EDIT: also, let me clarify: I am Omnist: I consider all religions, including Atheism, to be potentially correct. That said, I am totally indifferent to all squabbles between them, and act as a totally neutral party.
If there is no evidence for something, believing (in) it is a matter of faith, but the lack of evidence in favor of it is pretty compelling evidence against it. Therefore, believing that it doesn't exist isn't just a matter of faith, because the lack of evidence in favor of it existing forms a compelling argument against its existence. I believe the statement "In the absence of compelling evidence in its favor, atheism is a matter of faith rather than reason," is true, but also that there is compelling evidence in its favor, in the form of complete absence of evidence of the existence of the things it purports do not exist, therefore it is a matter of reason, rather than one of faith.
That's the thing though, we are not talking about compelling evidence, we are talking about irrevocable evidence. This is a high demand, of course, because the events the transpired before recorded history exist Solely as a giant Schrödinger's cat in a Big, temporal box. In layman's terms, it is essentially impossible to provide irrevocable evidence about evolution, because noone was around to see it. I know, an easy response to this argument is to say, "Idiot, we have fossils!" but if you'd care to search that up on google, you'd find yourself plethora conspiracy theories riding against them. This means that the evidence of fossils, among other pieces of historical data, while
likely true, are not irrevokable.
If something is all powerful, it wouldn't be constrained by any set of laws, at least none you are familiar with, otherwise it is not all powerful. Therefore, it could do things which contradict the laws you are familiar with. It is indeed pointless to postulate the existence of such a being, and thus we should disregard the possibility of its existence.
Again, you're missing the point, It's not a matter of "should" or "shouldn't," it's a matter of "can" or "can't." You
cannot prove, disprove or argue about the existence of a god that can do any action, regardless of established laws of the universe, using logic. Therefore, you bite the bullet.
I really think that all of this stems from you simply assuming that gods cannot exist. It is completely ridiculous to assume anything exists or does not exist with no evidence either way. No evidence for it does not equal evidence against it by any means, no matter what you apply it to. You have as much of a bias against gods that theists have for gods.
Atheism is the state of disbelieving outrageous and groundless claims. Further, we know that people can and do make shit like that up, and we can observe dramatic shifts in the memetics of religions of the years. All this paints a pretty compelling picture against their claims, while they have exactly nothing except personal feelings and "but I was told this was true!" to back up their side.
I would like for both of you to stop this train of thought before we have a thought-wreck on our hands. We are not arguing "Probability" in this instance, we are arguing "Possibility." As long as there is no irrefutable proof that god cannot exist, there is the possibility that god may exist, therefore you both have the possibility of being correct. LETS LEAVE THE YOUR MENTAL ICONOCLASMS AT THAT, GENTLEMEN. YES I'M LOOKING AT YOU TOO CROWN. BOTH OF YOU. TOGETHER.Shit, lets Shit Shit. I need to got to the bathroom...
Poll
16 (32%)
Author
Topic: Shit, let's be Off-Compass Meme Poll Meme (Read 440027 times)