Oh for suck sake,you REALLY don't have clue, do you. Perhaps have a go at grasping the rudiments of critical thinking,then you might not come across as such a drongo.

I am not being unkind: Your two sentences contain four logical fallacies

Quote:For thousands of years of human history it had been apparent there is a God.

Argument from antiquity;being believed for a long time does not make a thing true. The existence of god(s) is not self evident,that is an argument from incredulity (aka 'god of the gaps) IE "I am too ignorant,too lacking in imagination or too stupid to think of anything else,therefore god did it"

Quote: It is up to atheists to prove that billions of people's presuppositions have been wrong.

Argument from consensus;that a large number of people believe a thing does not mean it is true. There are BIlLIONS more non Christians than Christians.By your reasoning that means Christians are wrong.

Atheists have an obligation to prove NOTHING;we make no claims. The burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim.That you are unable to grasp the notion of 'the burden of proof' does not make me wrong;it simply reveals you as willfully ignorant and probably stupid (OK,that wasn't a secret)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Quote:When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
[edit]

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

Quote:First, Paul says, "Be ready to give an account."

What if "paul" is as phony as the rest of the story?

ChadWooters Wrote:According to the bible the burden of proof is on you.

Let's just add that to the list of things the bible is wrong about, okay?

"Paul" is symbolism and allegory Chad. That quote is actually extolling the virtues of blueberry waffles, you just didn't translate it properly.

(March 12, 2012 at 8:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Paul" is symbolism and allegory Chad. That quote is actually extolling the virtues of blueberry waffles, you just didn't translate it properly.

Swedenborgians don't consider the Epistles of Paul inspired. I was quoting Paul back to Undeceived , because he would consider the Epistles authoritative.

And actually, Paul means a liar that claimed himself to be an apostle and who now burns in Hell because he loved his own preaching more than the Gospel.

Actually, the Roman cognomen Paulus means "little." Perhaps Paul had a little dick, too?

Swedenborgians can consider whatever they like whatever they like(which they obviously do). Hell and burning are symbols and allegory. Moveable feast

(March 12, 2012 at 11:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Swedenborgians can consider whatever they like whatever they like(which they obviously do). Hell and burning are symbols and allegory. Moveable feast

...symbols and allegories that describe the state of a persons character, just to be clear.

"The state of a persons character" is just symbol and allegory, just to be clear.

(March 12, 2012 at 8:35 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

ChadWooters Wrote:According to the bible the burden of proof is on you.

Let's just add that to the list of things the bible is wrong about, okay?

It's a long list. just one more:

Quote: So when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (john 8:7 KJV)

A classic tu quoque fallacy. (appeal to hypocrisy) I may not use your crimes to excuse my crimes or the crimes of others.