Quote:
Originally Posted by tad10  Your definition of faith and mine are the same -- our application isn't. You seem to think that your faith in the nonexistence of God is somehow more logical than my faith in the existence of God. However, both rest on nonprovable premises.
I'm okay with this situation -- you seem to be upset by it.
Cheers |
While this is all very interesting and such, it rests upon a very common (and intentional) claim oft introduced in to the atheism v. deism debate - further muddied by a semantic misuse of the word "faith".
That claim being one that atheism requires "proof", the semantic misuse being that an atheistic position requires "faith"
As a non-positivistic statement eg:... "there is no evidence that supports the existence (claim) of God (as currently claimed)... (therefore) God does not exist (as currently claimed)"
Proof, in a purely evidenciary manner, is not required in this manner of claim.
Proof is required when one makes a positivistic claim introducing X value into a given system, with Y claims to validity.
At its core, the atheistic position is that the Y claims (re religion, et al) do not constitute adequate proof for X value (the existence of God). To conclude that God exists on the basis of incomplete and "un-sound" predicates is the very definition of "irrational"
A previous responder adequately covered the semantic issues regarding the word "faith".
Dawkins arguement is further encompassing of the point that society is its own worse enemy. While society tries to deny the existence/validity of the "full unicorn" (dogmatic religions) it goes over backwards to give sanction to the existence/validity of "partial unicorns" (moderate religious stances), when the only possible result of that logical meandering is the truth position that the unicorn does, in fact, exist. (This arguement is better covered in Harris' "The End of Faith")
The moderate postion enables, provides support for, the radical stance
In the end, one does not need to prove that the unicorn "does not exist", the burden of proof rests upon those who would claim that it (the unicorn) is real.