🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard Meredith wrote:
> In article <dv3v641nlblt9lrl26j45pnb5v085e8m9o@4ax.com>,
> lunch@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.
> 
Ah, but that is not the reality here.

If Robbo would simply say 'I believe, thats my Way.. there is no 
evdidence, and neither is the propsition refutable, so its not open to 
rational discussion' we would go away happy.



But that's NOT robbos game. He wants to prove the existence of god 
rationally. It cannot be done, so one feels impelled to indicate to him 
the error of his LOGIC, not hos faith as such.