Actually, it does follow, if they argue against God Tommy. Again, the premise isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t whether or not someone is an atheist; the premise is Ã¢â‚¬Å“If you make an assertion, you are obligated to provide evidence for your assertion.Ã¢â‚¬Â
If one doesn't believe in God one then it doesn't follow that one is "against God", as if you are in opposition to God.
It then follows; if you make an argument Ã¢â‚¬Å“for or against GodÃ¢â‚¬Â, or any other argument, you are obligated to provide evidence to support your assertion (or prepare to be exposed). And this does not include the equivocations of misdirection, straw men, red herrings, non sequiturs, tautologies (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) such as Ã¢â‚¬Å“you cannot prove a negativeÃ¢â‚¬Â, teapots in space, unicorns on Pluto (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦).
Provide the scripture Ã¢â‚¬Å“in contextÃ¢â‚¬Â, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be more than happy to discuss it with you. But, the point you just made is no more cogent than the unicorn or teapot logical fallacies.
I vaguely recall some NT quote of Jesus stating this but "against God" does not logically follow from not believing in God.
If you read the statement in context, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll soon realize that it is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“generalizationÃ¢â‚¬Â analogues to you argument of Ã¢â‚¬Å“proving a negativeÃ¢â‚¬Â. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“youÃ¢â‚¬Â was a generalization as well. If you took it the wrong way, I apologize, But the analogy standsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
Where have I compared God to any of those things?
Therefore, if that atheist makes an argument against God, that atheist is Ã¢â‚¬Å“responsibleÃ¢â‚¬Â to provide evidence to support said argument. That atheist cannot hide behind the smoke screen of Ã¢â‚¬Å“negativismÃ¢â‚¬Â.
My reference to God as a negative describes the outlook of an atheist who indeed believes that there is no God.
The supernatural is Ã¢â‚¬Å“relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural lawsÃ¢â‚¬Â. And we know of many-many phenomena that fit this bill; Memories, thoughts, altruistic love, the Law of Logic, the Scientific method (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). Therefore YOU know of many Ã¢â‚¬Å“supernatural entitiesÃ¢â‚¬Â that truly exist.
I don't know if supernatural entities exist but for the reason given lean toward skepticism.
First, we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“understandÃ¢â‚¬Â physics, we know a little about what we label as Ã¢â‚¬Å“physicsÃ¢â‚¬Â. And we have very few explanations, and the more we discover, the less we seemingly know. Therefore you are making statements that you are attempting to tie a Ã¢â‚¬Å“factualÃ¢â‚¬Â inference to an Ã¢â‚¬Å“unknownÃ¢â‚¬Â quantity.
An understanding of medicine, physics and chemistry, for instance, offer real explanations whereas we now know that demons don't cause mental illness, chariots don't pull the sun across the sky and spells don't turn lead into gold.
Secondly, the red herrings of Ã¢â‚¬Å“chariots pulling the sun across the skyÃ¢â‚¬Â and alchemy wont Ã¢â‚¬Å“flyÃ¢â‚¬Â here, as they are non sequiturs well outside the context of the conversation.
Another non sequitur Tommy; Common ancestry has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, and is inserted here as nothing more than another red herring. But, your statement is faith based at best.
Common ancestry implies the origin of life is explained by self-replicating chemistry.