Silly Atheists.

[Belacqua]

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.

Yes, I think this is a reasonable request. 

I know that some people like to call on formal rules of debate, and declare who exactly has the burden of proof and who doesn't. But I don't think that genuine good-faith conversation, in which the goal is to head toward mutual understanding of the truth, needs to adhere to rules as if it's a chess match. 

If you make a claim, and I want to discuss it with you, it is just friendliness -- to you and to our mutual desire for the truth -- to explain why I don't accept it. And why should we have a conversation if we're enemies? We are friends because we ultimately want the same thing. It doesn't help to be unnecessarily fighty in our approach. 

And I agree that honest debate demands that if you really have proven your point, I have to accept it. 

3.  God by definition is the most important being, if an approach to this is made by jest and his scriptures approached with no seriousness, then whether he exists or not,  forgive Theists for seeing it irrational and evil to belittle what by definition most revered being in existence.

4. It won't ever make sense  that hating goodness for what is: is irrelevant to morality and hence, if goodness is God's light that hating that mystic link, would be hating for what it is at it's heart.

5. When we value beings, we value the value in them, if you hate value being linked to God, and value is linked to God, do you hate or love true value of things or do you just make up what value is and attribute to them...try to understand not only the issue of God existence is of vital importance then to love and appreciating and empathy, but that truly to act for the face of God in all things requires to recognize the face of God and his word of light brought to life.

This is also good to keep in mind. I have sympathy for these positions. (Which I see as different aspects of one claim.)

We non-believers may have things sorted into different categories from believers. To many atheists, discussion about God is about some impersonal creative power, or some king-like supreme being. But Christians and Muslims have never seen it so simply. For them, God is always inherently that which is best, most valuable, and that which we should most sincerely respect. So atheists' disrespect for (what they see as) an unproven ontological claim, to believers comes across as a thumb in the eye of all that is good and valuable. 

I'm not taking sides here -- just describing how I think the debate may come across. But again, if we want a sincere dialectic toward understanding, these differences of approach are good to keep in mind.

[RobbyPants]

3.  God by definition is the most important being, if an approach to this is made by jest and his scriptures approached with no seriousness, then whether he exists or not,  forgive Theists for seeing it irrational and evil to belittle what by definition most revered being in existence.

It is asserted to be the most important thing as defined by theists. Not everyone defines it that way. I mean, I can define wargarbles to be the most important thing, even more important than any gods ever asserted. That definition that I just made up doesn't mean it's anything more than an assertion.

4. It won't ever make sense  that hating goodness for what is: is irrelevant to morality and hence, if goodness is God's light that hating that mystic link, would be hating for what it is at it's heart.

Another assertion. You're not even defining "goodness", let alone what God's "light" is.

5. When we value beings, we value the value in them, if you hate value being linked to God, and value is linked to God, do you hate or love true value of things or do you just make up what value is and attribute to them...try to understand not only the issue of God existence is of vital importance then to love and appreciating and empathy, but that truly to act for the face of God in all things requires to recognize the face of God and his word of light brought to life.

This is word salad tossed about to help cover all the assertions. It doesn't actually mean anything.

6. I can't take your testification that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. You chose to be silly. And hence, your testification has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

See your own points #1 and 2. We find your assertions and word salad unconvincing, and you have not met any burden of proof for your claims.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You skipped a step.  First you need to demonstrate that your 'god' is not a figment of the imagination of camel fuckers.

I'm afraid when it comes to Islam it's pretty much camel fuckers all the way down.

I strongly disagree with with the open bigotry of the above statement.

Besides have you ever tried to fuck a camel? I suspect its a lot harder than you'd think, just the hieght difference alone. What do you do...stand on a stool or do you have to tie the camel down? Grapefruits seem like the easier choice and you dont get a hoof in the crotch.

[Cod]

Besides have you ever tried to fuck a camel? I suspect its a lot harder than you'd think, just the hieght difference alone. What do you do...stand on a stool or do you have to tie the camel down?

Sounds like you've given that a little more thought than you should have...

[OakTree500]

Besides have you ever tried to fuck a camel? I suspect its a lot harder than you'd think, just the hieght difference alone. What do you do...stand on a stool or do you have to tie the camel down?

Sounds like you've given that a little more thought than you should have...

In fairness, it's possibly a good analogy:

People say "God is real, because it says so in this book" but never really look into it

Is the same as

People say "You can fuck a camel, this book/person says so", but have never really thought about it.

[Aoi Magi]

And so whether Quran is that book or not, at least, acknowledge, that if God exists, he can prove things and not only that, but prove all that he speaks, and only speak things that are proofs of his and that will give insights through reflection.

*bold mine

Fine! I acknowledge that "if God exists, he can prove things" but since he hasn't been able to prove his existence till date, your God doesn't exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Besides have you ever tried to fuck a camel? I suspect its a lot harder than you'd think, just the hieght difference alone. What do you do...stand on a stool or do you have to tie the camel down?

Sounds like you've given that a little more thought than you should have...

Growing up on a farm with livestock will do that to you. I'm thinking it's has to be more of a two person job.

[Crossless2.0]

I'm afraid when it comes to Islam it's pretty much camel fuckers all the way down.

I strongly disagree with with the open bigotry of the above statement.  

Besides have you ever tried to fuck a camel? I suspect its a lot harder than you'd think, just the hieght difference alone. What do you do...stand on a stool or do you have to tie the camel down? Grapefruits seem like the easier choice and you dont get a hoof in the crotch.

You never get to be top dog in the caravan if you only fuck grapefruits. Sooner or later, you have to face the challenge and mount the beast.

[Alan V]

1. If you have heard our arguments and found them [UN]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.

3.  God by definition is the most important being, if an approach to this is made by jest and his scriptures approached with no seriousness, then whether he exists or not,  forgive Theists for seeing it irrational and evil to belittle what by definition most revered being in existence.

4. It won't ever make sense  that hating goodness for what is: is irrelevant to morality and hence, if goodness is God's light that hating that mystic link, would be hating for what it is at it's heart.

5. When we value beings, we value the value in them, if you hate value being linked to God, and value is linked to God, do you hate or love true value of things or do you just make up what value is and attribute to them...try to understand not only the issue of God existence is of vital importance then to love and appreciating and empathy, but that truly to act for the face of God in all things requires to recognize the face of God and his word of light brought to life.

6. I can't take your [TESTIMONIAL] that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. You chose to be silly. And hence, your [TESTIMONIAL] has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

1. Yes, we are presently mutually incomprehensible.  This is because you argue with loaded terminology.

2. You have not met the burden of proof.

3. The ontological argument fails, so you can't just define God into existence.  It follows that referring to "his scriptures" is question begging.

4. You can't say atheists "hate goodness" on the basis of defining your God as good.  That is also question begging.

5. Hating God makes no sense if we don't believe he exists.

6. Some people here are silly.  Others are serious.  Why talk to the silly and ignore the serious?

You need to read a book on logical fallacies.  I would recommend Thinking from A to Z by Nigel Warburton.

[KevinM1]

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.

Yeah, I remember the old MK fondly, even before he tried atheism on for size. He was a good example of a non-extremist young Muslim living in the modern world.

The new incarnation? Not so much. I legit wonder sometimes if we're going to see his face plastered on the news because he's had enough of the world's infidels and wants to prove his dedication to his god.