Ron Garrett

I took no hits but bit one bullet for demanding a higher standard of proof for God than I do for evolution. But to me this is rationally consistent based on proportion of the question. I would require a higher standard of performance from a Masseratti than a Yugo because of the price involved. What would be fascinating is to take a group of our Christian troll friends and drive bys and see if they could even make it through.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Malleus Veritatis ]</p>

Godless Sodomite

I bit the same bullet you did; and for the same reason.

-Jerry

The Resistance

I bit a bullet for saying evolution was true, but that it was silly to believe in God without proof.

So I had to either take a bullet saying I require more proof for God than evolution or take a hit.

Evolution is true, it does have incontrovertable proof! If the evidence for God was even close to the level of evidence for evolution, I'd believe in God, but it doesn't.

Also, I knew if I said atheism is an act of faith that I'd take a bullet for it. Atheism, at least strong atheism, is an act of faith. It's just not nearly up the amount of faith required to believe in a religion like Christianity.

James AD

You are contradicting yourself here. First you say it is foolish to believe in God unless it has more evidence than evolution, then you say it would be enough for you if there was somewhat less evidence. Which is it?

I think you want to agree with the first part of the statement that "It is foolish to believe in God...". But to say "...without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists" in the second part is demanding a very high level of proof. The full statement is about how much proof is needed to reasonably hold the belief, not whether there actually is enough.