The point is that faith itself is absurd. So if you don't believe on evidence and "have faith" - then your irrational and might as well believe in FSM. In other words, if so many religious people weren't religious and it was an anomaly like a REAL FSM believer would be an anomaly - then you'd be considered a loony.
Because believing in a big man in the sky for no reason is lunacy. Faith is not only not a good reason - is it even a reason at all? Isn't it just bare asserion? "I have faith". Or in other words: "There's no evidence. So I have to have faith".
If there was actual evidence of God then it would be rational to believe in him (if the evidence was strong enough of course) - you wouldn't need to claim faith!
Then burden of proof is on those who make claims that have no evidence supporting them. When people claim that God exists then the burden of proof is on them therefore - because there is no evidence of God.
I don't believe in God. Apparently me asking for evidence means that the conflict is with me (because I'm 'non-religious').
I don't believe in the FSM either so I guess the conflict is with myself then too eh? So if someone hypothetical believed genuinely 100% in the FSM and I asked for evidence then that would be absurd? The conflict is with me - not their absurd FSM believing brains.
If someone actually believed in the FSM you'd think they were a loony. The belief is indeed totally loony. So is belief in God. The conflict is with those who believe in the absurd with no evidence to support their belief (they "have faith") not those who have minds that are free from believing in the supernatural.
Missed the point have I? I just corrected you on what I thought was completely incorrect. You don't need to show why something ISN'T drivel. If something's drivel then its assumed to be drivel until someone DOES show it isn't.
God is assumed to be drivel untill there is evidence of him.
So: its NOT ridiculous to require evidence of God. On the contrary, its ridiculous to believe in God WITHTOUT requiring evidence.
Because believing in a big man in the sky for no reason is lunacy. Faith is not only not a good reason - is it even a reason at all? Isn't it just bare asserion? "I have faith". Or in other words: "There's no evidence. So I have to have faith".
If there was actual evidence of God then it would be rational to believe in him (if the evidence was strong enough of course) - you wouldn't need to claim faith!
Then burden of proof is on those who make claims that have no evidence supporting them. When people claim that God exists then the burden of proof is on them therefore - because there is no evidence of God.
I don't believe in God. Apparently me asking for evidence means that the conflict is with me (because I'm 'non-religious').
I don't believe in the FSM either so I guess the conflict is with myself then too eh? So if someone hypothetical believed genuinely 100% in the FSM and I asked for evidence then that would be absurd? The conflict is with me - not their absurd FSM believing brains.
If someone actually believed in the FSM you'd think they were a loony. The belief is indeed totally loony. So is belief in God. The conflict is with those who believe in the absurd with no evidence to support their belief (they "have faith") not those who have minds that are free from believing in the supernatural.
(March 1, 2009 at 1:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You've missed the point EF. Nice rant about why you shouldn't believe in a God. Maybe another time
Missed the point have I? I just corrected you on what I thought was completely incorrect. You don't need to show why something ISN'T drivel. If something's drivel then its assumed to be drivel until someone DOES show it isn't.
God is assumed to be drivel untill there is evidence of him.
So: its NOT ridiculous to require evidence of God. On the contrary, its ridiculous to believe in God WITHTOUT requiring evidence.
