(July 5, 2013 at 9:50 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Ok genkaus, I see your point, but I don't agree with it, here's why.
If you reacted the same way to claims of unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows and the chuppacabra, ufos, bigfoot, yeti, (insert other mythical creatures i can't come up with right this second), then you'd be consistent. You'd also be extremely busy. If you do not react the same way then perhaps you want to ask yourself why does god, having the same amount of evidence as ll the creatures listed so far, warrants your attention more than these creatures?
Meanwhile, there are important things to learn like economics, science, politics, history, music. Not to mention people to hang out with, places to go, food to experience, things to invent, art to do.
Your time is limited. What do you want to spend it on?
The point you are missing is that you should not react the same way to all claims. The only consistency I have on the matter is that I would react to each claim independently of the others. Rather than being formulaic and applying the "burden of proof" thumb-rule indiscriminately to any and all claims, the intellectually responsible thing to do is to consider each claim on its own merits and relevance.
As to why the question of god warrants more attention than all these other supernatural creatures - the answer is simple. It's because no else around me believes in these things. But they not only believe in god, they often live their lives according to his imagined principles and that has a significant impact on my life. Which is why, I would try and disprove their myths whenever I can, even if there is no burden on me to do so.
