Hmm...I understand the analogy, it's just that the analogy does absolutely nothing to show how God doesn't exist...
Good, because that is not it's purpose. Here's the thing.. Most of us atheists will happily say that a god
might exist, that there
might be an ultimate power that has created or is in charge of everything. That
might will always exist - because unless we search the entire universe we could never ultimately say otherwise.
What most atheists, (the ones I know of), don't get is why you believe in this specific being when it is unseen, unheard and unevidenced and yet do not give this other being the time of day when it lives in that same category.
That is the analogy and question.
You believe in something that to the rest of us might as well be a leprechaun for all the evidence you can provide. This being is unseen, unheard and unevidenced. In saying, why do you believe in this one and not the others... There are millions of gods, why this one? Failing that, why not leprechauns or fairies.
Hopefully you can see that there is no ridicule there, from the outside it is a perfectly valid and rational question.
Why believe in that specific being?
But the analogy still works with there being no evidence, no way to gather evidence, and nothing can be considered evidence....
Maybe - in that instance it comes down to personal knowledge of the thing. But can you not honestly see how "no evidence, no way to gather evidence" is a problem? It's ok for you I suppose, but for me it's a problem. I
cannot just accept something without evidence. My brother says he saw a ghost.. I wish I could honestly believe him but I can't. I wont lie to myself or you. I simply cannot do it - regardless to how adamant you are with your claim.
This is why your god must come to me, not vice versa. I would challenge you to think of something you don't believe in and then tell you that you have to believe in it to see it. It's one hell of a predicament and something that cannot ever feasibly be done.
Now the hard part...
I lack a belief in gods - any of them. That does not mean that I ultimately believe or state that they
do not exist. They might. odin or yhwh or jesus or abellio
might exist, but one can have no belief in something while having no specific belief against that something. This is atheism, not agnosticism although - because I don't care, you can call me anything you want. The term atheism shouldn't even exist. There are astronomers and those that are not astronomers.. It does not deserve its own title.
Hmm...after reading this I have to wonder if you have any knowledge of theology, logic, or anything at all...
I can assure you I do. I have been debating theology for the best part of a decade, and at least 5 years here, I consider myself very logical - indeed I consider it an integral part of my profession and I do know some things.
Did you know the capital of Botswana is Gaborone? See, I know something.
The reason I can believe in X and not Y, even though both X and Y are both unseen, unheard, unevidenced, etc....is because X has innumerably different attributes, characteristics, properties, etc...from Y, in other words X is a COMPLETELY different concept than Y
Ok, I will accept that. Now all you need to do is explain what that X and Y is and why that gives rise to believing in it.
You see the existence of fairies has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God
Ok, that's not the point of the analogy.
Afraid not.
That's why atheists say "There's no reason to believe in something UNTIL there's evidence"
Which is a long grasp from what you're espousing. Right now you don't believe in leprechauns. That doesn't mean leprechauns don't exist, it simply means you lack a belief in them. Guess what.. Tomorrow a load of evidence arrives suggesting that they do exist. That doesn't mean that they didn't exist yesterday, it simply means you did not have just cause to believe that they did.
It's all very simple really.
