kurasakiichimaru said:
pearljammer said:
|
maverick40 said:
haha that was funny. I don't feel superior to both at all. As a scientist i need proof about all these things and there is no proof that god does or doesn't exist. |
In the context of science though, there cannot be proof of the nonexistance of something. Asking one to do so with the consequence of calling them ignorant (as you did in your first post) is highly unfair.
Not making unproven assumptions is what makes somebody atheist. I don't think any (reasonable) atheist would argue that there is no chance of there being any diety, intervening or not - just simply that from what we know, that is highly unlikely and that there is absolutely no reason to make the assumption that there is.
|
Religion was never a barrier from forming proven assumptions. It's not the only atheist who does that. And I've always thought God's existence is like a toss up between heads or tails. So I doubt his existence is highly unlikely.
|
Believing or asserting the existance of something without proof is undoubtedly an unproven assumption. An atheist is making no claim, hence there is no burden of proof on them.
What you think, no offence, is simply conjecture, unless you have proof, of course.
