Nonsense. You can't explain why God isn't real in the same respects. You can say it all you want, but prove it to me. I'm prompting you to give me empirical proof that God doesn't exist. If you don't present proof, you are an idiot.
What?!!!!!
Do you even know how stupid your line of reasoning is?
Prove aliens aren’t masquerading as humans, in a reconnaissance mission before invasion.
Prove Leprechauns aren’t controlling the State Department.
Prove Santa Clause doesn’t live in the North Pole.
Prove that twelve gods don’t live atop Olympus.
I repeat for the dimwitted and slow:
The burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic but with the one claiming a positive. In this case an absolute positive.
If Einstein wants to prove his speculations are factual or that they explain natural phenomena, he must provide the evidence and the arguments. He doesn’t say:
“Okay prove that time is not relative or it is”
If Darwin wants to prove his theories are correct he must provide arguments and evidence.
If my retarded half-wit neighbor wants to prove that he can fly, he doesn’t say “Prove that I cannot or else believe that I can” he must prove it.
When a moron leads a nation to war based on hypothetical Weapons of Mass Destruction, not even he can use your stupidity as a method of supporting his cause and justifying his actions.
“Well gentlemen, prove that there’ aren’t weapons there! Ha! Gotcha!”
Man doesn’t live in accordance to what he can disprove, but in accordance to what he can prove as being more likely, or in accordance with explanations that can be tested and questioned and challenged within our common pool of awareness we call the world.
I cannot claim that there are fire-breathing dragons raiding my farm every night by explaining them as creatures from another world or challenging the other to prove that they are not.
If it were otherwise then I can use this to explain anything.
It’s the strategy of avoiding the burden of proof.
You stupid idiot!!!!
Furthermore, I do not agree with the idea that people should be protected from reality.
You either deal with the world or you spend your life running from it, into fantasy worlds and feel-good dimensions.
Humoring the stupid might seem like the “civil’ thing to do’; a harmless practice that keeps everyone comfortable in their own delusions.
Civility: hypocrisy institutionalized.
You humor the obtuse long enough and they begin believing they are your superiors or your equals or that their opinions deserve just as much respect as anyone else’s.
This is like protecting the 120 lb weakling from the realization that if he enters into the ring he’ll get hurt, by telling his 220 lb opponent to pull his punches and not be as brutal and hard on the poor fellow.
Who wins from such a farce?
The 220 lb guy doesn’t break a sweat and the 120 lb guy starts believing he can beat anyone. The 220 lb guy is frustrated by the ensuing taunts the 120 lb weakling unleashes upon him - since all weakness is vengeful and will siege upon the first opportunity to overcome his feelings of inferiority and insecurity.
Equalitarianism and political-correctness has done little more than protect the feeble and stupid from the reality of self-awareness.
If these idiots want to come to an open forum, with the bravado and self-confidence of that 120 lb weakling who has never faced a punch because everyone, who knows his thinking is flawed, has been humoring him and offering him the right to believe what he likes, then he should not be protected from his own idiocy.
Weakness has a price.
You either survive it and grow or you wallow in it until death.
In nature weakness is punished with extinction. In human environments weakness is tolerated and humored, and protected, creating a slow decay technology is supposed to keep correcting.
