It's really hard to have this conversation via text because it requires a lot of stop and starting for clarification. I don't mind going through it all with you, but I'm not gonna post a big wall of text trying to acknowledge and offer counters to everything you just said.
So let's start here:
-Do you understand that the court case analogy is not actually putting God on trial?
It is used to demonstrate logic, explain who has the burden of proof, and establish the difference between: innocent, guilty, and not guilty.. It may not be intuitive to you but these are 3 separate things.
-Do you understand or accept there are 2 positions to take: God exists and God does not exist?
Both of these claims have burden of proof. However, myself and other atheists who think like me do not make either of these claims. In fact I'd argue against both positions. I'm rejecting them based on the fact that there is no evidence, and until there IS, logically you should not accept them. My position is that until you do have demonstrable evidence it is illogical to believe you and therefore I do not. This is not that same as denying the possibility of a god.
What makes believing in your god reasonable without evidence, but believing in the Easter Bunny, Cthulu, or any thing else not reasonable? Can you explain to me how one is more logical than the other when the evidence for both is equally lacking?
Let's start here and establish a foundation to better understand where each other are coming from before moving forward. I'm gonna post another video in an attempt to save me a lot of typing.. it's pretty much the same thing but with a different caller and different words, if you have the time or energy I hope you watch it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
What I meant by "anti theist" is the person who not only opposes the proposition: 'God exists,' in the realm of philosophical ideas and arguments, but the person who actively, whether verbally or physically, attacks a person who accepts the proposition God exists.' The kind of person you find on the internet going on a tirade about how stupid people of faith or theist are stupid, dumb etc. etc. or calling for the annihilation of people of faith or people who believe in God. I could be wrong. That was always my understanding of the difference between anti theist and atheist.
|
I would never call anyone who has faith stupid or physically/verbally attack them, but by definition they are not being logical when they make a god claim. I'm saying they are not being logical about this one question, not as a whole. I do believe religion is a hindrance to human progression and I hope it is gone in the future, which I guess by your definition makes me an anti-theist. There is a difference between criticizing and attacking an ideology.