(May 30, 2013 at 6:55 pm)Colanth Wrote:By criticism it in that manner, you are providing some justification for you rejecting it, which is exactly what I said ought to be done.(May 30, 2013 at 6:34 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: As long as there are eye-witness claims or purportedly to be so, there will always be some justification required to reject it, you cannot reject an alleged eye-witness without some sort of justification.An "eyewitness account" given third (or hundredth) hand is about as compelling a reason to accept as "because I said so". Eyewitness accounts are generally unreliable, and "I read it in a book that's the 13th translation of the original - which may be fact or fiction" makes an eyewitness account look like positive proof.
Not seeing any evidence of any gods, nor any need for one to explain anything, is sufficient reason to not accept claims of one. But telling a theist that there's no actual evidence of any god is just opening yourself up to a barrage of nonsense.
That's simply not true, I'm not discussing the issue of god right now because that's opening up a can of worms but there are an awful lot of things I don't see everyday, yet I believe they happened, I'm sure it's the same for you. We are not all-seeing, and to rely upon our individual faculties as a criterion to discern fact from fiction isn't going to get anyone very far in the real world. The idea that you have to see to believe is false, you can see things and not have to believe it and sometimes you can't see things but you believe it. Did you see the universe form as outlined by the big bang theory? Clearly not, but it's a plausible and believable theory.
