The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a leap of faith to not believe in God - it's a conclusion reached logically based on repeated observations of reality. Could my observations be faulty or misintrepreted? Of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it's not a leap of faith what is it?


[ QUOTE ]
Could my observations be faulty or misintrepreted? Of course. However, based upon my knowledge it seems the most reasonable conclusion. That's all scientific theory is anyway - the most likely answer based on experimentation and calculation. No one can be 100% certain there is no God (or of anything, really), but it sure seems plausible to me. To call that a "leap of faith" equivalent to that of believing in God is being obtuse. The burden of proof is on those who believe in God, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

So since your conclusion seems most reasonable to you the burden of proof is on those who believe in God?

Consider that to believers the conclusion that there is a God seems most reasonable to them. They are looking at the same evidence as you. They see the beauty and design of nature, that day follows night follows day etc., that the seasons come and go, the birth of new life, they see someone come back from the brink of death. They see this and other evidence and can't come to any other conclusion that there is a God.

Yes your observations certainly do point to the non-existence of God. However, you have neglected to include any observations that point to the existence of God. Are these not that significant? Who decided what importance to attach to these observations? On what basis does one determine the importance of these observations?