(July 5, 2013 at 11:14 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: I have no problem doing that, and it's a valid strategy. Makes them think about how to convince others to disprove their gods or at least take their claims seriously. That's when they realize there's not much going on for their argument.
You can't disprove everyone's god for them, and expect them to stop believing. Most atheists only disproved their own god. God is a personal idea, it continues to warp even as versions of it is disproven by someone else. Only you can disprove your own god, if someone else did it, probably wouldn't take.
Only reason I do it is because it might poke holes in their religions enough for them to question it themselves. But both strategy, IMO, does the same thing, and so are equally effective. Some may argue that the first is better, because the second makes them defensive.
Except, its not always the religious raising the issue. The nature of the question varies from being a sloppy attempt to defend one's faith to being a genuine inquiry into the nature of epistemology and truth. Putting them all in the same category and dismissing them by using the "burden of proof" reply is not the intellectually responsible thing to do.
