(January 17, 2024 at 9:52 pm)Ahriman Wrote:(January 17, 2024 at 4:30 pm)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.
Lol right, because you don't want it to be true. And yes, you are asking too much.
Yeah, right, wanting to have good standards of evidence, and valid and sound logic to support one's beliefs is "asking too much".
So, lets say you are presented with a new supernatural claim. By what method do you use in order to determine if you should believe it or not?
What method did you use to determine which gods you should believe exist, and which don't exist?
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.
