So, I ran across this
little article. It's a bit long, so you'll have to click it to read it. Summarized, it equates the belief in a god to the belief that one owns a dog. Basically, an atheist sees no proof that he owns a dog and thus believes he doesn't. A theist on the other hand sees no proof that he owns a dog but assures you he does, stating it is a faith based thing.
Most theists, who don't outright declare the facts science have uncovered are false, believe in the god of the gaps. The god who exists in places science hasn't yet been filled in.
Anyways, why I'm talking about this article is because of the comments on this article. I will reply to each in turn.
Eventually humans might accumulate enough brainpower to comprehend the vast universe. In the meantime anybody stating ANYTHING conclusive about the issue is just being true to his ignorant nature. The doubters still stand a chance, the athiests are as lost as the dogmatics.
Actually, most atheists don't conclusively claim that there is no god. Most just simply stand on the fact that since there is no proof of a god, it doesn't make sense to believe in one and it is safe to assume there isn't one. I'm sure most theists follow this thought process when it comes to things such as unicorns, bigfoot, fairies, and Santa.
That's cute, but just like most current atheist writings today, you are narrowly defining the beliefs of others for your own purposes. The fact that humans exist and can have a dialog about that existence is sufficient for theories of creation. Now whether you call that process of creation a god and give it a name and personality or just refer to it as physics and biology makes little difference; you still understand that we are creations.
Ah, the good old 'God could be anything' argument. In realization that reality contradicts a sky daddy who created everything, theists sometimes try to blur on observer's understanding of what they actually believe. If you're going to argue for what you believe, don't try to hide what you believe. That's nothing short of silly.
'Process of creation' is a cute term which can be applied to nearly everything. Even evolution could be called a 'process of creation' since it is the way we reached our current existence. This commenter is attempting to sidestep the argument of whether or not there is a creator or not but I've caught his little game.
If you believe there is a deity who created us, you are a creationist. If you don't, you're not. Muddling terms like that is just trying to confuse the issue instead of facing the facts.
Why does the folks at wordpress.com assume there is no dog? The only way there is no evidence whatsoever is if there really is no dog. But no atheist has ever proven the non existence of God (and to be fair, no deist has proven his existence either). But both sides have strong arguments. This article does not explain different terms. Is states that atheism is true if we assume there is no God. So what is the point?
Al: "I have a dog in this house, you just can't see him."
Ben: "Have you ever seen him?"
Al: "No"
Ben: "Have you ever seen proof of him?"
Al: "No, but I have faith he exists."
Ben: "I think I'll conclude that it is highly unlikely that you own a dog."
So, who has a better argument, Al or Ben?
It's called the burden of proof. He who states the claim is the one who has to prove it. In the same way that Al has to prove he has a dog and Ben doesn't have to prove Al doesn't have a dog, a theist has to prove there is a god and an atheist doesn't have to prove there isn't one.
So because you search all of your house and don't see a dog there, you don't own a dog. Fair enough, find me an atheist who has searched all of existence and hasn't found a god and I'll accept that. A better way to say this is to show someone a picture of a random person's mailbox and then ask them if they own a dog. If you have an opinion it has no grounding whatsoever.
Again, an issue of burden of proof. An atheist doesn't have to search all of existence in search of a god. An atheist doesn't have to prove nonexistence of something a theist asserts. The theist is the one who has to prove there is a god.
If someone came up to you stating they're the reincarnated form of Hitler which of the follow would you do:
1. Give him rigorous psychiatric tests to prove he isn't Hitler
2. Ask for proof that he is Hitler and when he doesn't have proof, tell him you don't believe his claim.
As for the other part, if I was shown a mailbox, and told the person who owns that mailbox also owns a dog, I'd shrug and say okay. If you said I should live my life worshiping that dog, I'd request if I could see a picture of the dog. If you said you didn't have a picture of the dog nor any proof the dog exists, I'd laugh at you and walk away.
That's all I have to present to you. As you can see, I hate stupid commenters. I made this post not to call them out, since that wouldn't make a difference, but instead to make an example of them. That's just how I roll.
