Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ch'i
Why would Atheists be required to refute something that has not yet been established? The lack of burden for Theists is the basis for skepticism in Atheism.
|
I already answered this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by "Infinite_Loser
First and foremost, there theists possess no burden of proof. You seem to forget that theistic beliefs aren't based on any set of logical reasoning. Our beliefs are based on faith, and faith is very, very different from logic. If anyone must disprove the notion of God, it's you.
|
That's why.
Quote:
|
Its been said before, but I'll say it again. There is no proof of God's existence, and saying that science is absurd for pointing that out is, absurd.
|
That's not even close to anything I've said up to now. Pointing out the fact that there is no physical evidence of God's existence isn't absurd. Stating that God doesn't exist because of a lack of physical evidence, however, is absurd.
Lack of evidence doesn't equal non-existence.
Quote:
I worship a Nilla Waifer which rules from a place called Nabisco, for instance. This snack exists in a dimension we cannot comprehend. Science is trying to tell me that because there is no proof of it's existence, it probably does not exist. I find science' judgement to be incorrect sense they cannot disprove the ruling cracker.
I have twenty-four H2 Hummers stacked ontop of one another in my front yard, next to a tree. This probably is untrue, but sense you have no idea what my financial situation is, or the assets I may, or may not posses, you cannot say for certain that there are not, in fact, twenty-four H2's in front of my house. That's Atheism.
|
Whatever you want to believe is fine, but let me correct you on something: Science doesn't claim that an object doesn't exist if there is no evidence of it but rather that the object might exist in the absence of scientific evidence. That's, like, the third time I've repeated that.
Oh, and we can probably prove that the notion that you have twenty-four Hummers stacked on top of each other in your yard untrue, as it's physical and is easily qualified.
Quote:
|
Thank you for the contradiction.
|
There was no contradiction.
Quote:
|
Explain the logic pertaining to faith. You're argument in favor of Theism could be pursuasive on a philosophical platform, but not in the faculty of reason.
|
Did you, like, not read anything I typed out? I don't have to explain my faith based on logical reasoning as faith is, by nature, illogical and isn't based on reason.