soul rattler;7310234 said:Disproving the existence of a theistic deity is not the atheist's responsibility. Until the theist succeeds in proving the existence of their G-d, there is no need to disprove it.
What's problematic is a piss poor and culturally biased definition of what legitimate "proof" is from the perspective of the atheists out here. The atheist demands empirical evidence which is not the only way of proving things. This is a mode of thought originating in Greco-Roman society and basically canonized during the so-called Age of Enlightenment by Venetian party agents and touted intellects. Most atheist have a shitty understanding of science yet wield it as a weapon of argumentation. Every science is not restricted by hard data which can only be qualified and quantified by means of the physical sense. This is a materialist view..which again is not the only legitimate or default method of viewing the world. There are scientific disciplines such as archaeology and sociology which are considered "soft sciences' as the means of measurement and fact finding are not as rigid and sensory as say chemistry or geology. Moreover, science revolves around observation of principles and subsequent measurement. If we are talking a non-corporeal being then how could you measure it other than by means of perception and socialization of those who deal with the ideas attributed to said being no matter what it is called. And lastly...most importantly...nobody has to prove a goddamn thing to an atheist. How is that even a thing? Who is an atheist to prove anything to? What are the intrinsic rewards of "proving God" to an atheist?? To me thats just some new-fangled skewed internet bullshit.