ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Arryn]

Scott Hebert said:
As interesting as all of this is, how does it answer my question as to why atheism should be the default condition of mankind?

The default condition of mankind is to fear what it doesn't understand, and to invent superstitions to explain away what is as yet unknown. What *should* be the default condition, as opposed to what is, should be enlightened reason. However, I'm afraid that the faithful's understanding of the words "enlightened" and "reason" likely differ markedly from my own.

Scott Hebert said:
I agree that longevity of belief should not be the primary determinant of a belief's veracity. However, to ignore the fact that human beings have for the vast majority of their history been religious beings who have believed in God, is to court disaster.

How so? And can the disaster be any worse than what's been happening on this world in the name of God for the past 2000+ years? I hardly think so. Also, for the *vast* majority of our history we have worshipped sun and weather-related gods, not God. As humanity matures, and grows in its understanding of the universe and our place in it, we have less and less need for superstition.

Scott Hebert said:
Even ignoring history, does anyone know the % of people currently living on this planet who profess belief in some kind of God? I rather believe it will outnumber those who don't. If this is the case, then judging SOLELY by present population, belief in God should be considered the default, with atheism being the one on whom some burden of argument should fall.

Basically, I object to the stated belief that atheism should be able to get by with nothing more than the judging of claims of theism.

The burden, as I've repeatedly stated, is upon those making fantastical claims. The skeptics aren't the ones who should prove things. Skeptics aren't making fantastical claims. Atheists don't have a belief, they have a *lack* of belief. You're asking them to prove their lack of belief in your claims, which of course is impossible. It's also a convenient way for the faithful to dodge any sort of responsibility for answering probing questions of their beliefs that they find awkward or distasteful. If faith was subject to examination in a court of law, under standard evidenciary rules, the burden would be upon the plaintiff (the faithful) to convince the court (non-believers) that they're correct. You're working under the mistaken notion that faith is the defense, not the plaintiff. The defense is logic. The plaintiff (faith) must overcome logic with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't. Because all the "evidence" that's presented is hearsay and anecdotal at best. There is no solid evidence.

If theism makes a claim, why is it bad for others to question those claims? If you're right, you should be able to prove it. You'd demand such scrutiny of any psychic or self-proclaimed prophet.

A major problem is that what the faithful take as "proof" is no such thing at all.