Annoying Atheist Arguments

[genkaus]

There wouldn't really be a good reason to believe it to be true if there isn't any evidence for the Lochness Monster. You can associate the Monster with true objective moral values and people can say how they feel the presence of the Monster within speaking to them in their heart, but that wouldn't be evidence. Only ship with a sonar on could provide the real evidence of something if it's real, physical, detectable and actually there. This is the atheists view of religion in general, it isn't specific to any one specific claim. Non-belief in the Lochness Monster doesn't count as a belief in anything. There would still be all the big questions like why does the universe exist and where do you go when you die but the best thing you can really say is that it probably doesn't have anything to do the Lochness Monster, it seems like something people would make up. So there were eyewitness reports of the Monster but you can't just assume those reports are reliable enough to rest your faith in eternal salvation upon as tempting as it would be.

Actually, non-belief in the Loch Ness monster counts as belief in the proposition that there is no Loch Ness monster. Since there is no evidence for that thing, not believing in it is the right thing to do. What is not right is saying that your belief is not a belief.

---

Then, and I mean this in the kindest possible manner, you're wrong. A position of neutrality isn't a belief. If I were to say that I'm going to actively deny the existence of the LM, then that would be a belief.

There is no position of neutrality between true and false. It doesn't matter if you actively deny the existence of LM or do so passively. Once you deny it, it becomes a belief.

---

It's that you would really be neutral about the Lochness Monster you would not believe in it's existence unless there was evidence for it's existence. That would be the default if you're not making a special case for it, or if you're grasp on reality is loose and you will believe anything without evidence for no reason.

Or not believe in anything without evidence. Neutrality is not possible once confronted with the concept and even if you position is negative by default, it is still as negative position.