|
Well, to begin, we are all sick of atheist debates. They are usually, thoughtless, debates that make
no since. Atheist people feel so guilty over their own decision, that they feel the need to
constantly explain their decision and beliefs. Smart people know that God exists. The proof is all
around. To not believe that God exist is to be blind and naive. When these atheists are in trouble
or experiencing trauma or life changing events, they are yelling for help from God. It is all a show
them. Christians just need to leave them alone and quit wasting time on them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well we have been through this before. I agree that if there is an assertion made by a minority to
upset the majority opinion, then the burden falls on the minority making the claim. Even if the
belief is not based in fact, it is still the prevailing belief. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Okay
You're an atheist about Zeus. You believe he doesn't exist.
Prove Zeus doesn't exist.
Edit:
Instead of proving that Zeus does not exist, the raving godbot spews garbage about his own religion
being true.
It's not the first time the whining godbot named Mark didn't answer a question because he didn't
have an answer. He never did have the spine to answer whether apes had half souls. |
| |
 K9  30 May 2008 03:44
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not those rejecting it. Usually, when
someone is making a claim that others reject, this means that the person making the claim has not
presented enough evidence to convince those who oppose it otherwise. If there is an atheist making
such claims of opposition to certain beliefs, then yes, the burden of proof would be on them to show
reasons to the contrary. However, if someone is simply rejecting something given to them it’s up
to those who defend it to present the evidence supporting such a conclusion (whether or not the
person rejecting the belief requires subjective or objective evidence usually depends). |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a
delusion it is called religion. Becoming a believer in god is often not a choice its something your
parents teach you, or a result of peer pressure. Atheist do put forward their proof, we've been
doing it for years. For theist it goes in one ear and out the other, or over their heads, one or the
other. Until we can travel into the past and show creationist what really happened and that the
earth is billions of years old and that humans have evolved like every other organism, you will
ignore the proof that is right in front of you. Its the creationist who have never shown any
believable or plausible evidence that any gods exist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oh get a life, Mark.
We are not claiming that the world was magically created in 7 days, yet the creator manages to not
wipe out disease/poverty/crime/whatever.
"They are contradicting writing after writing" - ALL THE WRITING IS FROM THE SAME SOURCE, THE SOURCE
WITH NO PROOF. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Nope. If you say "God exists" and I say "God doesn't exist" those are equal theories. Neither of us
have provided proof, only conjecture. Atheists have their reasons for not believing in God, just as
Theists have their reasons for believing in God. From either side, it is all conjecture. Until God
presents Himself or Herself to us, there will always be doubt. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Why would the burden of proof be on the atheist?? The burden of proof lies with the party making the
positive claim. Atheists are just holding the default position assigned by nature.
""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, there is nothing "abnormal" about rejecting an irrational concept that hasn't been
demonstrated.
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof, Mark. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
