Originally Posted by BABY J
Well if you want to make sense of my post then you need to read what it is reference to and the statements that I was replying to.
For anyone who says they don't believe in something "just because someone says so" or "they only believe what is proven by science" then they are leaving out the very REAL part of the equation.
The person who taught you that the sun was "a ball of fire" or the person who told you that red was red. You don't just KNOW unless you have some sort of knowledge on the subject that is taught and explained to you. If and when, you have kids lock them in a room with a book and they will not learn how to read. They have to be taught by someone, or something.
also in reply to the previous post
Nobody on this thread has original knowledge, and nobody on this thread is saying anything that has not been said before. So nobody on this thread can truthfully say that they learned everything and explain everything completely based on their own learning or logic. Someone else wrote the book, someone else laid the foundations for the research so we are all subject to opinions based on someone else.
So, how do you define logic? Lots of people have used the word, but by its very definition it is subjective. What is logic to you may not be logic to me. If that is the case how can you justify, YOUR logic as correct in comparison to someone else?
That in and of itself puts the burden of proof on both parties. Just as many theists struggle to understand and verbalize their reasons for believing in God, the non-theist also cannot prove the lack of existence of God. In all of the experience you have had, and all of the things you have known, your opinion remains subjective and personalized without the ability to prove.
The arguments that people have given so far are just mirrors of the reasons that theists give for believing in God. So what makes your argument or your stance better?
Reply With Quote