(May 25, 2015 at 10:42 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: If I say that I don't believe any god claims that I've heard, am I responsible for disproving all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of Christians, Jews, and Muslims? Surely this is madness to presume that I have inherited such a burden of proof simply because I don't believe.
Not only is it madness, it is hypocritical as well. If he affirms that Catholicism is the one true religion, he needs to disprove "all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of other types of Christians, Jews, and Muslims." And where is his proof?
Additionally, if you merely claim that you don't believe in any of them, that is not the same as saying that they don't exist or that you believe that they don't exist. A totally neutral stance requires no evidence of any kind. Indeed, in the absence of any evidence, a totally neutral stance is the only reasonable position to take. It is only after one has evidence of something that it becomes reasonable to believe something about it.
This neutral position is very different from his claim that Catholicism is true. For Catholicism to be true, that means that all of the other religions must be false, and he should have the proof of their falsehood if he is claiming that they are false.
The reality is, he rejects all of those religions in an offhand way, just as some atheists reject Catholicism. His complaint about this is hypocritical, because he does the same damn thing with every other religion.
___________________________
I see Parkers Tan beat me to this.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
