Why do the vast majority of people lack the basic reasoning skills needed for religious debate?

Question

Another poster earlier asked for people to provide proof of God's existence. Of course, so many people thought it would be clever to demand the poster to prove that there is no God. Sorry, but the burden of proof rests on those who making a positive assertion--not on those making a negative one.

Reversing the burden of proof is a logical fallacy because, first, it requires proof of a negative, and second, it places the burden of proof on the challenger, not the proposer of the idea. Before a claim is made, it should be proven, not asserted until disproven.

If I told you that there are invisible fairies in my garden that make my flowers grow, wouldn't you want proof of this? Now imagine if I turned around and said, "You can't prove that the fairies AREN'T there; therefore, my point still stands, and there are fairies in my garden making the flowers grow!" Would you accept my reasoning? Maybe if you were insane and lacked critical thinking skills.

In conclusion, shut up.

"Yet, as an Atheist the assertion of "no god" is a positive."

Your mother must have been an alcoholic while she was pregnant with you. I'm terribly sorry that the resulting mental impairment has led to you being unable to understand how the word "no" is used to create a negative assertion.

Answer 1

The answer to "why" is a simple one. Because people who rely blindly on faith to make their world go around cannot tolerate anything that might crack their bubble of belief.

Oh yeah, and a lot of people are just stupid.

Answer 2

1. People don't lack the reasoning skills, they lack the real answers; so they reverse the burden because that's the best they can do.

2. Pure reasoning will never solve a religious debate; in every religious (or anti-religious) ideea there's some level of "faith" involved.

3. The God of the Bible is such a concept that it can't be proved to the un-believing mind. Attempts can be made, but they will always find good oposing arguments. If God would be obvious some people would "believe" in him without liking him, without honoring him. Now, he rather gives everyone the freedom of choice.

4. If you want a positive approach, here's one: the Cause-Effect principle. It's obvious that everything that happens in the Universe has a cause. That cause can be traced back to other root-causes and so forth. But if you keep tracing them back you will come to a point where you need a Master-Cause of all things. Religious people call it God. Non-religious people call it Big-Bang. But that leaves the question open: why did the Big-Bang happen? It still takes a God to do it. You can strip God of his personality and holiness, you can call him a Force or Master-Cause, but you need some kind of mysterious transcedental power to explain the Universe. No way around it.

Answer 3

Do you mean that if another person posteda seperate question, asking people forproof that God doesn't exist, an atheist wouldnt ask him/her to prove that God exists?

Nevermind. Whether or not God exists, it helped that guy get morethan 65 answers the lasttime I looked. Poor me never gets past 30.

One reason I find YAnswers interesting is that You meet all sorts here, everyone from a 5 year old to an octagenerian has something to say, and YA allows them to say it annonymously. But the downside is that most of it is BS. People rarely pause to think or research. I never cared to read the scriptures or philosophy, and here I am answering complex questions like, What is the purposeof life, Give proof that god exists, and what not.

Answer 4

Well, I CAN'T prove that there are no invisible faeries. I don't believe they are here, but I can't prove that.

Burden of proof, though handy in a court of law, is not at issue when attempting to determine the veracity of a statement.

A negative can in fact be proven: I can prove that a does not equal b.

Certainly saying "No, YOU prove the unproveable" doesn't win the argument, but it doesn't lose it either. Just because I can't prove you wrong doesn't mean I have to accept that you are right. And vice versa.

Answer 5

First, i do no longer oppose gay marriage. enable freedom reign, in each experience of the words. yet there is a lot incorrect including your hypothetical international, besides the certainty that the underlying argument is a robust one, and that's what concerns. i comprehend you're constrained to a small quantity of area, yet there is a lot you ought to do to develop your tale. Laboratories do no longer in basic terms look, how did start happen previously this? became into it a accountability to be finished like the protection rigidity, a "suck it up on your united states" form of element? And, BTW the bible is quite ambiguous on the finished sexuality element, and the religious top only spews forth the messages that help what they have self belief. David's tale in the bible leaves the possibility very open.

Answer 6

It is sad that an atheist has such poor reasoning skills. You can't really counter our counter-argument so you just tell us to shut up? That's something that I would expect from a small child.

In reality, the request to have you prove the God doesn't exist is just as valid as your request to prove that God does exist. Here, I will give you a mathematical example to prove it too you. If I make the statement that ALL prime numbers are ODD numbers how would you disprove this? Simple. You find one example that demonstrates how the initial ascertion was wrong. Are all prime numbers odd numbers? No. The number 2 is both prime and even. As such I have just disproven the claim that ALL prime numbers are odd numbers? Can you apply this reasoning to God? Or is it too difficult a task to ask?

Answer 7

Yet, as an Atheist the assertion of "no god" is a positive.

So prove your assertation.

Logically, Atheism is based on Faith Alone.

Unless you are publicly declaring your assertation is negative and that your faith in God IS real?

No is negative but null is the intent.

Simply put prove nothingness! Regardless, my Mom's a good person, as I hope your parents are as well.

Answer 8

Because a God hater asks the question we have to go by your rules.. I don't except that..

No one has proof either way.. I have evidence for my faith. David 900 years before the fact saw Jesus hanging on the cross. He even saw the Roman solders dividing up his cloths and throwing dice for his coat.. You don't believe it.. Your problem, prove that King David was lying. BTW the text of this evidence is in Psalms 22 :14-18....Jim

Answer 9

ROFLMAO
Why? Its like saying to one prove lighting does not exists!
The burden of proof does not rest on the positive assertion!
Your I.Q. is showing again!

Answer 10

Exactly, there is no logic in religion. That's why all religions are based on faith. Or, in the case of FSM, mistaking corrolation for causation. Fallacies of logic are rampant in any religious discussion since there is no rational answer other than "I don't know." And people hate to admit that.

BTW, there may be faeries, plenty of people choose to believe in them. Just like others believe in an invisible man who gives their life purpose.