Religion
In reply to the discussion: If you cannot disprove the existence of God, or prove the existence of God [View all]Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)There are many things that are said about gods that seem easy to disprove; like promises of giant miracles whenever we ask for them. Here we can simply ask for a miracle ... and quickly see they don't show up as regularly as advertised. Or consider a God who is promised to appear visibly before us every day - but we don't see him in our lives today. To the extent that any given god is identified with or composed of such disprovable attributes, that god might be said to be "disproven" if those attributes are obviously false.
The 2) other problem might be that there seems to be some kind of subtle squeeze play here against anti-theists.
It is often said on this blog that "a-theism" just means not necessarily disbelieving in God; just expressing no interest. This position is said in some circles to be better than "anti-theism"; actively saying there is no God.
3) We've had a fair discussion based on simply assuming the premise.
4) However? We should not let it slip by or forget that the premise itself is ... suspect. It produces a sort of bias or invisible limitation in the discussion.
In that way, this allegedly "objective" or neutral discussion is actually subtly manipulative and prejudicial.