Religion
In reply to the discussion: 3 universal truths all religions agree upon: [View all]skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but neither does the fact that horrific things have been done in the name of the Abrahamic religions and their "god" constitute evidence that their god doesn't exist and yours does. Jehovah may not be the kind of god you'd wish for as lord of the universe, but tough.
And yes, you are arrogant to declare that your concept of "god" is the one and only correct one, out of all of those "uncountable" versions that people have described and believed in down through the ages. And billions of religious people don't agree with you, so what does that tell you about your argumentum ad populum?
As far as questions that you've dodged, follow your own damned advice and read unthread (AGAIN):
Do you believe firmly in the existence of Zeus, Thor or Queztalcoatl? Do you give the possibility of their real and actual existence any credence at all, even without their being "disproven"?
When faced with something that can't be explained, why should "god" as an explanation win by default?
Why is "god" (out of all the myriad unconsidered and undiscovered possibilities) the default explanation for all of those things that baffle you?
Why does your inability to explain them constitute evidence for "god", and not for anything else?
If you'd never heard or thought of the concept of "god" before, can you honestly say that the first thing that would have popped into your head when confronted with all of the things you mention would have been "Wow...god must be behind this"?
Why should the existence of your "god" have to be inferred through such tortured arguments?
You called me and all other atheists "irrational". And then you backpedaled and said that the manner of thinking that atheism (and all skeptical inquiry) is based on IS rational. Were you simply saying that because you have a different take on the "weight" of evidence, that makes you rational and us irrational?
If someone came on here and called religious belief or believers "irrational", they'd be branded as a bigot, or something else equally uncomplimentary. So why does your god-believing equivalent get a free pass on the same thing?
Have at it. Further dodging and intellectual dishonesty will end this discussion.