I am fascinated that simple, logical things that we ALL abide by, on a daily basis, holds no meaning when we discuss religion.
Seriously, is there ANYTHING we can agree on?
- the burden of proof is ALWAYS owned by the claimant. We accept this day to day, just look at the court system. Why do we always argue over it, then?
- It is irrational to believe things without sufficient evidence. If you are a theist, why don’t you accept the claims of every other religion? Is it because they do not provide the evidence? Then, why do you accept your own claims?
Saying it is irrational to believe things without evidence doesn’t mean you are wrong. It simply means your burden of proof was not met
- EVIDENCE. We all understand what evidence means when it comes to day to day things. If I were to tell you, I’m the richest man in the world, you have every right to ask me for some evidence of that claim. If I don’t provide it, to your satisfaction, you have the right to say, you do not believe me.
- But, throw gods into the mix, and the excuses fly!! “The gods cannot be proven”. “The gods work in mysterious ways”. “The gods don’t want to reveal themselves”, etc, etc. Sorry, that’s a YOU problem and special pleading is STILL a logical fallacy. If there is insufficient evidence, that just means, one shouldn’t believe it
- When we say, we don’t believe you, that doesn’t mean, necessarily, that we are claiming you are wrong. One of the more asinine counter arguments from a theist is just an attempt to shift the burden of proof. When a not guilty verdict is rendered by a jury, that DOES NOT mean the jury, necessarily, thinks the defendant is not guilty. Saying there isn’t sufficient evidence is NOT the same as saying, therefore, you are wrong
- The default position. If I claim an invisible pink unicorn lives in my backyard. Everyone would agree, the default position is, there is NOT an invisible pink unicorn in my backyard until sufficient evidence has been provided to contradict the default position. Same thing goes for gods and ANYTHING that has been claimed to exist, without evidence. Further, if I said I experienced something that can only be explained by my relationship with the invisible pink unicorn, not a single one of you would accept my conclusion, even if you accept my experience happened
- The supernatural CANNOT be the go to answer until ALL natural explanations, those thought of and NOT thought of, are debunked. This is simple logic. There is no evidence to suggest anything supernatural ever occurred so why does one immediately go to it for an answer? We have always had mysteries. Whenever we solve them , we solve them using natural means.
I honestly could go on forever. I have simply stated the most obvious things that we ALL accept, unless we talk about gods.
The gods do not get to change logic and reasoning because they are gods. Another logical fallacy, known as special pleading
So, is there anything we can agree on?