.
Quote:
|
Quote by: dontconfuseme Carl Sagan rightly gathered that "[e]xtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." However, my point in all this has been that you and Sagan and atheists in general assume (unargued, thus far) that Naturalism is "ordinary," while all other presuppositions (in this case, Christian theism) are "extraordinary." |
Naturalism is 'ordinary' in the sense that it obeys the known laws of nature and physics, and is thus amenable to controlled, repeatable experiment and observation.
Quote:
|
Quote by: dontconfuseme I'm done with pretended neutrality. The only acceptable and fair debate between theists and atheists is one in which the atheist admits reliance on presupposition, the theist does the same, then debate from there, instead of the rules being skewed at the outset. |
It's not about any "Rules" being skewed... what 'Rules'?... it's about the nature of what's being argued. On the one hand you have, "It's correct because the Bible tells me so". Blind faith in an archaic ideology. On the other hand you have the accumulated scientific knowledge of humankind and reasoned logic.
Granted, the latter has a clear advantage but it's not because of any "Rules of Debate". That's just whining. It's the very nature of two systems of belief that are now so contradictory they can no longer be compared, but one of which is testable.
And if most humans weren't hardwired by evolution for religious belief, religious belief would be swept aside by common sense in a heartbeat. But we humans ARE wired for religious belief, so you continue to have faith in the existence of something that, under any other circumstance, would be viewed as completely irrational.
.