zehydra said:
TheDist said:
Nope, I am an atheist, as for why? I see no credible evidence for the existence of any gods.
Simple as that. If repeatable, demonstrable evidence is shown then to me there would be an argument for it, however to this day it has not been provided.
Sure, except the burden of proof argument doesn't work when dealing with apparently non-falsifiable things. That is, normally the burden of proof works in day to day life, but with regards to things like "the creation of the universe" or other things which we will never observe nor really affect us, it is required that acknowledge that the evidence is lacking for both claims of existence and non-existence.
I'm not trying to convince you that my religion is right by any means, I'm just trying to show that the burden-of-proof argument isn't as perfect as some atheists think it is.
Sorry almost missed this post to me, going blind it seems. :s
Well let me use an example: I have an intangable, invisible, undetectable box which creates all gravity in the universe (also its purple!). Do you ask me to prove it or belive me untill somone else shows I am incorrect? That is how the claims of religion seem to me.
It is a hot topic I understand, and I honestly do appreciate that you arn't trying to convert me at all. If you wish to belive in a god, that is your right as a human, for any reason you wish. As long as it isn't pushed onto others or into laws to punish others, then you and I will have no problems.
My brian is just "wired" if you will, in such a way that in order for me to belive the big claims of religion I need repeatable, demonstrable evidence.