Would you celebrate a holiday whose sole purpose was to celebrate the non-existance of Santa Claus?
I'd assume no for most people because if you dont believe in Santa Claus, you just ignore him and go about your regular day. There is no dichotomy between Asanta vs. Santa.
Why then, was it ever Athiesm vs. Thiesm? Would it not be logical for those that assert the existance of thiesm to prove themselves instead of reversing the argument and saying "you can't prove that there isn't."
2007-05-01
06:05:14
·
6 answers
·
asked by
leikevy
5
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
This argument goes only if you believe that one begins by not knowing. If you think that we begin by knowing, and then go through process of elimination, my question is null.
2007-05-01
06:06:29 ·
update #1
Netelchonrious: ive never heard of that before, interesting.
2007-05-01
06:16:24 ·
update #2
Brett A: It's been religion vs. heretics coming from the side of religion. From the point of heretics (athiests only), there is no such feud. We have to argue with something that doesnt have to be explained because if we dont, the majority wins.
2007-05-01
09:05:19 ·
update #3
Well, you miss many, many points. First, we live in cultures, so while we're comfortable there's no Gods and if Jesus lived he was just some guy, our culture dictates Dec. 25 is a Holiday, so pretty well all non-Xians use it as a day off. That's atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus... We're not "celebrating" it at all, other than stated. It could well be SantaDay for all we care.
It comes up time and time again here that Gods can neither be proven nor disproven, so I'm unclear as to your intent on bringing up this illogical issue (from both sides) again.
Most importantly, religion is very, very dangerous, so the current atheism/theism discussions are, from many people's perspective, to bring reality into the picture in an attempt to shoe theists of their illogic - believing in Gods is equally as reasonable as believing in the FSM. The bottom line to your question is that it's been atheism vs. theism for many centuries.
2007-05-01 06:10:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's only A vs T because some Christians insist on making it so.
Sort of like the way English became the current universal language. First the English themselves ran about colonizing everyone and pillaging their resources. Then the U.S. Americans did the same thing with pop culture and fast food. And since very few of either group could be bothered to learn another language, the colonized had to learn English to deal with them.
Too many theist refuse to see the world in terms other than belief, faith, -isms, and religion. So they try to make atheism into a religion with evolution its credo and science its mantra. They're wrong, but they can't be bothered to see that.
2007-05-01 06:24:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by The angels have the phone box. 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes, the onus is definitely on those introducing the hypothesis to demonstrate its validity. In a logical world, religion wouldn't get a second hearing.
BUT in the world we actually live in, there ain't logic nor justice, and we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where there's NO evidence for, and LOADS of evidence against - and yet the streets are still full of Bleevers, demanding proof that they don't deserve, and don't listen to when it's supplied!
I'm giving them one more week, and then I'm calling in the airstrike.
CD
2007-05-01 06:17:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Super Atheist 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
"Would it not be logical for those that assert the existance of thiesm to prove themselves"
the problem is if they think logically,they'd have to accept that they're wrong....so they prefer to be covered in a blanket of delusion that keeps them nice and snug :)
2007-05-01 06:12:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Annie 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
You are requesting logic and analytical ability from people who believe in an omnipotent being who handed them his law in a language most of them have never taken the time to learn...
2007-05-01 06:11:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Blackacre 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The paradox of defining yourself in opposition to something.
If what you oppose is not real, then to define yourself in opposition of it is meaningless. Your self-definition refers to nothing.
If what you oppose is real, but does not endure, then to define yourself in opposition of it is not a lasting definition. Your self-definition becomes obsolete.
I've often pondered this in relation to how Christians sometimes define themselves as anti-demon. Isn't that just nonsense? I mean, if you believe in the devil and in demons and that they are destined to lose, isn't it silly to identify yourself in opposition to something that is weak and failing? Your self-identification is dependent on something that will be taken away. What are you left with then? Do you need to redefine yourself?
2007-05-01 06:13:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Netchelandorious 3
·
1⤊
0⤋