(April 29, 2015 at 3:20 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Atheists just have different burden's of proof related to the issues touched upon by their disbelief. For example, prove that your atheism does not entail existential, moral, and/or rational nihilism.

Again sorry for not being clear. Only when an atheist is making positive claims about other philosophical topics, like metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics, does he or she need to provide an alternate to god(s) that would satisfy an ultimate ground for being.

(April 29, 2015 at 5:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Again sorry for not being clear. Only when an atheist is making positive claims about other philosophical topics, like metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics, does he or she need to provide an alternate to god(s) that would satisfy an ultimate ground for being.

Do they also need an alternative for fairies?

This is a thing a lot of theists do, but you're particularly guilty of it yourself, where you make an assertion ("everyone needs an ultimate ground for being") and then expecting that if we don't agree with your solution to the problem you've defined into existence, we must have an alternative. Well, no we don't, actually: seeing no evidence for your answer does not require we furnish an alternative answer.



We are fully capable of recognizing wrong or unjustified answers, without having one of our own. And that's just assuming we accept your problem as particularly pressing, which I don't necessarily.

Does the Defence Counsel need to provide an alternative suspect for the crime? Or is their job simply to respond to the claims of the Prosecution?

I hate having to explain to theists that I am not responsible for proving whether or not their god(s) exist(s).

(April 29, 2015 at 7:36 pm)Jericho Wrote: I hate having to explain to theists that I am not responsible for proving whether or not their god(s) exist(s).

I am of the belief that one does not have to defend their viewpoint if they don't push it on others to accept it.

If a theist openly claims what they believe is right, then they should expect to defend their beliefs.

If an atheist openly says their opinion is right, then they should expect to defend their point.

As for me, I usually don't have to defend my religious views (only when I have to justify my not eating blood) because the atheists I have encountered can't even stick to their own values.

What values are those?

(April 29, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Polaris Wrote: As for me, I usually don't have to defend my religious views (only when I have to justify my not eating blood) because the atheists I have encountered can't even stick to their own values.

"I usually don't have to defend my religious views because tu coque fallacy!"

(April 29, 2015 at 3:20 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Atheists just have different burden's of proof related to the issues touched upon by their disbelief. For example, prove that your atheism does not entail existential, moral, and/or rational nihilism.

Atheism is merely the non acceptance of your silly fairy tales.  Any other implications are your own and it is up to you to "prove" them.

Good luck with that.

(April 29, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 29, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Polaris Wrote: As for me, I usually don't have to defend my religious views (only when I have to justify my not eating blood) because the atheists I have encountered can't even stick to their own values.

"I usually don't have to defend my religious views because tu coque fallacy!"

Because people exactly (and I do mean exactly) like yourself leave so many openings in your logic, I don't even have to bring up my religious views. For the amount of religious views I have actually expressed related to my post count, I could come off as closer to a secularist. The reason is because people (you in particular) don't stick by logic and reason or the academia you praise for possessing over the theists, so I never even have to introduce my beliefs let alone defend them.