Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
no, that's you.
So you believe that to be true?
fact or science or even reason for that matter has nothing to do with your FAITH , or that of optional's.
why don't you quit kidding yourself, just admit it.
for Christ sake
Would you not agree that emotion clouds rational judgment?
My observation is that both you are stu have equal amounts of emotional investment in your respective positions, and equal degrees of faith in those respective positions. stu does a better job of hiding it than you do, but his reactive comments reveal the true source of his atheism...in my detached opinion. Once a true believer, always a true believer...just the object of belief shifts. Like love, there is a force and degree to which one loves, and an equal force and degree of hate that follows when the love is not returned to the degree expected. I am talking about human nature...
Detached, dispassionate, purely intellectual discussions I have not seen evolve here at ET very much. I see little if any turning of the cheek from either side...
My observation is that both you are stu have equal amounts of emotional investment in your respective positions, and equal degrees of faith in those respective positions. stu does a better job of hiding it than you do, but his reactive comments reveal the true source of his atheism...in my detached opinion. Once a true believer, always a true believer...just the object of belief shifts. Like love, there is a force and degree to which one loves, and an equal force and degree of hate that follows when the love is not returned to the degree expected. I am talking about human nature...
Detached, dispassionate, purely intellectual discussions I have not seen evolve here at ET very much. I see little if any turning of the cheek from either side...
The true believer atheists believe they have the right faith, and they believe the theists have the wrong faith...but all I see is faith and attachment to a particular possible reality.
Neither side holds claim to anything approaching knowledge on this subject.
The difference is that faith is admitted by the theist, where the atheists deny they are implementing just a different flavor of faith...
Neither side holds claim to anything approaching knowledge on this subject.
The difference is that faith is admitted by the theist, where the atheists deny they are implementing just a different flavor of faith...
Quote from killthesunshine:
fact or science or even reason for that matter has nothing to do with your FAITH , or that of optional's.
why don't you quit kidding yourself, just admit it.
for Christ sake
The burden of proof is properly on the person making a claim. The atheist makes no claim about God, except that of disbelief. The atheist has no obligation to prove non-existence. If I claim "pink unicorns" graze my backyard, is it your obligation to gather evidence to prove me wrong?
get real dude.
So I see the burden of proof equally laying at the door of those who claim God exists as well as the burden of proof that claims God does not exist.
Thus far, neither position has met the requirements for knowledge of God existing or not...so I just see respective faiths being practiced.
I'm fine with your faith in non God, simply because your faith has nothing to do with existence or non existence of God...
Thus far, neither position has met the requirements for knowledge of God existing or not...so I just see respective faiths being practiced.
I'm fine with your faith in non God, simply because your faith has nothing to do with existence or non existence of God...
Quote from killthesunshine:
The burden of proof is properly on the person making a claim. The atheist makes no claim about God, except that of disbelief. The atheist has no obligation to prove non-existence. If I claim "pink unicorns" graze my backyard, is it your obligation to gather evidence to prove me wrong?
get real dude.