Silly Atheists.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Testification.

To make something utter bollocks.

[Pat Mustard]

Peebo, I'm not asserting that theists can't be computer scientists, rather that MK, who is currently in school taking courses that require a firm grasp of logic, fails miserably in that regard where his religion is concerned.  Specifically with his notion of proof, which has consistently been a layer cake of fallacies, word salad, and bare assertions.  His misuse/misunderstanding of the word is nearing Vizzini levels.  Which is baffling to me since he presumably has some understanding of what a proof is based on his academic work.

MK had a bit of a crisis of conscience a few years ago when looking at the evidence lead him to disbelief. He was pretty much atheist for two weeks, disappeared for a while and then came back the fanatic he is now.

He used be quite a valuable poster on here, willing to accept doubt and contrasting viewpoints. What he has become is a great loss.

[robvalue]

Of course, if someone provides evidence for this "god" thing (whatever it is supposed to be), I’ll accept that it is real. I’d be very interested to talk to it if it can take a break from its busy schedule of hiding all the time. Feel free to send it my way. I have many questions.

I get the feeling from the religious that it’s only interested in praise and the following of orders, and it will be out of luck if that’s the case. Maybe I’ll eventually give it some credit if it shows it is worthy of it. Based on the evidence I have so far, there’s nothing for it to be proud of.

What this is really about though is very religious people like MK being uncomfortable with people who disagree with them.

[chimp3]

1. If you have heard our arguments and found them convincing, consider we have heard your rebuttals and found them unconvincing.

2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

1. Not convinced.
2. I am not compelled to accept your proof burden. Do you feel comfortable forcing your ideas upon others?

[Amarok]

1. If you have heard our arguments and found them convincing, consider we have heard your rebuttals and found them unconvincing.

Too bad you have not heard them and you were never going to be convinced 

2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

Neither of the above

[Joods]

And yet another spin in a tired old argument.

Moving on...

[OakTree500]

Of course, if someone provides evidence for this "god" thing (whatever it is supposed to be), I’ll accept that it is real. 

As an add on to this:

I think part of the problem is to prove that if a "being" exists, is it 100% the god they expect it to be?

For example: let's say, using a futurama-esque space telescope we find a being. The being is seemingly all knowing/powerful and says they created our planet. 

The problem then is, do we just accept it's word or do we ask for proof? If they can prove it, are they a "God" or just a crazily powered alien? What's the difference? And if they were "just a being from another world with crazy abilities", would people who believe in the bible god change their minds about what they believe to be true? Ie if space dude says "yeah well I made this world for my third grade homework, and haven't been back until now", and that was literally the entire point of our existence, then what? 

There are so many questions/scenario's to run through, even IF some sort of giant deity suddenly appears. And at very very worst, if a god [in the literal bible sense] does exist, do I HAVE to pray/obey them? If so, why? Again, just more food for thought there.

[I_am_not_mafia]

1. If you have heard our arguments and found them convincing, consider we have heard your rebuttals and found them unconvincing.

Are you sure you meant to say this? If we found your arguments convincing (we don't) then why would we be rebutting them?

Or this is the usual theist assumption that we're just angry at your non-existent god?

2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

In which case you're also arguing that theists have a burden to accept the proof given to them as to why they are wrong, at least the scientific evidence. They hardly ever do. Certainly not the theists on this site.

3.  God by definition is the most important being,

Your definition. Everyone who believes in a god has a different idea of what their god is. This is because there is no single definition. Indeed the god concept is meant to be undefinable. Because if it could be defined then it wouldn't be a god, it would be something else.

if an approach to this is made by jest

Three gods walk into a bar ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, new word "Christomasochists", people who come here and say stupid things about their imaginary friend in order to be beaten up.

[robvalue]

Of course, if someone provides evidence for this "god" thing (whatever it is supposed to be), I’ll accept that it is real. 

As an add on to this:

I think part of the problem is to prove that if a "being" exists, is it 100% the god they expect it to be?

For example: let's say, using a futurama-esque space telescope we find a being. The being is seemingly all knowing/powerful and says they created our planet. 

The problem then is, do we just accept it's word or do we ask for proof? If they can prove it, are they a "God" or just a crazily powered alien? What's the difference? And if they were "just a being from another world with crazy abilities", would people who believe in the bible god change their minds about what they believe to be true? Ie if space dude says "yeah well I made this world for my third grade homework, and haven't been back until now", and that was literally the entire point of our existence, then what? 

There are so many questions/scenario's to run through, even IF some sort of giant deity suddenly appears. And at very very worst, if a god [in the literal bible sense] does exist, do I HAVE to pray/obey them? If so, why? Again, just more food for thought there.

Whatever it is, I’d say it’s going to be nothing like religious people expect. They are just silly stories. More realistically, it will be akin to a computer programmer, with no particularly big standing in its own part of reality. If this is the case, it wouldn’t be able to "enter" directly of course, it would have to control an avatar or something for us to interact with.

And of course, this guy wouldn’t answer the questions theists want it to; which is why they don’t seem to consider this much simpler explanation, if we were to assume that our environment was created.