I post mostly messages and commentary about religion and politics, and the scary occasions when they collide.
I am a: Liberal, Green, Christian, Math teacher
Lover of Math, Philosophy, Animals, Civil Rights, and Arguments of all kinds.

27th October 2012

Post reblogged from Skeptical Avenger with 67 notes

Because Dawkins said so

religiousragings:

liberalchristian:

I suspect that the main contribution of new atheism is going to be the attempted re-defining of the nature of reality and logic. And I don’t mean that as an insult- at least, any more than I would say: Most believers view the logical default of the universe as being ‘God exists.’ It would be why the fundamentalists and culturally ignorant among them are often surprised to find out that atheism exists.

But new atheism has created its own default on identical justification, near as I can tell. God must now be proven, yet atheism does not have to be. The problem is, God is a theological argument. Theological arguments are not provABLE, any more than atheism is provable- which they know(or should).

I’m against the need to prove beliefs, either way. I believe people are capable of believing any crazy idea they encounter. But when they try to claim that their crazy idea is the default or ‘logical norm’, then they must prove it. Why is subjective morality a more accurate or obvious truth than a single, objective morality(IE, Christianity)? Why is atheism preferable or more logical than theism? Why is no-God the default?

Until they can verifiably prove that, they can stick to making theological arguments like the rest of the crazy people.

No-god is not the default.  The default is not to believe in something until there is evidence for it.  There is no evidence for god, therefore no god is assumed.  There is no belief involved in the atheist viewpoint.

Of course there is, you believe atheism is a correct viewpoint. How do you define God, and how do you reach the conclusion that there is no evidence for Him? Many people would claim the fact that the universe exists is evidence of Him.

Source: liberalchristian

  1. drunken-rambling reblogged this from skepticalavenger
  2. high-infidelity reblogged this from liberalchristian and added:
    I believe given your childish rhetoric, name calling and abuse of logical fallacies I behaved extremely well under the...
  3. liberalchristian reblogged this from high-infidelity and added:
    Ok… #3 says the conviction of the truth of some statement. Such as I have when I express belief in Christianity, which...
  4. skepticalavenger reblogged this from liberalchristian and added:
    And Namaste again. :) ~ Steve
  5. jamesskaar reblogged this from liberalchristian and added:
    fine, omniscient, an omniscient what? leading to deity, if you swing that way, then definition of deity comes up. if you...
  6. xgoosetavox reblogged this from liberalchristian and added:
    You don’t understand it because you don’t understand atheism. It is not a belief that has to be proven. It’s what...
  7. barreloforanges reblogged this from liberalchristian and added:
    I’m with you right up until you merge morality with religion, specifically calling Christianity an ‘objective’ morality....
  8. missyelliotofficial reblogged this from skepticalavenger
  9. freemarketliberal said: Christianity is itself composed of many subjective moralities. Atheism is more preferable because it allows for a more objective morality based on comparison of cost-benefits of different moral codes.
  10. tonyburgess said: Atheism is easy in this day and age it seems. It doesn’t take a lot of thought or conviction to believe in nothing. I am with you beliefs shouldn’t have to be proven. Science is important but it really has become a religion in and of itself.