Burden of Proof

[Simon Moon]

I have always argued with Theists that very point that I can understand why Athiest's can logically hold their view and we have to accept that

Yes, because logic does not support the existence of a god. Nice of you to see that.

but it doesn't mean we can't change their mind maybe not on a collective level but maybe at an individual level.

How would you change our mind if we specifically said that we require demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic to support our beliefs, without providing us with reasoned argument, valid logic or demonstrable evidence?

And it does'nt mean that Theist are devoid of intelligence or logic to reach their position unless you take it as default that logic is the ultimate tool of the intellect and ultimately the only arbiter of truth.

What other method, besides demonstrable evidence and valid logic, do you feel is the best at determining whether something is true (or at least likely to be true)?

When someone makes extraordinary claims (alien abductions, Bigfoot, Jinn, vodoo, etc, etc) , what heuristic do you apply to them to determine their likelihood of being true? I'm willing to bet it is the same one we use when someone makes the claim that a god exists.

understand does not equal accept.

If you are making a claim that a god exists, you have the burden of proof. There is no argument about that.

If you are not making this claim, then why are you here?

A book on logic would be useful if the strength of my position rested there, but as this is as much a personal exploration of the subject even though I am sharing it with you on the forum

So, why are you here then? If you are not attempting to convince us of your position, why waste your time?

You have to understand by now, that atheists will not accept a claim unless accompanied by demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic (none of which you've provided). So, what is your purpose here?

I can't believe you are here to learn (hopefully you will anyway), because you continue to post the same fallacious stuff repeatedly, yet never once that I've seen, actually attempted to understand any of the fallacies you have been guilty of.

I rather read what applies to my needs first as no amount of logic will work with you guys in my opinion based on the fact that both positions are unprovable and I don't accept the burden of proof.

You have not once used logic.

Logic is a formal method of analyzing arguments and claims. Logic is not what 'sounds right to you'. Logic is very specific method.

There is no such thing as 'my logic' or 'your logic', there is only 'logic'.

Terms like: major premise, minor premise, conclusion, syllogism, fallacy, law of noncontradiction, etc, have exact meanings. they are not open to interpretation.

I understand and accept that others find my position to be some or all of the following untolerable, illogical,stubborn, foolish, hypocritical and any number of more derogative terms but it is my position.

None of these terms are derogatory, if they describe your view accurately.