I find that when I deny the existence of God I'm told to prove that he doesn't exist.
Figures... apparantly believing in a fairy-tale rots one's brain to the extent that one does not even understand the simple concept of 'burden of proof'.
Consider.
I claim to possess a large, fire-breathing dragon. People naturally want to see my dragon, so I show them. There's only one problem; it's invisible. Naturally they're a little skeptical so they ask me to prove that he exists. I respond with a snappy "Prove he DOESN'T exist!"
Good comeback? Or sloppy and illogical philosophy?
I'll take option B) for $200, Alex. Someone making a claim of ANY kind must be prepared to back it up with irrefutable facts of some type. Without proof it is just that, a CLAIM. Not a truth. It is NOT the responsibility of the skeptics to prove that a claim is NOT true.
The bible does not count as proof, since the only 'facts' it offers are anecdotes, mythology ripped off from various ancient tribes, and accounts written decades after the fact (not even taking into consideration the fact that accounts are guaranteed to become garbled after any length of time). It is a circular arguement, one which works only as long as you run on the hamster wheel of Faith; "God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is right because God says so." *POP!*
Sorry, that was my brain exploding. Excuse the mess.
Conclusion: At best the belief that God as an entity exists is an unfounded CLAIM, due to a singular lack of actual evidence, and at worst it is an outright fabrication. Attempts to use the bible as a reference are self-defeating and retarded.
Figures... apparantly believing in a fairy-tale rots one's brain to the extent that one does not even understand the simple concept of 'burden of proof'.
Consider.
I claim to possess a large, fire-breathing dragon. People naturally want to see my dragon, so I show them. There's only one problem; it's invisible. Naturally they're a little skeptical so they ask me to prove that he exists. I respond with a snappy "Prove he DOESN'T exist!"
Good comeback? Or sloppy and illogical philosophy?
I'll take option B) for $200, Alex. Someone making a claim of ANY kind must be prepared to back it up with irrefutable facts of some type. Without proof it is just that, a CLAIM. Not a truth. It is NOT the responsibility of the skeptics to prove that a claim is NOT true.
The bible does not count as proof, since the only 'facts' it offers are anecdotes, mythology ripped off from various ancient tribes, and accounts written decades after the fact (not even taking into consideration the fact that accounts are guaranteed to become garbled after any length of time). It is a circular arguement, one which works only as long as you run on the hamster wheel of Faith; "God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is right because God says so." *POP!*
Sorry, that was my brain exploding. Excuse the mess.
Conclusion: At best the belief that God as an entity exists is an unfounded CLAIM, due to a singular lack of actual evidence, and at worst it is an outright fabrication. Attempts to use the bible as a reference are self-defeating and retarded.