The nature of belief. That was my first argument here. I think you guys believe their is not god, and that that is a matter of faith. I personally think there is a few (gods), and that is a matter of faith. It is when no-god is "scientifically verifiable fact" and theists have some mental disorder that things get out of hand. We all believe something, we all take a lot of things on faith alone. The is my version of skepticism, to know that what we don't know. And if you really push, what we don't know is 99% of it. It is possibilities, gray areas. It is possible there is no god, but I think that less likely, so I am a theist. When some atheists step up to the plate with "There is no god, everyone knows that" and treats it like a verifiable fact (verifiable to others) I call him/her to prove what they are saying. Knowing there is no proof, god or no-god is a matter of faith, not science.
That is the silly "burden-of-proof-trap", as I have referenced it before. I make a statement of possibility "There might be a god", or of personal opinion "I think there is a god". I get jumped with "prove it!" and I politely say I cannot prove it, and I have not made an objective statement requiring proof. So then comes the "There is no god, and you are silly to believe something different" which is a much more objective statement. And I say, oh, prove there is no god (something that can't really be done) and they say "No, you believe in god, you prove her" which is diversionary, because is is not in what you believe that makes the need for proof, but the content of the statement. I think there is a god. I cannot prove that I think there is a god, you will have to take my word on the fact that I think there is god. That is subjective. Some of the more militant, fanatical atheists would say there is no god, objectively. That he/she has no god, and I should have no god, and there is no god for anyone. That is a statement demanding proof, not because of it's point (which as a negative cannot be fully proven) but only because of its stance. It's treatment as pure honest fact.
Ugh. That was some kind of mental flatulence. Excuse me.
-Pip
That is the silly "burden-of-proof-trap", as I have referenced it before. I make a statement of possibility "There might be a god", or of personal opinion "I think there is a god". I get jumped with "prove it!" and I politely say I cannot prove it, and I have not made an objective statement requiring proof. So then comes the "There is no god, and you are silly to believe something different" which is a much more objective statement. And I say, oh, prove there is no god (something that can't really be done) and they say "No, you believe in god, you prove her" which is diversionary, because is is not in what you believe that makes the need for proof, but the content of the statement. I think there is a god. I cannot prove that I think there is a god, you will have to take my word on the fact that I think there is god. That is subjective. Some of the more militant, fanatical atheists would say there is no god, objectively. That he/she has no god, and I should have no god, and there is no god for anyone. That is a statement demanding proof, not because of it's point (which as a negative cannot be fully proven) but only because of its stance. It's treatment as pure honest fact.
Ugh. That was some kind of mental flatulence. Excuse me.
-Pip
