(August 18, 2023 at 7:50 am)LinuxGal Wrote:(August 18, 2023 at 7:04 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: I have no objection to believing in a god as long as proof based upon a rational standard of knowledge is forthcoming. Is that too much to ask? But surely theists can’t expect me to adopt their beliefs on the basis of what has been presented thus far. Every “proof” I’ve heard and every piece of evidence I’ve seen for the existence of god(s) is easily countered by rational evidence and arguments to the contrary. No convincing evidence for the existence of any deity has ever emerged. But I’m more than willing to listen to theistic arguments or view theistic evidence as long as cross-examination is permitted. As conditions now stand, theology rests far more on superstition and faith than upon facts and reason.
Theology rests on explaining the evidence away, even the "evidence" contained within their own scripture. One way of doing that is changing the meaning of words on the fly. We sent five probes into interstellar space and they never bumped into the "firmament" that has the sun and moon and windows for rain? Well, Raqia doesn't really mean "that which is stamped or beaten out"...as though it were metal, no, Raqia always meant a thin layer of air all along. Atheists just refuse to accept that.
Ah, yes, the apologist's favorite ploy: The Bible MEANS something other than what it SAYS.
"The world is my country; all of humanity are my brethren; and to do good deeds is my religion." (Thomas Paine)