A good case against God

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

the burden of proof is rubbish! perhaps you are assuming that theists have the burden of proof just because you are atheist. this is just assuming from a theological standpoint, you could twist that logic e.g. a person from the flat earth society might say ' i don't need to present evidence that the world is flat but you must give evidence of the world being round'.

That is precisely what these twats are saying: They refuse to support their assertion of a mythical sky monster with evidence. And any of us can provide a great deal of evidence that the planet is round.

your logic is lazy.

Your assertion is incoherent.

in order to prove the non-existance of god you must present your own arguments.

We are not obligated to prove the non-existance of your fairy tale monster any more than you are obligated to prove that martian mermice do not exist.

otherwise its looks like you are just trying to cop out of an argument. come on people!

You would like it to look that way, but that is out of your own disingenuousness and desire to avoid your obligation of the burden of proof.

---

'Why don't you believe in dragons?'
I don't believe in dragons, not because we don't have evidence for their existance but because we have good reasons to believe they don't exist!

Great! SAME THING WITH YOUR SKY FAIRY!!!

i.e. they are mythological, their phisiology is very highly unlikly and they are made up?

You are asking? BUT again, all three of your rasons alsy apply to your mythical, impossible, made up fairy tale monster as well. Thanks for proving our point for us.

'theists claim that a god exists and so the burden of proof is on them. As an atheist I'm not claiming that there is no god, I have simply rejected the claim. The burden of proof is on you.'

you have yet to give a reason.

INCORRECT. The reason is that you theists have provided insufficient (read: NONE AT ALL) evidence.

i am saying the same thing as a theist i.e. As a theist, i'm rejecting the claim that there isn't a god. now the burden of proof in on you.

You say that, but you are rejecting sound reasoning and therefore unreasonable.

if we argue like this, it gets very boring.

Arguing with an irrationable, unreasonable, insane person is indeed boring.

In the words of William Lane Craig : 'absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'

And we are supposed to be impressed with the fallacious rantings of that village idiot?

---

'What an ignorant thing to say
If you really think that way, I have a bridge in Brookilyn that I'll make a good price, just send me10 K dollars and its yours. '

I don't disbelieve this because i see no evidence but rather because i have evidence to disbelieve it: its highly unlikly that an online stranger wants to sell me a bridge, and your writing style gives me the impression that you made that up on the spot.

And the same applies to your claim of a sky fairy monster.

'No, because you say X exists(in your case, god), its your burden to show us that X exists. I am an atheist as a conclusion from the fact that there isn't a spec of evidence for a god, not mentioning your speciphic god.'

Why is it not your burden to show me that X dosen't exist?

The fact that you don't understand, or refuse to understand this, betrays your naivety. You need to learn about rational discourse. We are under not obligation to disprove the existence of unicorns in order to not believe they exist.

'I don't make any claims, I reject the claim theists make that there is a god.'

but that in itself is a claim,

No, it's not a claim. You are showing your ignorance again.

and why can't i reject the claim atheists make that there isn't a god?

You can if you want, but that still does not absolve you of your responsibility to support your positive claim of a sky fairy.

---

Many people said this: atheist is a person that lacks the belief in god, agnostic is about knowledge, it says we can't know if X can be believed. This makes you a gnostic theist, since you claim to know that god exists. Either you believe in a god, or you don't, is that hard to understand? The main point is that you claim that god exists, its your burden to show us that such exists, in a surefire way we all can know it. Since the dawn of man, its been a futile quest.

I don't care what you call yourself or me… I believe, like many many other Christians based on the personal experience of God.

AGAIN. THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO DESCRIBE IN DETAIL WHAT THIS "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" IS. YOU WILL BE TELLING US EXACTLY HOW THIS GOD FIGURE APPEARED TO YOU, WAHT IT LOOKED LIKE, SOUNDED LIKE, ETC, AND DETAIL YOUR CLAIMED ENCOUNTER AND ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST BEING A DISINGENUOUS LYING FUCKTARD SAYING "I HAVE THIS UNICORN IN MY GARAGE, BUT YOU CAN'T EXAMINE IT".

Yet personal experience is by definition unsharable,

THAT IS A LIE STRAIGHT FROM THE PIT OF HELL.

so I cannot communicate to you that experience, I can only testify to you based on my experience.

YOU ARE LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

Why am I obligated to prove God in this case?

BECAUSE IT IS YOUR POSITIVE CLAIM.

Well, your extraordinary god requires extraordinary evidence, or why is it hiding? Ah yes, people with pure heart, whatever that means. I guess you mean people that think exactly like you... typical. Your arrogance is showing.

Do you disagree with the principle--the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do--or not?

I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment.

Another lie. It was not taken for granted by the greeks who took Zeus for granted, or any other culture who took their own mythical beings for granted. [/size][/b]

---

"I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment."

Uh. No. And before we can possibly get you to understand why that is wrong, you need to deal with the issue of your disbelief in other gods as pointed out to you elsewhere. You see, you're an atheist, too.

As far as I can tell this gives me no reason to think that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Perhaps you could be more explicit about what you are claiming here.

You don't think that your claim of a being created the entire universe is extraordinary? And that we can't see it, but you can? Wow.

---

What, you mean other than the complete lack of anything that could constitute evidence of any such thing ever having of existed?

It seems to me that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in the case that we should expect to have more evidence than we have.

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. That is sufficient to call bullshit on your extraordinary, unsupported claim.