RE: Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?
August 10, 2013 at 4:46 am
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2013 at 4:48 am by Silver.)
The I don't know response has always been the weakest argument in history. It is a veritable cop out. It allows the individual to remain neutral because the individual is afraid to make a real decision discerning something.
If there is no evidence is support of something, especially after many thousands of years of human evolution in search of evidence for its existence, the odds of it being real is basically nonexistent.
After all, I do not see agnostics stating that they are uncertain of the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, and Santa Clause. Agnostics are rather willing to claim they do not exist. There is no difference between them and god.
If there is no evidence is support of something, especially after many thousands of years of human evolution in search of evidence for its existence, the odds of it being real is basically nonexistent.
After all, I do not see agnostics stating that they are uncertain of the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, and Santa Clause. Agnostics are rather willing to claim they do not exist. There is no difference between them and god.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
~ Erin Hunter
