Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

I like your frank answer!

---

I was being sarcastic, and speaking to the judgmental attitude of some theists I have encountered. The truth is, in a lifetime of examining claims, I have not found sufficient reason to believe.

Oh, yay! Another Pascal's Wager thread!

:barf:

Sorry, I'll try to change the subject. I guess for me, personally it's logical to look beyond life, if there is a chance something is after life. Do you have evidence I should consider that nothing is after life?

It's not my burden to bear, and I'll not do so.

I don't really give a rip what you wish to talk about. Pascal's Wager is certainly nothing new, its been done to death here in some epic threads of inanity (please, please, do not post in the 'Aren't you atheists taking a big risk thread'). I've been doing this online discussion thing since the mid-1980's (not a typo), and it wasn't new then. Yet, like clockwork, someone comes in every few weeks thinking its some brilliant nugget of unassailable logic that has never been presented. It has, ad nauseum, and it has been shredded as many times.

Fresh arguments are likely to encounter significantly less derision.

Then I'd like to say I like your sarcastic answer!



No problem, I'll steer clear of Pascal. Thanks for the tip.

---

The burden of proof is yours, alone. ?

I dont remember ever voting for that rule.

Nice gig.

Sit back and claim the lucky, lazy, zero-burden of proof default position.

It is not lazy to do no work where no work is required, unlike morons who thinks he wiggle out of proof despite putting himself in a full burden of proof position through sheer infantile assertion.

---

So says the man who believes in bullshit because he likes it.


Give me a ring when you can find some evidence for your fucking fairy tales, pal.

Where is the man?

I'm workin' for him!

---

I actually think the burden of proof is on whoever WANTS to persuade. The world is run by the people who turn up

If atheists are happy to sit back and be unpersuasive non-stamp collectors thats their business.

So, is the burden of proof on me to persuade myself? Perhaps you are right. I do appreciate any help I can get, though.

---

I actually think the burden of proof is on whoever WANTS to persuade. The world is run by the people who turn up

If atheists are happy to sit back and be unpersuasive non-stamp collectors thats their business.

That's a good point there. The world is definitely run by the people who turn up. How about this scenario:

We're all sitting at a table talking about life in general. Unexpectedly, a newcomer turns up and wants to join our conversation; so he does. This newcomer starts telling the rest of the group about weird and wonderful things that the others haven't heard, so they ask him to back up his claims.

Sound familiar? Replace the table with Atheistforums.org. Now then, why should I believe what you tell me is true? You're the newcomer who is here to persuade us, so show us some proof.

Yes, but if the newcomer is asking, rather than telling, would the same be true? If I ask you why someone believes there is no God, is it up to me to answer my own question?