Originally posted by nihilismor
Theists: How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?
Atheists: How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?
Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?
Nihilists: Why don't you tell the agnostics the answer is 42?!?!
Theists: How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?
Atheists: How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?
…
Placing these two very similar statements one above the other like this, inadvertently, makes it look like that you can make a comparison between the concepts of theism and atheism as if they where, vaguely put, “mirror images” of one another and there is a “perfect plain of symmetry” between them. I think this can, inadvertently, give the impression that one is no more or less valid than the other.
But they are not, vaguely put, “mirror images” of one another! For there is a fundamental difference between them that, vaguely put, completely messes up any supposed “perfect plain of symmetry” between them:
The question put to the theists: “How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?” is a perfectly reasonable one because it is perfectly reasonable to deny that something exists if you cannot see it (and not even detect it indirectly).
But, The question put to the atheists: “How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?” is an
unreasonable one because, again, it is reasonable to deny that something exists if you cannot see it (and not even detect it indirectly).
That’s why comparing theists with atheists is not like comparing two sides of the same coin.
I have said something very similar in another thread but:
The burden of proof is NOT on the person that refutes the claim of the existence of something X (such as the claim of the existence of a “god&ldquo😉, the burden of proof is on the person that supports the claim of the existence of something X. If it is you that is claiming X exists then it is you that has to provide evidence to rationally justify your claim that X exists. All the person that refutes X exists (for example, an atheist that refutes that there exists a “god&ldquo😉 has to do to justify his claim that the probability of that X existing is vanishing small is to point out that, according to all known science and/or observations (excluding observations that can be demonstrated to be hallucinations, mirages etc) there is no evidence to support that claim that X exists -that is all!
If that wasn’t the case then how would you argue against somebody that claims Santa exists and correctly asserts “nobody has proven that Santa doesn’t exist!”?
…Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?…
I assume that agnostics would answer that question by claiming it is impossible to
rationally come to a decision over the “greatest question of all” (assuming that they think that that question is the “greatest question of all” - I certainly don’t!).