How to Destroy an Athiests in a argument! (Updated with poll)

[irstupid]

Alara317 said:

irstupid said:

Wasn't arguing against you, was just pointing out that the statement where someone has to prove something for it to be true, is the same as someone having to prove it ain't true for it to be true.  It's a stupid circle argument and anyone that ever uses one or the other is being an idiot.

 

And I belive its spelt Knight.

yeah, Knight is rite.  

and if you reread my original statement on the matter, I didn't say that lack of proof means something is false, I said there's no reason to beleive in a god becuase there's no proof. If there's no concrete evidence or proof, there's no reason to believe it.  That doesn't mean that's enough to NOT believe in it, just that there's no reason TO believe in it.  

I don't think you understand what Belief is.  If something can be proven true or you know its true, then its not believing.  I dont believe 2 + 2 = 4.  I know its 4.

Pretty sure a million Santa Clause movies have pointed this out.  How many times has someone told Santa that he should just show everyone that he is real.  Then Santa says something to the extent of "It's about believing in me, not seeing me"

Btw, its also right, not rite.