RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 4:57 pm
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 4:59 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 2, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: I never said it did. however, it should be noted that even if you don't necessarily believe there is no God if you believe the proposition of God is less rational than the proposition of no God, then you must have evidence to support this
No I don't. I simply have to find that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof.
Quote: even if there were no evidence for both sides, that only rationalizes neutral agnosticism.
Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism concerns what is known and/or knowable.
Most atheists do not claim to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. Therefore, most atheists are also agnostic.
There are only 2 possibilities: theism or atheism.
It's really simple, belief is the psychological state in which one holds that premise to be true.
To be a theist, one has to hold the premise that a god or gods exist is true. ANYTHING else is atheism.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
