🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 8, 7:20 pm, rich...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard Meredith) wrote:
> In article
> <5392b914-4e96-4a67-a3ab-453aa9bcc...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> hhyaps...@gmail.com () wrote:
> > You are banking on a philosophical context, or approach.
> > When we talk about evidence, we are then sure of things or event or
> > happening. Anything solid in this world would have the possibility of
> > a definition.
> > But a god...can you provide a definition and his existence?
> > You very well know that a heaven and hell thing are the invention of
> > human imagination and yet you believe we should not doubt them?
>
> I don't *know* any such thing, though I'm quite happy to admit it as
> possibility, even a strong likelihood. The reason I don't know whether
> they're a reality or a figment of the imagination is simply that there is
> no evidence pointing either way.
>
> > And the god is showering this world with diseases, right? Why is that?
>
> I'll leave that one for the theologians. I'm not arguing for the God
> hypothesis, just pointing out that it is one that has not been either
> proven or disproven.
>
> The similarity between atheists and theists is not what they believe, but
> their willingness to insist that they have a monopoly on the truth,
> despite their inability to provide any proof or even decent evidence
> either way.

Wrong.
Atheists don't (generally) insist on their version of truth (whatever
that is).  What they do ask, is that someone provide evidence for
strange claims.  No one's saying "You must accept blah" from the
atheist camp.  What we're saying is "That thing you believe in is
unsupported by any evidence, so we don't believe it"
The rest is just science.

Al