(February 21, 2014 at 3:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you look you'll see I was called a creotard first.

False, I commented on your attitude specifically. You're the one who made the sweeping generalization.

(February 21, 2014 at 3:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm not saying that makes me right...

"...but I said it anyway"

(February 21, 2014 at 3:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: A apart from this retaliation I have remained civil in this conversation, unlike the op.

You labeled me presumptuous when it was you who didn't understand where the burden of proof rests in the first place. You should know that the positive claimer has the burden of proof, and it can't be self-proving by the holy book itself. That would be low standards of evidence (and circular reasoning once again), which doesn't meet the burden of proof, to any degree scientifically. Also, it's pretty uncivil to start debates in someone's introduction thread about their opinion. You equivocate a statement of opinion with a sweeping statement, and since you've been corrected again on what I said, you got it now, right? And the fact of the matter is, if the burden of proof on your positive claim was met, this debate wouldn't exist.

(February 21, 2014 at 3:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The op made the sweeping statement about all religions, not me.

First of all, what Atheist doesn't think the religions burden of proof hasn't been met? get real.

Second of all..Straw man. It was an opinion, "I have never been a believer myself even as a child, mainly since no religion has met their burden of proof" this is clearly a statement of opinion and true at that. The positive claims about the universe have the burden of proof so they need to meet the proper standards of evidence. And if you didn't get it before what I said, now you do. So you can stop this fallacious burden shifting.

(February 21, 2014 at 3:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Besides, atheotard seems to be a pretty accurate description for this person. Unlike his insults directed at me which he makes without knowing my stance on anything he's said about me.

Oh please, get over yourself. You not only claimed I was presumptuous when you were wrong but claimed I was ignorant on the topic when again, you were wrong. I mean, not knowing what you're talking about with the burden of proof, where it rests, and how you actually think your religion has met the rigorous and proper standards of evidence, is just bad my friend. Burden of proof has been met huh? Get your Nobel Prize and prove there's a Christian sky daddy...

So again I ask, although I have already given up on this pointless task, truth be told....

What is the positive claim that I'm making?

I don't claim that God exists. I, and anyone else without supernatural abilities, can do no more than believe in him. That's all I claim as a fully signed up mainstream Christian: to believe in God.

I'm not about to point out to you the material evidence for the undetectable space ship on the lawn in front of me. There a simple clue in the problem: undetectable. You, as a pseudo scientist think that the laws of logic don't apply to you. So where it's the burden?

Are you not claiming that I claim that God exists? And if you are, do you not own that burden? Shouldn't you actually have to show that i make that claim? Do I have my logic backwards here?

Ignorance isn't an insult, it's an opportunity for learning. If you don't wish to learn, that's great. But own your ignorance.

Maybe there was a communication error or a slight error in grammar for you, but the burden of proof doesn't rest with me. So it's asinine to continue to claim it's my burden to meet.

I didn't claim a god didn't exist, so I have no burden of proof. You're the religious individual saying that it's my burden of proof in your first burden shifting reply. Sorry, but it's not.

I don't even know how this got turned into a topic about you when I made the opinion statement that no religion has met their burden of proof as a reason for being an atheist.

Thus why I don't have to prove pixies didn't sneeze the universe into existence, but according to your logic, I do if someone makes that claim to me.

(February 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: Hey there, thought I'd make a formal intro since I forgot about it.

My real name is Mike. In my youth I was "that kid" that the church kicks out of Sunday School for asking too many questions in front of the other kids, like; "6000 years old? What about dinosaur fossils?" or "Isn't the ark still too small for millions of lifeforms?". My parents were religious (Lutheran and Catholic) but not strict about it. So it was easy for a Scientific worldview to win someone inquisitive like me over at a young age and very easily over mysticism--lucky me for having Cafeteria-Christian parents. I'm quite thankful for their philosophy to let me believe whatever conclusions I came to.

It's great to be part of a forum with so many Agnostic/Atheists/Anti-Theists like myself because it seems like other forums are still full of very pious individuals who don't like religious discussion in the forums. But I'm sure you theists here are entertaining and nice, aren't ya? I have never been a believer myself even as a child, mainly since no religion has met their burden of proof, the evidences against religions are huge and other logical and emotional reasons.

If you made it this far through my shitty speech, you are truly a god/godess among the people.

Welcome, Mike. I accept your homage with grace and benevolence. Have a rep point.

You claimed Mike that I claimed it (existence): a positive claim that you can't substantiate.

I claimed that you claimed what?

You're like two children in the back seat of a car. "But he touched me first!"

(February 21, 2014 at 11:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(February 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: Hey there, thought I'd make a formal intro since I forgot about it.

My real name is Mike. In my youth I was "that kid" that the church kicks out of Sunday School for asking too many questions in front of the other kids, like; "6000 years old? What about dinosaur fossils?" or "Isn't the ark still too small for millions of lifeforms?". My parents were religious (Lutheran and Catholic) but not strict about it. So it was easy for a Scientific worldview to win someone inquisitive like me over at a young age and very easily over mysticism--lucky me for having Cafeteria-Christian parents. I'm quite thankful for their philosophy to let me believe whatever conclusions I came to.

It's great to be part of a forum with so many Agnostic/Atheists/Anti-Theists like myself because it seems like other forums are still full of very pious individuals who don't like religious discussion in the forums. But I'm sure you theists here are entertaining and nice, aren't ya? I have never been a believer myself even as a child, mainly since no religion has met their burden of proof, the evidences against religions are huge and other logical and emotional reasons.

If you made it this far through my shitty speech, you are truly a god/godess among the people.

Welcome, Mike. I accept you homage with grace and benevolence. Have a rep point.

Thanks a lot for your welcoming Mister Agenda, and clearly I must worship you now as well for getting through that.

---

(February 21, 2014 at 11:53 am)rasetsu Wrote:

You're like two children in the back seat of a car. "But he touched me first!"

But...he really did touch me first, me=

(February 21, 2014 at 11:53 am)rasetsu Wrote:

You're like two children in the back seat of a car. "But he touched me first!"

So who did you think made a claim mummy?

(February 21, 2014 at 11:38 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So again I ask, although I have already given up on this pointless task, truth be told....

What is the positive claim that I'm making?

I don't claim that God exists. I, and anyone else without supernatural abilities, can do no more than believe in him. That's all I claim as a fully signed up mainstream Christian: to believe in God.

Has it occurred to you that if you don't claim God exists, he wasn't talking about you in the first place?