RE: Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?
April 3, 2016 at 5:41 am
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2016 at 5:42 am by FebruaryOfReason.)
Hang on. There is not sufficient evidence for psychopathic cloud elephants either. Does that mean I am obliged to do something greater than simply say "I don't believe psychopathic cloud elephants exist"? What would constitute a satisfactory position on psychopathic cloud elephants then?
A rejection of belief in god when there is so much directly contradictory evidence against the idea of an omnipotent, forgiving, creative god who did it all 6,000 years ago (and has taken a very extensive sabbatical since) is not simply a lack of belief. It is a recognition of the basic laws of logic. If I say I believe in A and someone comes along and demonstrates that A cannot possibly hold true, it is my intellectual duty to discard my belief. No other action is required.
Do I have to then also come up with directly contradictory evidence against psychopathic cloud elephants? Am I obliged to refute each and every assertion that anyone else makes?
This is an attempt by the religitards to shift the burden of proof from themselves, and assert that they are right by default even when seven other bunches of religitards are making completely incompatible assertions at the same time.
A lack of belief in god may not be sufficient to convince a bunch of intellectual cowards to discard their security blankets. But for those of us who can't ignore the massive holes in those beliefs, it is a natural position that requires no further justification.
A rejection of belief in god when there is so much directly contradictory evidence against the idea of an omnipotent, forgiving, creative god who did it all 6,000 years ago (and has taken a very extensive sabbatical since) is not simply a lack of belief. It is a recognition of the basic laws of logic. If I say I believe in A and someone comes along and demonstrates that A cannot possibly hold true, it is my intellectual duty to discard my belief. No other action is required.
Do I have to then also come up with directly contradictory evidence against psychopathic cloud elephants? Am I obliged to refute each and every assertion that anyone else makes?
This is an attempt by the religitards to shift the burden of proof from themselves, and assert that they are right by default even when seven other bunches of religitards are making completely incompatible assertions at the same time.
A lack of belief in god may not be sufficient to convince a bunch of intellectual cowards to discard their security blankets. But for those of us who can't ignore the massive holes in those beliefs, it is a natural position that requires no further justification.
I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty. I must not be nasty.
