[continued from previous message]   
      
   principles, rendering the claim of an Abrahamic God as not only a myth but   
   a baseless speculation having no more credence than a claim that has   
   already been proven false.   
      
   Very often, believers may already know that there’s no evidence of God or   
   anything supernatural, but they’re determined to make believing it anyway   
   for reasons that don’t qualify as reason. So they have to find a way to   
   shift the burden of proof onto the negative claim or to onto someone who   
   doesn’t believe in their unsupported assertions of illogical, irrational,   
   impossible absurdity. I mean, it should be that if you make a claim, you   
   have to substantiate it or be dismissed and discredited for stating   
   falsehoods. But faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have   
   because claiming facts that aren’t facts and pretending to know things you   
   don’t know is what faith is all about. But in every other application, we   
   would call that lying. The only way that faith could be any less honest or   
   any more dishonest is if you’re a religious apologist, asserting   
   speculation without reason and defending it against all reason is what   
   apologetics is all about, making up any and all excuses to justify   
   doctrinal errors and/or to systematically dismiss or ignore any and all   
   evidence against an a priori belief to defend the faith even in those   
   instances where you know it’s not true.   
      
   So they resort to an appeal to ignorance as if they can assert whatever   
   they want without any justification at all. And they think that they can   
   refer to such lies as the absolute truth until or unless we can prove it   
   false. Then apologists will still call it truth even after it’s been   
   thoroughly disproved because faith means never admitting when you’re wrong.   
   Because one of the problems with a faith-based belief system is that there   
   are required beliefs and prohibited beliefs where you’re forbidden to admit   
   certain truths that may call the faith into question because you have to   
   believe a particular interpretation of doctrine no matter what, or else   
   face the empty threat of eternal damnation.   
      
   Additionally, there’s usually an emotional attachment to certain faith   
   beliefs and often culturally conditioned deep-seated need to believe that   
   overrides our natural desire to understand. In either case, it means that   
   the believer has to come up with some excuse, has to find any excuse to   
   keep on believing even when they know it’s not true. As has happened a few   
   times, people have admitted to me that they know it’s not true, but they’re   
   going to believe it anyway. So they make up arguments instead of evidence,   
   arguments that all require specific assumptions and typically depend on   
   false dichotomy, where only two options are allowed, and no others may be   
   admitted because the goal is not to seek the truth but to avoid   
   uncomfortable truths in defense of the faith.   
      
   My problem is, I can’t relate to this. I can’t choose to believe whatever I   
   want to, especially when it’s apparently indefensible when there is no   
   truth to it. The difference in my position is that I want to know whatever   
   the truth is, regardless of what I might rather believe, whereas the   
   faithful just want to believe whatever they want to, regardless of what the   
   truth is. Judging by several admissions I’ve heard, these so-called True   
   Believers apparently don’t even care what the truth is; they want to make   
   believe something else instead.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)