Didn't we also establish earlier you can't disprove religion because it's based on belief rather than evidence? In that case, I don't see why it's illogical to believe there is no deity, as it's still believing. Hm. I thought there was a line where God said "Go and reproduce thyselves", but as I never read the Bible, I'm wrong there then. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Well, then it is logical to be a theist aswell, so it does not matter if it is logical or illogical anyways.
Not being able to disprove/prove something doesn't make it logical. Logic would have you choose agnostic/atheist (though I detest the semantics behind atheist that they use) path because it doesn't make an unverifiable claim, and unverifiable claims are always illogical.
Ah, yes, I see now, I misread something, my mistake...ehrm, I'll just blame it on the time and stuff.
Indeed those are not scientific questions, but they are philosophic questions. Why not look to philosophy when asking those questions? Why would you trust religion to have the correct answers?
Philosophy seeks to answer things through logic only. Logic is not the end-all, be-all element of reality. It can give you answers to certain questions, but general philosophy cannot answer most of the questions I asked. It can posit a logical circumstance given certain parameters, but by itself it cannot answer any but one of the questions I listed.
The problem about logic is that If you follow God, then you have to do what is right. Things that are right are not always logical. Logic can only get you so far in this world. Kindness can get you further.
Atheism lies outside the burden of proof. You don't need proof to say "I don't believe in God." Saying there is one does take proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Thats cute. You think you're being clever, don't you? You can fucking see the fucking sun. That different than to say you don't believe in something with exactly zero proof to its name.
When I posted earlier I was responding to the already established meaning of atheism, but they switched it up and thus the meaning was lost. Lacking a belief in deities is logical. That's okay. But actively believe that deities don't exist is just as extraordinary a claim as believing they do. That's the atheism (some call it strong atheism) that I was describing.
The idea is that you have to prove something to say it doesn't exist, as well as it does exist. If someone says they see something in the distance to far to walk, and the other one says they didn't see anything, you can't say the person who didn't see anything was right simply because there is no proof that something was there. However, in reality, there could have just as easily been something there, as not been there. And thus you get the dilemma problem.
No proof is required for Atheism. No evidence of a god exists, so there is no reason to believe in it.
