Imagine you are being tried for a crime you did not commit. There is no physical evidence to convict you. No D.N.A. that places you at the crime. No videotape evidence , no fingerprints , no fiber evidence. You were at home sound asleep at the time of the crime but you cannot prove it. The prosecutor uses only an argument that asserts a rational for why you could have committed this crime. It is only one possible scenario and the prosecutions argument is valid but untrue. Your only defense is to counter with another valid argument and start a debate. You would hope that our criminal justice system and a jury of twelve peers would see through this facade and refuse to convict based on lack of evidence. A rational jury would fail to be convinced of your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt since reason requires evidence.
This is my analogy for most of the debates I see online between theists , philosophers , and atheists.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Neat, but what's the point of contention? What's the argument?
"Neat, but what's the point of contention? What's the argument?"
He is pointing out that the theist have the burden of proof but they don't seem to realize it and expect the atheists to prove them wrong on their claims.
His analogy is incorrect mostly that the atheists do prove them wrong on many aspects mostly on the impossibility of the existence of a theistic god.
"This is my analogy for most of the debates I see online between theists , philosophers , and atheists."
It is actually worse then that, the theists wish there was a gap where their god could possibly exist and believe so without checking on it.
The reality is there isn't and we atheists love to explain it to them :)
A theistic god cannot possibly exist in any logical universe.
There cannot be an omniscient, loving, omnipotent god. Those are contradictory concepts.
Theoretically, such a case shouldn't reach trial, otherwise the analogy is sound enough, I suppose. I agree that the argument with believers is worse than that. Better just to point out that religionists have the burden of proof, as JVL says. Analogy isn't likely to help, in my experience.
Religion (giant cults) arguably cause more trouble than the god delusion. It is often argued that religion is more than belief in god. Bill O'Reilly has argued that Christianity is a philosophy. If that were so, why don't religionists just drop the superstition?
"It is often argued that religion is more than belief in god."
True, a theistic religion is also a mental disorder.
"Bill O'Reilly has argued that Christianity is a philosophy. If that were so, why don't religionists just drop the superstition?"
In his defense, he could argue that it is not JUST a philosophy, and I would agree, it is also an evil disease that spreads by raping innocent children minds and robbing them from their intellectual faculties and self integrity.