Your ability to split linguistic hairs is breathtaking
In the context of this discussion: Not at all. Of course if you think it aids your argument feel free to go right ahead. Hopefully, in either case, you've finally understood the point.
I guess that just leaves the minor point about bringing in an issue about leprechauns to the table in a discussion about god
Sheesh, guess not.
It
doesn't matter if
you think the god notion is more acceptable, believable and credible than leprechauns to someone that doesn't believe in either.
The onus is not on the person that believes what you claim is nonsense - regardless to whether it is in fact nonsense or not. Do you understand? If you understand just say "yes". I've already put my bet down.
you are suggesting that the onus is on the person making the claim?
No. I am stating that the onus rests upon the person making the claim to positive existence, and no onus upon the person that doesn't believe that claim to positive existence.
What do you think are the implications of drawing an object .... particularly an object of authority like say a politician, god or a CEO .... with a leprechaun?
It's entirely irrelevant to the point. The first I believe in, the second I don't, the third I do and, for discussions sake, the fourth I don't. What has that got to do with my statements concerning onus?
do you recognize that as a position of ignorance, namely because they neglect the means that comes with the claim?
Well, I am under the impression that not believing a god exists, (or whatever else), requires one not having any knowledge that this god exists and hence.. it certainly is a position of ignorance to the reality of the claim, (if said claim is in fact real). What we should note is that it isn't really a matter of neglecting evidence etc but that one is not
convinced by that claimed 'evidence'.
As far as gods go, the "evidence" is typically cited as: cosmo, moral, teleo and some bits and bobs here and there. Such 'evidence' is utterly unconvincing to me - in fact I find it somewhat pathetic. There's still no onus on me to go and "prove" that a god didn't ever create a universe.
Ironically atheists are not at all eager to work with such an idea, preferring to work with the fideistic model.
I will, for the sake of this discussion, just pretend that you're the authority on atheists and their levels of eagerness. It's inconsequential because it's irrelevant.
----
For the one who doesn't believe something or thinks something is silly, there is the 'onus' of common decency, at least that.
It doesn't get any more "decent". The religious continue in the actions of their beliefs without being disturbed. Of course one should expect that there are limits - it is fine to believe that the government don't care about you and want to see you all poor, it's another thing entirely to then shoot the president.
As far as what I would call 'acceptable limits' go, christians have gone far beyond them - but then this is understandable given our history.
If you believe in Santa, I wouldn't punch you in the face - but I should not be expected to like or conform to your belief system should it impact my daily life. That of course is an issue of human rights - something my country has signed up to and something that I agree with. No, not every country has.
If you don't believe something or if you think something is silly, then what does it say about you that you continually get yourself into situations where you say 'The onus is all on you, I don't have to do anything, it is up to you to prove your claim to me' -?
It says that I live in a society where a great deal of people have the same silly beliefs and keep thinking I should share it too. As far as forum discussion go, it's a way for people to question and discuss that nonsense - something I don't personally think reflects negatively upon the questioner.
It says that you are someone who does not spend his time and energy wisely
I disagree. Tell me though - as you seem to be the authority on what is or is not "wise" - how should I be spending my time?
