Religion

On Facebook this week:

Old High School Buddy: is assured that God exists because he has a clear and distinct idea of God, and that his clear and distinct ideas are true because God exists; and he is stupid.

My reply: So, which is it: people who believe in God are stupid, or people who defend their belief in God with circular arguments are stupid?

Or maybe I shouldn't ask. ;)

His reply: The particular charge of stupidity lies with the circular form of the argument, e.g. Descartes. Although, I am open to other theological proofs also qualifying as widly[sic] stupid.


Now, I'm not willing to argue his point. He has always been one of those people whose knowledge and wit were only outmatched by his estimation of the same and a discussion of religion and philosophy would empirically end only in frustration and his deepening disdain for us poor, stupid, sexually repressed Christians.

I do find it interesting that both sides often end with demanding that the other bear the burden of proof. Yet both sides also cling to what they feel is proof enough without being willing to acknowledge or entertain the ideas of the opposition.

My friends all, my dear ones who are religious, agnostic, and atheist -- what do you think? Which side has the burden of proof?

More thoughts on this after I get done with [insert long, impressive list of things I have to get done today].