Firstly, I'd like to object to your ad-hominem accusation. Ad-hominem would be something like "why should we listen to Jeffonthenet? The guy is a total crook anyway." I haven't once done anything of the sort. Please do not mistake my attacks against your arguments as attacks against your personal character. Personal offense and insult have no place in a debate.
Well, yes. That's true, but of course that's how the legal system works. Innocence is presumed until guilt is proven. If someone makes an accusation of sexual assault it gets investigated, and if there is no evidence that the accusation is true, it gets dismissed. It seems like you're arguing in such cases we should presume guilt. In addition, this seems more like an appeal to emotion than anything. "Who dare argue against sexual assault victims?" It's a poor tactic.
The difference is that we know that 1x1 is 1. For that reason we can deduce that it is not 0. Therefore, if you want to show that belief in God is not irrational, you need to show what it is in place of being irrational. With that said, you have yet to show how belief in god is anything other than irrational. "Not irrational," if it does not simply mean "rational," is far too vague.
So you mean to say you believe that the god of Jesus Christ (remembering that in this debate we're talking about this god specifically) spent a few thousand years masquerading as Zeus, Thor, Athena, Amun-Ra, and Baal before settling down as Yahweh? I don't use this argument to suggest there is no god, but to demonstrate that there is nothing to suggest there is more reason to believe in your god over any others.
And what, pray tell, do you mean by atheist apologetics? I don't think I've come up with any apologies for my atheism, I simply see no evidence of God. No need for an excuse there.
Again, I'd like to point out that the biggest issue is the vagueness of your argument. If belief in God is not irrational, but you're not arguing that it's rational, then what exactly is it that you're arguing? If you're simply saying "no, it's not irrational," then what is it instead? You're rejecting my assertion and submitting nothing in its place, and so because of this it appears to be half an argument.
Quote: If it is rational to disbelieve a claim because evidence cannot be produced for this claim… if that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as Hitchens said, then it is true that a common instance where children who are victims of sexual assault, only long after tell someone about it when the evidence is gone, must be disbelieved and their assertions dismissed.
Well, yes. That's true, but of course that's how the legal system works. Innocence is presumed until guilt is proven. If someone makes an accusation of sexual assault it gets investigated, and if there is no evidence that the accusation is true, it gets dismissed. It seems like you're arguing in such cases we should presume guilt. In addition, this seems more like an appeal to emotion than anything. "Who dare argue against sexual assault victims?" It's a poor tactic.
Quote: I am not trying to prove a negative, only to argue for it. And it would seem that one who tries to argue that 1x1 is not 0, is also acting silly by this logic, as he is arguing for a negative statement.
The difference is that we know that 1x1 is 1. For that reason we can deduce that it is not 0. Therefore, if you want to show that belief in God is not irrational, you need to show what it is in place of being irrational. With that said, you have yet to show how belief in god is anything other than irrational. "Not irrational," if it does not simply mean "rational," is far too vague.
Quote: I don't see why the fact that it was only 2000 years ago that God fully revealed Himself or that a few thousand years earlier he had revealed more of Himself than previously available suggests that there is no God.
So you mean to say you believe that the god of Jesus Christ (remembering that in this debate we're talking about this god specifically) spent a few thousand years masquerading as Zeus, Thor, Athena, Amun-Ra, and Baal before settling down as Yahweh? I don't use this argument to suggest there is no god, but to demonstrate that there is nothing to suggest there is more reason to believe in your god over any others.
Quote: One could also likewise accuse you of using "nothing more than atheist apologetics" here as you have accused my of using nothing more than Christian apologetics.
And what, pray tell, do you mean by atheist apologetics? I don't think I've come up with any apologies for my atheism, I simply see no evidence of God. No need for an excuse there.
Again, I'd like to point out that the biggest issue is the vagueness of your argument. If belief in God is not irrational, but you're not arguing that it's rational, then what exactly is it that you're arguing? If you're simply saying "no, it's not irrational," then what is it instead? You're rejecting my assertion and submitting nothing in its place, and so because of this it appears to be half an argument.
You really believe in a man who has helped to save the world twice, with the power to change his physical appearance? An alien who travels though time and space--in a police box?!? ![[Image: TARDIS.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.smileyvault.com%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F11195%2FTARDIS.gif)
