RE: Overstating the case for Athiesm.
March 7, 2014 at 5:31 pm
(This post was last modified: March 7, 2014 at 5:32 pm by Simon Moon.)
(March 7, 2014 at 4:15 pm)rsb Wrote: Well my definition is slightly different. Atheists should believe based upon good evidence that any specific theology is incorrect, including the many postulated gods of the various theologies. This is based upon specific claims of each theology being provably false.
Then you do not seem to understand where the burden of proof lies.
Theists, all of them, are making the claim that a god or gods exists. It is not up to me to disprove all their postulated gods, or that their theology is incorrect.
It is not up to me to define their god, then prove it doesn't exist. It is up to them to define their god, then provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned support their case.
Until they do, I have zero justification to accept their god/theology claims.
Quote:The historical lack or specific or multiple existence of Jesus is not a relevant fact with enough evidence to make a difference.
I think we agree here. The existence of a historical Jesus offers no evidence for the god claims about him.
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.
