no1tovote4 said:
Well, Santa has a place where we can look to see him, he isn't there.
Moot point. So does god-heaven; the sky. We fly there everday by plane, noone seen him, we even went to the moon, no sky pixie, our deep-space telescopes can detect distant galaxies, none seen a skydaddy anywhere.
Of course you can remain married to this argument and you can intend to find evidence of Santa but we all realize the fictional nature of the sky pixie. Much like the fictional character your login ID denotes. If you really need an explanation of fictional characters at this point of your life you are really, really in need of psychological support.
I see, so I guess the "hobbit" is fictional. It contains elves, hobbits, etc. What makes the bible any different? Why am I in need of help if I require evidence of fictinal characters that people portray as fact. I think it is they who need help.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existance.
Quote where I said this, or else please stop being dishonest here, thanks.
This can be seen by the fact of all the things that existed when we had no evidence of them previously. Such as stars that are too dim to see without powerful telescopes. That we had no evidence of their existence did not cause their existence to vanish, it simply meant we had not yet invented the tools that allowed us to see the evidence of their existence.
Of course we now know they existed, but at the time, no as there was no evidence that we could comprehend at that time. Thus, your argument is paralyctic at best.
Right, much like all the evidence of the Flat World Theory was so true that it was illogical at one point to contend against it. Such fairy tales as an earth shaped like a globe were laughable.
No shit, Bruno was burned at the stake for saying that there was life on other planets, and I think it was Copernicus, that said the earth was round, it turned out that the minority, Copernicus was right.
That their personal experience might convince them of a Deity, wouldn't make them less logical any more than science being the only source of logic.
Uhh, false, yes it would. The Scientific method, and science as a whole are based on testable evidence, thus the term "hypothesis". When we are talking about faith, believer's check all logic and reason at the door.
If they claim this then I am sure they would happily tell you that story. They however have no obligation to explain a personal experience to you, you assert an obligation where none exists.
Hahaha, dude, I was born at night, but not last night, ok. The burden of proof always falls on the believer not the doubter, or else one could claim any number of thigs:
Flying spaghetti monster exists, jolly green giant exist, leprechaun's exist, etc.
Or, like a philosophy professor, they realize that not all logic and reason is a result of science. To assert so is to ignore much evidence to the contrary. Once again, ask a Logic Professor about it he'll set you straight and maybe keep you from some of the more blaring logical fallacies in your argument style.
Dude, all logic and reason stems from science, technology, and our wits and fortitude. It's a flat-out lie claiming
logic=faith
They are not. Nobody is under any obligation to prove anything at all to you.
They are if they make wild, silly, unfounded claims, and I call them on it. If someone said they were abducted by a UFO, would you believe them, or would you want evidence?
Nope, you can't let people continuesly make ridiculous, wild, unfounded claims. They must substantiate them, or else look juvenile in the eyes of debaters.
If you want another to believe how you believe then you are obligated to state why you believe it, but under no circumstance is one obligated to show evidence of a belief unless they want to spread that belief.
O, so tiring. Any satement made that proposes something about reality, must be proven.
I do state that same thing, depending on the religion. Some religions like christianity require them to attempt to convert you. Others like mine, Theravada Buddhism if you want to inquire, require you not to. If one is on another path you are to allow them their path, and several times I have stated so to other Buddhists on this site.
I could be wrong, but isn't Buddhism any atheist religion?
That their belief relies on Faith doesn't make it irrational, as I stated many have personal experience, most would happily share them.
Really? Without any hardcore evidence of god's existence, no amount of personal experience will get anyone any closer to supporting their wild claims, that is, unless they have several detailed, eyewitneess testimonials supporting the god myth.
Some simply believe as they were taught and as they feel. All would assert that Faith is the important aspect.
True, but faith is in no way, grounded in reality.
That you have none does not mean theirs is necessarily irrational.
Hey listen, if certain peole wish to believe in a giant sky ape who sprang out of nothingness to create the universe in 6 days, and
needed to rest on the 7th, that's fine. Like I said, if one wants to devote their time to reading the myths in the biblke, then thinking irrational seems appropriatte.
