- Joined
- Aug 30, 2020
- Posts
- 16,025
- Solutions
- 48
- Reaction
- 9,155
- Points
- 4,412
Answer #1:
I actually think it’s a moral imperative to reject claims that lack supporting evidence.
The stronger the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be for me to consider it valid.
And the reason is dead simple. Literally.
Each one of those corpses was once a person that “just had trust” in Jim Jones.
Answer #2:
Finally we have someone prepared to admit there’s no evidence for God.
That leaves us with why, if that’s the case, anyone should believe he’s real.
I’m not going to “trust” in anything there’s no evidence for.
I could trust anything and everything if that’s the case.
Totally irrational.
Well, yeah. If something probably doesn’t exist, then there likely isn’t going to be evidence that it does.Do atheists understand that there will never be proof of God
No, I don’t. Furthermore, I reject the notion outright.therefore they just have to trust?
I actually think it’s a moral imperative to reject claims that lack supporting evidence.
The stronger the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be for me to consider it valid.
And the reason is dead simple. Literally.
Each one of those corpses was once a person that “just had trust” in Jim Jones.
Answer #2:
Finally we have someone prepared to admit there’s no evidence for God.
That leaves us with why, if that’s the case, anyone should believe he’s real.
I’m not going to “trust” in anything there’s no evidence for.
I could trust anything and everything if that’s the case.
Totally irrational.