the lost city of Atlantis, the loch ness monster and big foot be valid for not believing in God? It is the same thought process and it boils down to this:
No verifiable evidence = non-existent
2007-07-22 06:05:20 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You have a lot of evidence but you do not have the Holy Spirit to guide you. : )
2007-07-22 22:48:45 · answer #1 · answered by SeeTheLight 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It not that simple. Believing in unicorns, tooth fairy, Atlantis,etc... is not the same as believing in an all powerful Creator. I believe in God and I point to the universe around us with its complexities as the proof. Some people would have you believe that everything can be explained without a need for a god but its just not the truth. You should read some of the ridiculous theories which try to explain the origin and evolution of life for example. They are IMPOSSIBLE theories. The things that they say happened, would NEVER happen. And that only leaves Creation as the correct explanation.
2007-07-22 06:28:39 · answer #2 · answered by curious_inquisitor 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe in ALL those things. But I also believe that they ae what they are according to how they are presented. If one report is correct, the 'inventor' of Bigfoot died recently and admitted it on his deathbed. He might have lied about that, but it really makes no difference to me whether he did or not.
Nessy might be true, people are pulling all kinds of things out of the ocean that we thought didn't exist before. But it makes no difference to me, Nessy didn't fulfill prophecies and didn't offer any, that we know of!
Atlantis could have been true, but it makes little difference to me, it's gone! So it affects me as much as the Phonecian Empire does.
Unicorns could be true, but I realize that the word meant more than it does today, especially in the time of King James, where it could mean a cow. So that's not important to me except to reveal the poor scholarship of many, many Atheist sites.
And then your proof or axiom that you finshed with:
No verifiable evidence = non-existent
No. I find that typical of people, Atheist or not to promote. Rather:
No verifiable evidence = we don't know
What do we relly lose when we say that we aren't convinced, and so remain neutral to the argument? If all evidence points against something that we did not know then it is reasonable ( in my opinion) to deny something. But to claim absolute negativity towards something when there is no evidence or little evidence against it, is dogmatic. It's an application of faith.
2007-07-22 06:33:12 · answer #3 · answered by Christian Sinner 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"No verifiable evidence = non-existent"
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ceolecanth was considered non-existent because nobody found them anywhere - until somebody found one. Theists could legitimately argue that you simply haven't uncovered the right evidence, or overlooked evidence that is apparent to them.
At best, we're all agnostic ("without knowledge") as to god's existence. Some have faith in his/her/it's existence, others do not.
On the other hand, I think it might have been Richard Dawkins who stated that he was agnostic about the existence of god in the same way that he was agnostic about the existence of santa clause.
2007-07-22 06:23:48 · answer #4 · answered by chasm81 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude whatever, Bigfoot IS real! :)
Check out Tenacious D's song Sasquatch!
All that other stuff isn't, though.
2007-07-22 06:10:45 · answer #5 · answered by Jenae, TV (tempter of the vile) 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you missed mermaids , tomorrow I have a date with a mermaid.. she smells fish.
lov that name , Born agan Mullah :))
2007-07-22 06:12:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be using your intellect though!
2007-07-22 06:08:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
uh, do trolls exist?
2007-07-22 06:09:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We have a BINGO.
2007-07-22 06:10:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋