RE: Why atheism is a belief.
December 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2011 at 5:09 pm by goodcake.)
(December 12, 2011 at 7:22 am)Ace Otana Wrote:Quote:That you disbelieve something without proving means it's a belief
I know you're banned an all but I love turning bad arguments around and throwing it back at them.
You disbelieve in Roger Rabbit right? So based on your argument - you must have proof that Roger Rabbit don't exist.
So....demonstrate it.
Typical counter they'd use is special pleading but of course once they use a fallacious argument...they've lost the argument.
I managed to hack into the system again...somehow. Anyway...
It's interesting that the atheist argument often appeals to prove the negation of a god, by equating the existence of something which fulfils no function or purpose (such as fairies, santa Roger Rabbit, FSM) whatsoever, and this somehow equates to the equivalent of a negating a god, first cause, unmoved mover etc.
If you think that the inability to disprove a leprechaun effectively discounts the possibility of a god, then what do the existence of the fairies etc account for? And in the absence of evidence for possibilities for 'existence', what valid reason do you have to eqaute fairies with a god?
I remain open to the concept of a god. Many seem to be confused by defining something pointless/riduclous and then equating this to the concept of a god.
If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so, and provide a validated alternative, otherwise you are unable to justify your position of negating a god by default.
It seems that being an atheist gives you some control and confidence in having a 'valid' position, yet you oddly lack the ability to validate your position.
