Discussion 3 to Ask the Patriarch 86
Here I am again with my doubts.
by José Barreto
Here I am again with my doubts about agnosticism and with my "accusations of evasiveness"!
Let me quote a contemporary greek philosopher, Takis Fotopoulos (you can easily find the whole text in the net):
"(...) the argument usually used by irrationalists of various sorts that both the rejection and the acceptance of God are equally matters of faith, since both are 'unprovable', is an irrational sophistry. This is because it is only rational for one to expect that the burden of proof about the existence of things that cannot be proven by an appeal to our senses should be borne by those claiming their existence and not by those who claim their non-existence! The fact that, as History has shown, things and powers that in the past were thought to be non existent today are considered to be common place, as a result of the growth in human knowledge, further reinforces this argument about the burden of proof. It is obvious that if something is claimed to exist there are two logical possibilities: either it does really exist, in which case demonstrating its existence is just a matter of time (and religions had plenty of time in the thousands of years of their history to show the existence of God with no success), or it does not really exist, in which case it will never be possible to show its existence. Therefore, atheists should never be rationally expected to show the existence of God and this is why atheism is not a matter of faith, in the same way as theism is."
That's exactly what I think.
Thank you for your attention