RE: Atheist or Agnostic?
April 4, 2015 at 1:58 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2015 at 2:02 pm by Simon Moon.)
(April 3, 2015 at 10:25 pm)datc Wrote: But if there is no evidence whatsoever for God, and there is no evidence whatsoever against God, how can you claim that lack of belief is more "in tune with reality"?
Because the belief in the existence of a god requires a lot more unsupported factual and illogical assumptions. Disbelief requires none.
The belief in a god and the disbelief in a god are not positions of equal merit.
To believe in a god, one has to assume so much is true without evidence or valid and sound logic to support it. To disbelieve in a god, all one has to do is not be convinced by the arguments theists make for the existence of their gods. Atheism is not a claim, it is a response to a claim.
I have no unsupported claims or fallacious arguments to support my absence of belief. I only have to reject the arguments of theists.
And the funny thing is, you seem to inherently understand this process, as in your very first post when you bring up the example of unicorns. You understand that not believing in unicorns is justified based on the lack of evidence for their existence.
Why do you make a special case for your god?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
