Comments on: Does God Exist? – The Craig/Hitchens Debate http://graphicdesignhero.com/blog/2009/04/06/god-exist-craighitchens-debate-review/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=god-exist-craighitchens-debate-review Useless information from my random world Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:32:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jeremy Bear http://graphicdesignhero.com/blog/2009/04/06/god-exist-craighitchens-debate-review/#comment-43 Jeremy Bear Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:04:01 +0000 http://www.mcmahan.info/blog/?p=272#comment-43 I'm always exasperated when I hear the existence of God debated, as atheists rarely cite evidence against His existence as their proof, but rather cite examples of why they don't like Him. You'd think it would be transparently obvious that God's existence and God's character are separate discussions altogether, but the underlying logic seems to be "I'm angered by the God Notion. It's therefore most convenient to assume the position that He doesn't exist at all." Granted, it's not the tactic of every atheist, but it seems to happen the majority of the time. It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable debate if the debaters insist on changing the context of the argument. I’m always exasperated when I hear the existence of God debated, as atheists rarely cite evidence against His existence as their proof, but rather cite examples of why they don’t like Him. You’d think it would be transparently obvious that God’s existence and God’s character are separate discussions altogether, but the underlying logic seems to be “I’m angered by the God Notion. It’s therefore most convenient to assume the position that He doesn’t exist at all.”

Granted, it’s not the tactic of every atheist, but it seems to happen the majority of the time. It’s impossible to have any sort of reasonable debate if the debaters insist on changing the context of the argument.

]]>