The ODDS are almost the same, but it's a 'tad' better BET that you don't live in Ireland
Given that my profile clearly states that I live in England, I'd consider it less of a "bet" and more 'plain bloody obvious'.
Anyway, my apologies but I don't get the relevance of your statement to anything I said.
I gather from your post that you're a bit aggravated, or should I say 'pissed off' by people who wish to convert you.
Not really, no. I absolutely resent people trying to indoctrinate the young and innocent, but I am far beyond the stage of believing in fairy tales because someone else happens to.
Let's try and stick to the discussion here.
You claimed that the onus is on the atheist to disprove the claims of the theist. Simply put: you're wrong and I have shown why. You now talk about Ireland and conversion. What is that all about?
First and foremost, and believe or not, those meddling folks, really LOVE you; and they're saying to you, in their own way, 'we like you so much; and we look forward to spend the entire future ETERNITY with you'! When it comes from ordinary persons, this friendly invitation can be very moving; and unless having a 'heart of reptilian', one should observe every courtesy in the BOOK to soften the IMPACT of outright rejection.
And, seeings as they love me oh so much, the very second I say "thank you but no", they should respect that and walk away right? Furthermore, by loving me ever so much the minute I ask them questions they should not take it as me attacking their faith, but should answer it as politely as they possibly can and understand that questions are an integral part of life - that others will not instantly believe what you say simply by virtue of you saying it. The 'atheist' cannot answer those questions for himself - no sir, the onus is on the oh so loving theist - which was the very point of my post.
Oh, and just incase you are one of those oh so loving theists.. I
don't want to spend eternity with you. Man, I don't want to spent a weekend with you.
Let it also be said that while they might love me, I have no such feeling in return. In saying I really don't care about softening the impact on their poor little loving hearts when they decide to try and shove their beliefs in my face. I have no need nor desire to "observe every courtesy in that book" and I get the impression you would be the same if I told you to observe every courtesy in the Book of Lenny simply because if you don't I'll be offended.
As for those 'conversion' professionals, who have a clear motive for exploiting you, they usually know what they are doing and approach you only when the chances of converting you are very good. And with such simmering anger against all 'sacred things', this kind of guys would not dare, in my best judgment, to approach you twice; right?
You mistake anger for questioning belief. If you make a claim I will call you on it. It's not because I'm angry, it's because I'm a sane, normal human being. If some guy knocked on your door and started impressing you to a belief in leprechauns you'd either slam the door, (even though he might very well love you), or you'd question him. If you just bowed down and accepted everything he said then you're ill.
Also, you have to be very careful about this CHALLENGE of " prove (provide evidence for)" of yours. Do you know why? It's because such a challenge is an open-ended INVITATION to your theists (whoever they are) to discuss the TENETS of their religion with you
Certainly, what do you think happens on this very forum? You know, I was speaking to my wife about 30 minutes ago. She mentioned my brother who is now borderline christian, (he says he wont label himself but he has a belief in god). He's a troubled person and ended up making friends with some of the 'god squad' as he calls them. I have been going along with him to church on a Tuesday, (I'm leaving in around 2 hrs time), where they do a 'course' for would be christians.
They preach the bible, sing religious songs and.. thankfully.. hand out free booze.
my wife said that my brother has become a lot calmer since joining this thing. My wifes sister asked why I go along. I explained that, (aside from the free booze), people need to hear different perspectives. If for instance you raised your daughter with the express belief that prostitution was the best thing she could ever do - and there was no outside perspective to that, not only would it not be fair on her, but she would undoubtedly live life on her back. In the same way I go to this church thing to provide a different perspective to people that are on the edge.
Now, while there I welcome the thoughts, beliefs and opinions of others - but I will question them, and would expect the same in return. Currently, not by preaching but by questioning, 2 people have decided to leave the church and course. Now, in the larger picture a disservice might have been done, but it is simply unfair to not hear all sides of the picture. The only person that can give it the atheist perspective is me, the only one that can give it the theist perspective is them. Again: the onus is on them to support their claims and they must accept and welcome questioning. The fact that they fall apart because of those questions is not my fault or concern.
And so, if you really want them NOT to bother you, you have to stop asking for evidence. Don't ASK for it; PERIOD.
jews don't, muslims don't, evolutionists don't. christians on the other hand
push their beliefs upon others, (at your home, in schools yada yada). I disagree with that. To discuss religious issues I come to this forum or visit a church etc - and in those instances I
do ask for it. Not asking for it doesn't change anything, the doorbell still rings.
That is true; don't protest against it; my dear 'SnakeLord'; okay?
A) Less with the condescending.
B) See, you make a claim and just expect me to accept every word of it. If you don't now want questioning, (which you clearly don't by telling me not to protest), then you're a fool of the highest order.
C) Let's look at the evidence:
You stated that the onus is on the atheists and as an example used a case of monkey brain eating jungle dwellers that believe it is healthy. You then stated that the atheist was trying to convince the theist that monkey meat was unhealthy when this is an unrealistic way of looking at the scenario. In reality the monkey meat eater is trying to convince the atheist that monkey meat is healthy and the atheist is questioning that claim. The onus therefore without a shadow of a doubt is on the monkey meat eater.
IF the atheist was telling the monkey meat eater that monkey meat is unhealthy then yes, the onus would be on him to show it to be the case
because the positive claim is being made by him. Still with me so far? Good.
If the theist, (the monkey meat eater), makes the positive claim - ergo monkey meat is healthy, the onus is on him to support his claim with something valid.
Now to my analogy: A man that doesn't have a belief in a specific entity crash lands on an island where everyone else believes in this entity. You argued that length of belief and amount of believers is suitable for you to believe in it also, but I argued that this was wrong. I showed you that to you, the unbeliever, the amount of them is irrelevant to your disbelief.
IF they intended to get you to believe in their leprechaun, (they are making the positive claims), then the onus is on
them to support their claims.
Whether these leprechaun believers are nice and welcoming, generous and warm hearted is of no relevance to your lack of belief and their needing to support their claims.
I hope that was made clear to you. I'd hate for you to puff up your ego again that much for no good reason. Ok, my dear little friend?
Finally, you've boldly stated that "Atheists, (that I know), don't give a rats shit what anyone else believes"! How could say that?
Well, quite simply because me, (an atheist), and all the atheists I happen to know don't give a rats shit what other people believe in. Wasn't that obvious?
Sorry; you fare, here (on the scale of reason), far worse than a typical theist does!
Well then, you clearly know more about me and my friends than I do. Bravo. Sorry, now I'm being condescending. Let me ask instead..
Hi, AAF.. do you know my friends? If the answer is no do you honestly think you can speak for them? Do you think, by not knowing my friends that you can honestly state that I lack reason because I know them well enough to speak for them? Well?
Do you actually think those (atheists whom you know) could constitute a sufficient sample to allow you to speak in this manner for that HODGE-PODGE collection of all sorts of people called 'atheists'?
No. Which is why I only mentioned the atheists that...
I know.
SnakeLord. Therefore, I repeat once again that theological propositions cannot be proved TRUE by any kind of evidence
Why ever not?
