I do not claim this, I am an agnostic. But that doesn't make me ignorant of atheism. To an atheist, the total lack of evidence is proof enough. How is he to prove something that he considers imaginary other than to point this out? This is the flaw in your argument. Faith and belief are synonymous. It simply does not require "faith" to disbelieve. One can disbelieve by merely acknowledging the lack of evidence and thus disregarding the faith of others. Disbelief is not a "counter-faith", it is no faith at all. It's a false analogy. If you claim X and cannot prove it, then I am free to disbelieve X. It is not up to me to prove a negative.
This is where the philosophical argument bogs down. Rationalism head butts empiricism. Belief in existence vs nonbelief in existence ? or Belief in existence vs belief in non-existence? Ugh... To have true knowledge of the existence of God one needs an a priori knowledge before conception into this world. The life between conception and death can be explained by science and it does not require God as the source. Gods existence is a personal, subjective experience and cannot be transfered to someone else through reasoning or logic. One cannot give somebody the knowledge of God like one can give them the reason the sky is blue or explain gravity. A person's belief in God therefore comes through rationalization just as Les Miles football philosophy comes through rationalization. (At least one of them is wrong.) If we could know the Truth before conception and after death then there would be no question. Since we don't and we are left with only the time between, we just make up and pass down stories that vary depending on our cultural superstitions. We pray we are more right than the Muslims and Jews. As a Christian can say that God exists without objective, verifiable proof and on faith alone and that must be disproven. An atheist can say Ebola.
I was not referencing you as an atheist in the literal sense, just as this discussion has unfolded. I understand what you are saying when you state that "To an atheist, the total lack of evidence is proof enough." Said differently, "To a believer, the evidence is proof enough." Both are opinions and not rooted in scientific fact. Neither have the goods to prove their assertions; it is only their belief that they are correct. I find it funny that in post 115 you accused me of making a classical logical fallacy: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, but this in fact also would prove your argument to be incorrect as well. So when I tell you this works both ways, Red, I am not telling you that as some unfounded assertion that I grabbed from deep space. My argument is deeply founded in the very roots of legal discourse. You can argue with this point until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing with over a thousand years of philosophical thought and not with me. Let me repost the definitions so we can be clear: I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric. A. The informal structure has two basic patterns: Statement p is unproved. Not-p is true. Statement not-p is unproved. p is true. B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs. C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so ondo exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well. It is not a false analogy, if you refute a positive then you must do so with a negative. To refute the positive you must do so by proving the negative or you are not really proving anything at all, just applying faith or belief.
What evidence? If there were evidence, there would be proof for all. To a believer, evidence is not required. We are just repeating ourselves now, which is pointless. We must disagree. I leave you with two comments . . . 1. Atheists always disbelieve in God. They do NOT always insist that God does not exist. martin was an atheist but did not proclaim that God did not exist, just that believers in God are believers in mythology. 2. As mancha suggests, the question may be too complex for simple answers to be adequate. Both YES and NO can fail to adequately express complex issues.
I agree we have reached a point of redundancy. I thought Mancha's comments were well stated and accurate too.
Doesn't the burden of proof fall on those who believe god exists? Doesn't the burden of proof that there are aliens fall on those who believe in them as well?
According to most Christian church doctrine, God's existence is a matter of faith alone. Physical proof is neither required or sought.
So faith in your favorite sports team. Does that make us all kooks? Seems like we choose what to be looney about when we want. Everyone's kid is the smartest, prettiest, and fastest right??
