Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="perfecxionX" data-source="post: 6002986" data-attributes="member: 572854">Your looking at this from the wrong direction, and i think its because the word atheism causing confusion. Using your analogy, imagine your on a jury and the prosecutor is trying to convict someone of a crime with very little evidence. Your not sure whether or not the person is guilty because all youve been presented with is a minimal amount of circumstantial evidence. Now imagine that prosecutor standing in front of you talking about his &#039;faith&#039; in the defense&#039;s guilt.&nbsp;&nbsp; His &#039;faith&#039; has informed him of the defense&#039;s guilt and the members of the jury will be able to see this guilt if they too can find the faith in their hearts.&nbsp; The definition of faith is &quot;a belief that is not based on proof.&quot;&nbsp; So has the prosecutor really met the burden of &quot;proof beyond a reasonable doubt?&quot;It should be obvious that the most intellectually honest thing you can do is admit that you simply dont know if the defendant is guilty or not. This is what most atheists are doing in regard to religious claims. The problem is these words atheism and agnoctism confuse people. So if i call myself an atheist people think im claiming that there IS NO god. The truth is that my atheism towards god is the same as your athiesm towards fairies. You dont believe in fairies just like i dont believe in god but its not that fairies are impossible, there just isnt any really good reason to believe such a profound claim about the world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="perfecxionX, post: 6002986, member: 572854"] Your looking at this from the wrong direction, and i think its because the word atheism causing confusion. Using your analogy, imagine your on a jury and the prosecutor is trying to convict someone of a crime with very little evidence. Your not sure whether or not the person is guilty because all youve been presented with is a minimal amount of circumstantial evidence. Now imagine that prosecutor standing in front of you talking about his 'faith' in the defense's guilt. His 'faith' has informed him of the defense's guilt and the members of the jury will be able to see this guilt if they too can find the faith in their hearts. The definition of faith is "a belief that is not based on proof." So has the prosecutor really met the burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt?" It should be obvious that the most intellectually honest thing you can do is admit that you simply dont know if the defendant is guilty or not. This is what most atheists are doing in regard to religious claims. The problem is these words atheism and agnoctism confuse people. So if i call myself an atheist people think im claiming that there IS NO god. The truth is that my atheism towards god is the same as your athiesm towards fairies. You dont believe in fairies just like i dont believe in god but its not that fairies are impossible, there just isnt any really good reason to believe such a profound claim about the world. [/QUOTE]

Verification