(December 1, 2010 at 6:44 pm)ziggystardust Wrote: I am wondering if other atheists would agree when viewing debates between Atheists and Theists, that the generally in these debates theists while saying little to nothing which has any substance. While the Atheists have a lot to say which has substance, while they don't preform as great when it comes to style.
I do not know if I am right, it is just my observations. Anyway I don't give a rat arse about style, crap which smells good is still crap to me. However a lot of other fellow human beings are impressed by people who look good, talk good, have degrees and doctorates.
There is a tendency to spout folksy crap that sounds good but has no substance.
A good example is from the film contact.
Jodie fosters character is talking to a priest about the non-existance of god because of the lack of proof and he retorts.
"Do you love your father"
to which Jodie replies "yes"
And says "prove it"
Sounds good doesnt it BUT.
1: Love is a recognised 'real' human emotion.
2: It is usual for sons and daughters to love their parents in a normal family background.
3:Jodie fosters character had not shown any sign of 'not' loving her father.
4: there had been no abuse or neglect.
5: jodie fosters character was not mentally ill in any way.
Given 1-5 it would seem the onous would be on the reverand vicar or whatever matthew maconahy was to disprove her love as love would be the natural default position.
A good (if apocryphal) example of the question.
The mention of default position made me think.
My default position is that there is no god and I'd need massive proof to shift me from that position, I bet with theists the position is reversed.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
