Tenacious D
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,336
- Likes
- 1
You can believe it silly, or not.
Although I understand the point your're making (the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence), and while some correlation exists (i.e. mythical creature to deiitistic figures / forces), your analogy breaks down on this single point:
No one is truly arguing for the existence of unicorns, and even if they were, the correctness of that position is virtually of complete inconsequence to mankind in general, either in this life or hereafter (if you believe in that sort of thing).
Sure, while proving the existence of unicorns might make our viewing of the My Little Pony a more discerning experience, or may single-handedly rejuvenate the lagging Petting Zoo industry, it matters little beyond that. If at all.
Conversely, the question of God's existence is quite literally and inarguably, preeminent to all else. The effective and empirical proof - or disproof - of that notion transcends everything from evolution to denomination. It is not a central or even primary consideration - it is THE question. And any attempt to subjugate that question (however intellectually satisfying or emotionally pleasing it may be to anyone who believes they've solved it to a point of certainty) beneath any one of a billion questions of significantly lesser importance is ignorant at best, and foolish, at worst.
There are those (spiritualists) who actually purport the existence of God - who, in most religious beliefs is a true, living deity who not only created, but continues to interact with this world, and (some say will judge it and/or return). It shapes their identity, their worldview and controls (read: seeks, demands, requests or desires, again, depending upon their respective beliefs) their actions. Moreover, their beliefs not only affect their lives here and now, but will impact both them - AND YOU - for all of eternity, hereafter.
There are others (atheists) who, if they were being intellectually honest, believe that such a notion is absolute and utter nonsense - that no such deity has / does or is even possible to exist. While many atheists (perhaps moreso than not, at least from those I know) will readily concede a tolerance for all religious beliefs, such is typically only a measure of goodwill, as they understand that the (false) notion of this deity provides some "good" (i.e. it comforts, it engenders charity, etc.) to its believers, and by and large, society as a whole (the atrocities committed by the respective religions - as certain as they are - would not tip the scales of its incalcuable "good", were it multiplied a million times over, and more).
So, we've got two groups. Neither inherently evil, stupid, or ignorant (reread the many definitions of "fool" before you make a point about my OP, please. It'll save us both some time) - but who have diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive beliefs.
One says God exists. The other says s/he does not.
Say it as sweetly or as sternly as you might prefer - but one is right, and the other is wrong. Period.
While both sides have become experts at the destruction of the opposing argument, this often masks their respective and complete inabilities to effectively and empirically prove their own.
In fact, I believe that both sides should be in lock-step agreement on this one unmitigatable truth, if no others, it cannot be effectively proven in either direction, and it never will be.
Instead, and in failing that, what we are left with is a dishonest discourse of presumptively invalid "evidences" being purported by those charlatans on either side who are (again) foolish enough to believe that they have somehow managed to solve the unsolvable question of God's non/existence by a process of reverse-engineering via the refutation of the opposing argument - and which is devoid of any acknowledgement of their inability to prove their own.
If it is to be an honest and/or constructive exhange of ideas, it cannot begin with a presumption of correctness in personal beliefs (i.e. I know God is real because I believe / feel it, I do not believe God is real and should be left entirely unconsidered). Instead, it must begin with each sides respective acknowledgement as to the preeminence of the question of God's existence (name a subject it wouldn't influence), and in their utter bankruptcy to effectively and empirically prove it, in either direction. Then, and only then, can a true search beginm as doing otherwise is not only dishonest, but in fact, foolish.
That is, if its not too silly of an idea.
IMO JMO TIFWIW IMHO.
