[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

Would you mind telling me the difference between the two?

I have already explained it to you with the invisible animals and you said it's ridiculous. And it IS ridiculous. You appreciated that in my example because it wasn't something as incendiary as religion.
But want another example in real life?
America and Iraq. That's exactly the logic they used when they were searching for weapons of mas destruction. And they kept pressuring Iraq for no reason because no one can disprove a negative.
"Iraq says they don't have WMDs, but we don't see any evidence that they don't have WMDs, therefore they might have WMDs"
The point of departure must be skepticism. IF I make a crazy claim, it is up to me to prove it, not for you to disprove it.

I don't agree with your equation or think it presents anything pertaining to discussion.

Why not? When people can't think of a better reason to believe in god - not even emotional reasons - than "Why not?", why can't you see my use of logic as pertaining to that discussion?

It's more like "When I didn't believe in x life was a lot more confusing and full of worries and enemies than now that I do believe in x. Therefore x is that answer to a puzzle I was struggling with".

That's not what they were arguing. I didn't address those who said "believing in God makes me happy, so I believe he exists"
I was addressing the ones who said "we can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he does exist"
Arguing for the existence of god through emotion still renders the pseudological argument of "if you can't prove it it's true" as bullshit.

I believe in god because I see no reason not to. I have seen plenty of evidence that has come from life experience.

You're saying opposite things here. If you have seen plenty of evidence, then you have a reason to believe!
It's not that you believe because you said "oh feck, why not?"