Thread: Atheists

Originally Posted by gwahir

Well, it's not a false analogy, because I also said genies and stuff. And Thor, and Zeus. There's no more evidence for "God" (ie. the big J) than there is Zeus, yet almost everyone alive today would dismiss the belief in Zeus as silly. Certainly all would call it unscientific.

You and I have discussed God before, so unless your beliefs have changed, I think I basically know what they are. And I know you have deep and (to you, but not to me, obviously) convincing reasons for believing what you believe, and very strong arguments to support yourself. But this objection isn't one of them. We're talking about evidence -- there's no more reason to believe in unicorns than a god, whether physical or not.

You are saying, essentially, that the god proposition is exempt from needing evidence.

Not really. I'm saying the examples given (invisible pink unicorn, teapot around saturn's ring) aren't valid comparisons to an incorporeal being because they are concrete examples. God, from what we're arguing about, isn't necessarily a physical being. Teapots and unicorns would be. In what way does this imply that the god proposition is exempt from needing evidence? And how does this point not fit into my belief structure of which you are well-versed?

If you're talking about Jesus that is a whole other bag of worms my friend.