(May 21, 2015 at 5:28 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Sure he (and the rest of us) have a reason. It's that religious people have never -- not once -- given a good reason, empirical or philosophical, to believe their claims. We think you're full of shit. Is that simple enough for you?
Do you understand how the burden of proof/evidence works? Hint: It has something to do with making a claim.
I understand. Which is why, by mean of philosophy, I have stated that adopting the position of disbelief without empirical evidence negates the existence of one's own "person". Rendering each of us as meat automaton which simply responds to stimuli and may only engage in conduct in accordance with reaction at worst or utility at best.
Should any of us then hold that we will not engage in action based on utility, but rather upon the belief of our "person" we are forced two accept two things.
1) We recognize the existence of metaphysical things without empirical evidence; in which case atheism is unfounded.
2) We accept that our moral conduct overrides our ethical conduct by means of an appeal to a metaphysical thing where:
A) Atheists hold the metaphysical thing as their person
B) Theists hold the metaphysical thing as something beyond their person.
Hence, our morality (Atheist and Theist) requires an appeal to a metaphysical (fictitious/imaginary) thing.
