🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 7, 9:06 pm, rich...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard Meredith) wrote:
> In article <sba274h0m6sfce2dq2q7nqsrh2lca5p...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
> lu...@nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote:
> > *From:* Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> > *Date:* Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:24:39 -0500
>
> > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), rich...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard
> > Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> > >In article <dv3v641nlblt9lrl26j45pnb5v085e8...@4ax.com>,
> > >lu...@nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote:
>
> > >> >Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally
> > >> dogmatic
> > >> >that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of
> > the >> truth,
> > >> >despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a
> > decent >> set of
> > >> >repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position.
>
> > >> What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of
> > >> evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not
> > >> necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not
> > believe >> in
> > >> them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not
> > >> exist?
>
> > >I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to
> > insist
> > >on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims
> > to,
> > >that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the
> > marked
> > >similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the
> > beliefs
> > >of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they
> > want to,
> > >but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered
> > >arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real
> > >evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong.
>
> > Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the
> > theists
> > have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of
> > the
> > theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists,
> > it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A
> > does
> > not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims,
> > the
> > flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim
> > is
> > false.
>
> If a claim is silly then evidence will exist that it is silly. If no such
> evidence exists there is no justification for describing it as silly.
> Your argument, therefore, is one of defending prejudice, since you are
> assuming that the position you are attacking is silly, without evidence
> that it is anything of the sort.
>
> There is an equal lack of evidence that the doctrines of theists and
> strong atheists are correct; in the lack of such evidence there is no
> justification for assuming that there is any fundamental difference in
> the status of a viewpoint supported by faith.

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?
And the god is showering this world with diseases, right? Why is that?
A decent human can have a brain that is full of sense, in search of
logic but a clouded mind will never be cleared of dogma.