Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[Neo-Scholastic]

The proposition "God exists"? is either true or not true - credulous or incredulous. Those are your only options as per the law of the excluded middle. I feel that if you are incredulous then you should be able to adequately give an account for it. The idea that the default stance is non-belief is based on a non-sequitur. Even if there is no compelling reason to accept either P or not-P, it does not mean one should accept not-P. That is an unjustified move from 'is' to 'ought'.

That's some bullshit right there. I flew around the house this morning via mind-waves. If you think the burden of proof is on you to account for how I didn't do that, you're a fool.

For your example, I am incredulous and happy to admit that I am so. In this case you have presented evidence in the form of personal testimony. For starters I believe the evidence is insufficient because 1) I do not think your account is trustworthy and 2) your testimony has no collaboration. The point is that incredulity entails various beliefs.

With respect the proposition "God exists" atheists do not simply lack belief. In fact their atheism entails many beliefs- beliefs about evidence presented by theists. They are basically saying they believe the evidence in favor of the proposition is not sufficient. All I am asking is for atheists to do is own up to their own incredulity which in practical terms means being willing to defend their objections.

Now the second question is whether the default assumption should be in favor of any given proposition or not. That depends on whether the belief is properly basic. In the case of the proposition "God exists" I believe that qualifies as properly basic. Nearly everyone has some apprehension of the sublime and ineffable. These are naturally attributed to the divine whereas to attribute those experiences to something else requires justification.

---

Lately I've been finding it interesting that many of the same people who say that personal beliefs regarding religion are meaningless to them, somehow think that personal beliefs regarding gender identity are sacrosanct, to the point of wanting government to force others to accept such beliefs, or at least the practical ramifications of them.

Maybe because religion is what you choose to believe, and gender identity and sexuality is what you are?

Sexuality is what you objectively are biologically. Gender identity is what you subjectively believe you are.