Drich, I'm not going to respond to your entire post, but I will at least address what you said about proof.

I believe a lot of atheists misunderstand the concept of "burden of proof". The burden of proof always lies on the person making the positive claim. HOWEVER, "there is no god" is, contrary to popular belief, just as much of a positive claim as "there IS a god". However, a lot of us are agnostic atheists (probably most of us actually. I don't think I've ever heard someone call themselves a gnostic atheist.), and since agnostic claims are NOT positive, "there is a god" is ultimately the claim with the burden of proof.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:36 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: There goes Drich on about 'it's just a theory' again~

So, the THEORY of Evolution is no longer a Theory? When did it get up graded?

(June 2, 2015 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 4:36 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: There goes Drich on about 'it's just a theory' again~

So, the THEORY of Evolution is no longer a Theory? When did it get up graded?

There is no degree of a model that is more 'upgraded' than a theory, Drippy, because science isn't in the business of making flat, absolute assertions.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:37 pm)Drich Wrote: What better proof of Phillip the teenage atheist than to have met Phillip in person?

But one can look around and instantly see proof of atheists, teenagers, and people named Phillip. However, no god has ever been proven to exist, so we're going to need a lot more evidence than anecdotal experience. If I claimed to be a leprachaun working out of Atlantis, that might be where a rational person might demand proof, because none of those have ever been proven to exist.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you remember the first time you used a GPS or a turn by turn service? Where was the 'proof' in that your garmin or tomtom worked? was it in the person making the claim, or was it in the following of said device to your first destination? "Proof" can work both ways but as you can plainly see is not limited to the person making the positive claim. Proof can also be found in the successful execution of said claim.

If God says the only way to find me is for the seeker to "A,B,C" do you think God can be found any other way? Until you follow your first turn by turn navigation trip, you only have the word of others that the turn by turn navigation works. The same is true with God. Until you do what He says do, the only confirmation you will get of God is through those who have "used the GPS" in the bible and found Him.

You are trying to put philosophical constraints on a principle that they do not fit on.

the problem here is, if one seeks god and doesn't find him, you'll just say they aren't seeking properly. so if the claim isn't executed successfully, you just assert it hasn't been done properly, thus dismissing he failure. that's dishonest.

are you really saying that the notion of god is not a philosophical question?

(June 2, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Drich Wrote: There are many things in this world that we must experience for ourselves before we have 'proof' they exist.

name them

(June 2, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Drich Wrote: I do not disagree. Matter of fact that's kinda what I said minus the fact that many of you will point out that God had babies killed, and glance over the fact that we 'man' since 1980 have killed a billion plus.. Let say God had 10,000 or even 100,000 babies killed, or lets say a million babies were put to death by God... That doesn't even touch the 17 million killed this year by 'civilized' man.
http://www.numberofabortions.com/

Yet because the Jews sang a song about smashing their captors babies against the rocks... God is a monster. Yep no hypocrisy their.

if, as the bible claims, god created humans and is omnipotent, he is fully responsible for all crimes committed by them... also allegedly against him. not to mention the divine plan, which means god meant all of those atrocities to happen in the first place.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Drich Wrote: Not what I was saying sport. I was saying 'Science' is your god.

how, exaclty?

do we worship science? do we say science loves us? do we claim science created the universe?

if you mean, as I assume, that science is as important to atheists as god is to theists....that's a pretty big generalization, and one I don't fit. and I'm sure many don't. it clearly isn't the most important thing in many atheists' lives

(June 2, 2015 at 4:42 pm)PhilliptheTeenageAtheist Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 4:37 pm)Drich Wrote: What better proof of Phillip the teenage atheist than to have met Phillip in person?

But one can look around and instantly see proof of atheists, teenagers, and people named Phillip. However, no god has ever been proven to exist, so we're going to need a lot more evidence than anecdotal experience. If I claimed to be a leprachaun working out of Atlantis, that might be where a rational person might demand proof, because none of those have ever been proven to exist.

He's saying that he has personally, undeniably, and irrefutably met/had an exerpience with God. In person.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Drich Wrote: You are aware that a THEROY is not PROOF, right?

you are aware that theory as a scientific term does not mean 'a guess', but 'a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation', right?

(June 2, 2015 at 4:37 pm)PhilliptheTeenageAtheist Wrote: Drich, I'm not going to respond to your entire post, but I will at least address what you said about proof.

I believe a lot of atheists misunderstand the concept of "burden of proof". The burden of proof always lies on the person making the positive claim. HOWEVER, "there is no god" is, contrary to popular belief, just as much of a positive claim as "there IS a god". However, a lot of us are agnostic atheists (probably most of us actually. I don't think I've ever heard someone call themselves a gnostic atheist.), and since agnostic claims are NOT positive, "there is a god" is ultimately the claim with the burden of proof.

Ok, sport. What if One makes the Claim there is a God and He can be found in central park on second bench on the left going up the hill to the strawberry fields every other Saturday from 8:00AM to 10:30 AM? Where can 'proof' be found in this set of instructions? Are instructions or directions a philosophical exercise that can demand proof from the one simply repeating said directions? Or is 'proof' to be found in the following of said instruction to ultimately find what was sought?

If I tell my sister to tell my mother I will be 45 mins late to dinner, where can my sister provide her proof of what she heard me tell her? The 'Proof' that what my sister relayed was indeed accurate can only be verified by me, by me either showing up 45 mins late, or asking me.

Like wise God makes the claim He is alive and Provides proof if we 'ABC' If we 'ABC' He will 123... So if you want 'proof' of God you will have to Follow his Instructions. My only task here is to relay them when asked.

Otherwise know, your trying to assign a philosophical 'rules' to a exercise that are not bound by them.

Phillip, it's not worth it. He goes through this charade with every person who hasn't engaged him yet.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote: So, the THEORY of Evolution is no longer a Theory? When did it get up graded?

There is no degree of a model that is more 'upgraded' than a theory, Drippy, because science isn't in the business of making flat, absolute assertions.

well, except where scientific absolutes, and laws are concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Youre slipping FF