(March 7, 2014 at 7:07 pm)rsb Wrote: "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."
Well living in the real world, and not a philosophy department, I think I do have an obligation to actively disprove every evil, godforsaken, hate filled political warlord who is abusing theology to promote his power base. It is called being a citizen. And I have an obligation to help the people they are lying to. Just my view of the world.
When people who happen to believe in a good also believe in justice and democracy, and it aligns with my views of moral behavior, I will not refuse to work with them just because they happen to believe fairy tails. For an example of this, look at the recent history of the justice system in Texas. They killed an innocent man, and as a result a lot of people who are bible thumpers have admitted they should not pretend to know things they don't know. Perhaps they can eventually admit that about all sorts of things.
But now you are talking about a different subject.
I thought we were discussing the case for atheism. Now you are talking about the case for anti-theism.
The case for atheism is that theists have not met their burden of proof. That is all that is required to be an atheist.
As far as anti-theism goes, we're on the same page.
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.
