Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Holyâ€¦ where to start in this mess XD
That my friend is the definition of being not only taken out of context, but also misunderstood, I said the exact same thing in a later post so please read my posts before quoting my older posts XD. And also please next time include the rest of what I say to provide this beautiful thing called â€˜contextâ€™ meaning I wouldnâ€™t have to have explained what I mean haha. Now what I also meant to say was â€œAtheism is just as amazing as ANY other religionâ€ not to say Atheism is another religion but rather to say it is just as deserving of respect as any religion would. Just to clarify, sorry about the spelling mistake.
Now this is my favourite argument, seen it so many times and it never ceases to brings a smile to my face, the good old â€œAtheism is logical or scientifically argumentâ€. Considering we are talking â€˜evidenceâ€™ and â€˜senseâ€™ or â€˜logicâ€™ let me run this by you. Both Theism and Atheism have NO proof, either of them, none, whatsoever. Either way you swing, you may be able to prove specific beliefs and theories wrong in both Atheism and Theism, but scientifically and LOGICALLY speaking, you CANNOT prove if there is or isnâ€™t a G-d, sure you can disprove theories such as a Primitive Creationist Theory based specific rules and regulations that deem it physically impossible/improbable but the same goes for an Atheistâ€™s early theory of the big bang, (I say â€˜earlyâ€™ to depict a less sound theory) it can be proved wrong or improbable with logic, and even science.
But the pure notion of Atheism and Theism have no evidence for either one. And therefore scientifically and logically, because there is no evidence for either case, it is more rational to believe either is entirely possible and to keep an open mind, making agnosticism the only scientifically and logically sound belief while making theism and Atheism both just as irrational as one another.
You may make the case (or something along the lines of) â€œItâ€™s ridiculous to believe there is something there when there is no evidence to support itâ€ which humanly, it is, almost crazy even. But in no way is it scientific or logical to assume there is not, it is logical to assume there is a possibility for both.
Please keep in mind I am a Confucian Theist and all that I say is light-hearted and I recognise I just called myself crazy, haha so Iâ€™m not purely promoting agnosticism for my own gains, and I also have just as much respect for atheism as I do any other belief but please people think philosophically as well as scientifically.
You're not familiar with the burden of proof. In science and philosophy positive claims must compete with a null hypothesis. If you claimed 'fairies live in my garden' I would be entitled to believe you were wrong until you showed me otherwise. 'There are no fairies' is the null hypothesis.
It would be unreasonable to say 'my disbelief in fairies is a position of faith', indeed if there really were no fairies it would be impossible to demonstrate it.
'There are no Gods' is the null hypothesis in this situation.
For the record, the Big bang theory was initially proposed by a Catholic physicist, not an atheist.