Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Actually, some theists i have met put the burden of proof on the athiests, because, in short, the Bible is innocent until proven guilty

Welcome Rwandrall

Yeah,I know,it's hard to argue with someone against a position in which reason was not used to form and is not used to maintain.

The positions you quoted contain two logical fallacies. The first is about the burden of proof: Your Christian friends may not move that burden. It is the person making the claim who has the burden of proof.The atheist who asserts "I do not believe" is making no claims and need prove nothing.


The second is called 'argument from ignorance' . IE: The claim that a thing is true because it has not been proven to be false,or false because it has not been proven to be true.

A third fallacy is implicit: argument from authority. IE: It's true because the bible says so.

My position is the Torah is the mythology of an insignificant tribe of bronze age goat herders. The New Testament is the mythology of the religion loosely based on the first. I simply decline to accept the bible as evidence in any discussion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary"[4], that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief[citation needed] or argument from personal conviction[citation needed], refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Both arguments commonly share this structure[citation needed]: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true. The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of argument, in which a valid logical contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority