Reptillian Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Scenario 1: They have to prove their assertion about god is correct with factual evidences. The ignostics has to prove that their assertion is not the only way to perceive things using theological history and the history of meaning of god. Scenario 2: They have to prove that their methodology of thinking through things is rational. The ignostics has to prove that both sides are illogical. Note- Some ignostics would assert that it is illogical to assume something don't exist when there is no evidence and overrides the problem with the assertion by asserting one cannot make a conclusion when there is no evidence to suggest anything. Also, some would point out that it is illogical to assume something when concepts are nebulous.* What would be the exact outcome? Who will the public side in with? How would it change the public perception? FYI, yes I know there are many ignostics, many Christians, and many atheists. So yes, results varies dependent on perception and thinking process. Another note- Yes, I am aware that not all atheists believe no evidence=does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExCBooster Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 The Public? Public Perception?? Oh, crap, I think we know how that will go: Praise Jeebus! (At least in current sociocultural climate, in this place, at this time). Unfortunately, "people" don't make decisions based on rational argument. Refer to awesome quote from Men in Black (okay movie, great writing): " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts