RE: Atheism
June 26, 2018 at 7:09 pm
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2018 at 7:21 pm by Simon Moon.)
(June 26, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Let me repeat this one more time .WERE NOT ASSERTING THEIR WRONG !. Only that they case for belief sucks. And their supposed evidence simply is not .
It really us that simple. I thought my courtroom analogy would help, but sadly it did not.
(June 26, 2018 at 4:54 pm)SteveII Wrote:(June 26, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So, lets sat I reject the evidence presented by the prosecution for the man's guilt. I can still find him not guilty, but I am not asserting he is innocent.
As a juror, I am tasked to either vote guilty or not guilty. I am not tasked to vote guilty or innocent.
You are making a judgement on the quality of evidence and registering that conclusion. Presumably you have reasons why you don't think they are conclusive of guilt. Any reasoning and conclusions are not simply a "lack of belief" as to the question. You made a series of conclusions and believe those conclusions to be true.
Yes, I am making judgements on the evidence that it is not sufficient to prove the defendant guilty. I lack belief that the defendant is guilty. This does not mean that I believe the defendant is innocent. It means that the prosecutor's case failed to meet its burden of proof.
I may believe the defendant is innocent, but that is a different prong of the dilemma. And, just like the defense does not have to prove his client innocent in a court, I do not have to defend the position that I believe gods do not exist in a debate.
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.