Hi, this is my first time on this forum, but far from the roots of my passion for philosphy.
I wanted to begin by noting that however strong each side of the pro/anti god argument may seem, ultimately the burden of proof lies on the pro-god stance. This is due to the nature of the argument itself. Those who are pro-god insist on undertaking the daunting task of proving the existence of a god, while the opposite camp takes the skeptic stance and argues lack of a proof.
considering the burden the pro-god member must endure, on would think that he or she should formulate a well articulated argument, but all arguments that I have ever heard or read stand grossly incomplete. The arguments present lots of unrelated material and riveting plot twist that may confuse. But, in the end, the all contain one fatal flaw, they shift the question from the creation of the universe, to the creation of god. At first it does not seem like a flaw at all, but later one realizes that the same arguments defending the existence of god may be used to defend the integrity of the universe itself. why must there be a middleman? [/code]
Welcome, ejddar. Don’t worry. Eventually somebody will respond with something intelligent to say. Until then, you’ll have to make do with me!
For my two cents, I have never made it a point to try to prove God, on these boards or elsewhere, so I’ve never been especially concerned with who has the burden. My only point on the subject here (and I have made it repeatedly) is that a belief in God is not an unreasonable one.
However, those of us here who are “pro-god” often take our fair share of abuse from those who set out to deny God’s existence without even being challenged to do so by…well, starting topics such as this one. In other words, anti-god types always seem to be quicker to want to pick fights with pro-god types than the other way round. Why is that, do you suppose? I have always wondered. Personally I have come to the conclusion that it’s based on nagging doubts and insecurities. “What if the pro-god people are right?” must be the ever-present thorn in the side.
Religion is about suspending your logical sense. Believing in a specific religion requires faith, which some lack and others don’t.
Proving that God exists is the same as proving that you love your girlfriend; it cannot be proven beyond doubt, you just have to believe or not believe.
to answere your question, I don’t believe aetheist try to pick fights, but rather are searching for belonging. when someone believes they have found some enlightened world-view, they at least want confirmation that all see some partial truth. but a majority refuse any aknowledgement that our side may be right
The fact that most people, including me, are exposed to religion at such a young age when our minds are easily molded, and yet still are able come up with an opposing untaught belief system says something.
I don’t see many people just concieving of christianity with no background to other concepts