Let me pose you a question. Let's say we're discussing invisible dragons who breathe fire. These magical dragons are self concious though, so to look cool they made themselves an extra set of muscular human arms. You know, to be all bad ass and stuff.
Below is the invisible dragon if you could in fact see invisible things.
BURNINATE!
I then tell you that I don't have any real life evidence for this dragon, only my personal feelings. Regardless of what you thought of me, you'd have to take on of two positions.
1. You would reject the notion of this invisible dragon until it has been proven to exist.
2. You accept the notion until it is proven that it does not exist.
Putting aside the obvious flaw that you cannot prove something doesn't exist, think about it for a moment. If you adopt 2, you place yourself in the position of having conflicting viewpoints.
For example, if I tell you "Christianity is the true religion", you would have to accept it until it's proven to not be the case. If then you heard from someone else "Islam is the true religion" you'd have to do the same. And at that point you'd have two viewpoints that you have to accept that have not been proven wrong. That's simply not valid.
That's why 1 is your only real option. It's the logical default for all claims. That is why I'm an atheist. I cannot accept things without evidence because that's the only way you can intelligently operate in the world.
This is why atheism isn't a faith as well. It's a logical rejection of theistic claims made without sufficient evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment