LogFAQs > #940579250

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	''There is no proof necessary for denial'' is not a good argument from atheists
FulminatedHydra 06/12/20 6:04:08 PM #12:	Damn_Underscore posted... The reason people are specifically religious (rather than just "theists") is because they've read, for example, a particular religious book and that was evidence enough for them to believe in that religion. And on top of that, no one is actually certain about anything theology-related which is why faith is considered a virtue is essentially every religion. So what was evidence for one person to become religious may not be evidence for you to become religious, comparing this evidence to an "invisible ice cream shitting taco in the sky" is not a compelling or really even a respectful argument. Except it is.... both have no empirical evidence of their existence. --- S.S.D.D. <cite>FulminatedHydra posted [p:940579250] in ''There is... [t:78767050]...</cite> <quote>Damn_Underscore posted... </cite> <quote>The reason people are specifically religious (rather than just "theists") is because they've read, for example, a particular religious book and that was evidence enough for them to believe in that religion. And on top of that, no one is actually certain about anything theology-related which is why faith is considered a virtue is essentially every religion. So what was evidence for one person to become religious may not be evidence for you to become religious, comparing this evidence to an "invisible ice cream shitting taco in the sky" is not a compelling or really even a respectful argument.</quote> Except it is.... both have no empirical evidence of their existence. --- S.S.D.D.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1