-existent after all?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
