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 with 3 notes

pauliorra replied to your post: That’s not how logic works. In logic, there is a foundation called “the burden of proof.” If you claim the existence of a deity, the evidence must be there. Otherwise, there’s no logical reason to believe it. If you are to tell people that you believe in a deity because of faith, not because of tangible evidence, then your stance would be sound. But to say that a pro-God stance is exactly as logical as an atheist stance is flat-out incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion.

I always had problems with this argument. At the very least, deism would make the most sense, and we should all be agnostic at birth.

Agreed. This argument just seems to be a way of avoiding any actual discussion of theology. Even if you can’t prove there’s no God, you should still have to prove why atheism is a preferable philosophy.

  1. liberalchristian posted this