The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave

[Esquilax]

Regarding the magic coin analogy and burden of proof. An athiest believes that there is no God. Ok, the burden of proof is now on you. Prove to me there is no God.

Okay, so we can now add "what an atheist is," to the list of things Rev didn't bother to know anything about before he came here. It can sit right alongside "how the burden of proof works."

But can I say, Rev, how monumentally damn frustrating it is to see you constantly dodging questions and points in order to respond with inane, petty gotcha questions that aren't even logically well formed? This is the height of poor argumentation, and if you don't have an answer to something, don't try to slip around it and go on the attack, because we will notice and we will hold you accountable for this shoddy con tactic. This ain't our first time at this rodeo, even if it is yours.

Now, corrections. First of all, an atheist doesn't "believe there is no god," not necessarily. Most of us here don't believe in a god, and that's a small but important distinction: it's a "we don't know," backed up by a "there's still no evidence for your position, theists."

Secondly, it's not up to us to prove to you that god doesn't exist; we don't have to disprove something that has no basis in itself. We don't have to run, because you aren't chasing us. Without any evidence- which you have conspicuously failed to supply- then the default position is to disbelieve the claim. If you think it's otherwise, then in order to be logically consistent you'd have to believe every claim until you could prove it false, which makes you a polytheist shacked up with all kinds of gods.

But privileging your god with this "you can't prove he doesn't exist!" nonsense is called special pleading, and it's a logical fallacy. Inadmissible, but nice try.

[Silver]

but nice try.

Not even.

[Cyberman]

Regarding the magic coin analogy and burden of proof. An athiest believes that there is no God. Ok, the burden of proof is now on you. Prove to me there is no God.

No, an atheist does not believe that there is a god. Where you place the "not" decides the entire meaning of the words. I agree that if I or anyone were to make the claim that there is no god that I would bear the burden of proof; but I am not making such a claim - you are the one claiming that there is a god. Thus you automatically attract the burden of proving that your claim is justified.

[Minimalist]

Then stop making claims you cannot substantiate. Here, I'll illustrate the problem for you:

Me: I have a magic coin in my pocket, from Atlantis, that grants wishes.
You: Really? That's so cool! Can you substantiate that?
Me: Waaaaah! Why are you demanding proof? Can't you just take it on faith? Stop persecuting me!

See, in order to back up my claims, I would first have to show that I actually have a coin; that it is from Atlantis; and that it grants wishes. I have the burden of proving all this, and it ought to be trivial to do so.

The key difference between science and faith is that, as you acknowledge, science has the facts to back it up and can be verified independently by anyone regardless of belief. What you have, which you admit, is faith based on nothing. What was that bit about a house built on sand..?


Really? I was sure someone said that science is based on facts...

Regardless, even if there are things science can't prove - an asinine claim in itself requiring the e-word to which you seem to be allergic - wouldn't it take faith to believe them? Faith, I might add, with infinitely more justification than that blind version you've earmarked for your pet god. I thought you were all about this faith stuff?


Then it's got a far better track record than faith, which cannot answer any question whatsoever - at least honestly.

Regarding the magic coin analogy and burden of proof. An athiest believes that there is no God. Ok, the burden of proof is now on you. Prove to me there is no God.

What an asshole.

[Cyberman]

That Rev joins the ever-swelling ranks of those whose only strategy is to weasel around who needs to prove what and to distort their opponents' position to bolster their own speaks volumes about his honesty.

[Tonus]

Regarding the magic coin analogy and burden of proof. An athiest believes that there is no God. Ok, the burden of proof is now on you. Prove to me there is no God.

Prove that the Tooth Fairy is not real, and you will have provided the process by which we can attempt to prove that there is no god. I won't even require that you accept the Tooth Fairy into your heart and wear a little dentist-drill necklace if you fail.

[Rampant.A.I.]

[Whateverist]

I pray God shows you mercy especially in the day you will need to give an account of all your words and actions.

Better you should pray all out that god punish us right now with unrelenting fury so as to show you once and for all that He just isn't there.

[Revelation777]

Regarding the magic coin analogy and burden of proof. An athiest believes that there is no God. Ok, the burden of proof is now on you. Prove to me there is no God.

Okay, so we can now add "what an atheist is," to the list of things Rev didn't bother to know anything about before he came here. It can sit right alongside "how the burden of proof works."

But can I say, Rev, how monumentally damn frustrating it is to see you constantly dodging questions and points in order to respond with inane, petty gotcha questions that aren't even logically well formed? This is the height of poor argumentation, and if you don't have an answer to something, don't try to slip around it and go on the attack, because we will notice and we will hold you accountable for this shoddy con tactic. This ain't our first time at this rodeo, even if it is yours.

Now, corrections. First of all, an atheist doesn't "believe there is no god," not necessarily. Most of us here don't believe in a god, and that's a small but important distinction: it's a "we don't know," backed up by a "there's still no evidence for your position, theists."

Secondly, it's not up to us to prove to you that god doesn't exist; we don't have to disprove something that has no basis in itself. We don't have to run, because you aren't chasing us. Without any evidence- which you have conspicuously failed to supply- then the default position is to disbelieve the claim. If you think it's otherwise, then in order to be logically consistent you'd have to believe every claim until you could prove it false, which makes you a polytheist shacked up with all kinds of gods.

But privileging your god with this "you can't prove he doesn't exist!" nonsense is called special pleading, and it's a logical fallacy. Inadmissible, but nice try.

This is why I feel the burden of proof IS ON the atheist. We are not having a discussion in a vacuum or in nothingness. We are alive and well on what we call planet earth. That in itself naturally screams, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? If a child comes home from school with a black eye he can't ignore the question from his parent, how did you get that? We all are presented with the question of why we exist, how did we get here, how did it all began. Even if the atheist says, "I don't believe in God," that is dodging the question that needs to be addressed. The atheist can't answer how did this all come to be using clear evidence from where they base all their beliefs - empirical science. The creationist can, an all-powerful intelligent designer. Then you can say, were is your proof. I answer,,,creation is proof. Just like if I held up a watch, a lot less complicated then this planet and say, this had a creator, it was not an accident. If you were to say that the watch was an accident, perhaps, you would be receiving the insults instead of I.

---

I pray God shows you mercy especially in the day you will need to give an account of all your words and actions.

Better you should pray all out that god punish us right now with unrelenting fury so as to show you once and for all that He just isn't there.

God is longsuffering offering people a chance to repent. He is a much more patient than we are.

---

Regarding the magic coin analogy and burden of proof. An athiest believes that there is no God. Ok, the burden of proof is now on you. Prove to me there is no God.

What an asshole.

The empty tomb

[Bob Kelso]

Regarding the magic coin analogy and burden of proof. An athiest believes that there is no God. Ok, the burden of proof is now on you. Prove to me there is no God.

You're either a dishonest jackass or sorely ignorant to what an atheist is and where the burden of proof lies. I think you'll find that this isn't a false dichotomy, and if you do I'd like to know why.

An athiest believes that there is no God.

What you're describing is a gnostic atheist, meaning an atheist who knows there is no god. Stimbo made no such assertion.

Ok, the burden of proof is now on you.

No, no it isn't. The burden of proof is placed upon those that make claims, asking for proof isn't a claim. Moron.

Prove to me there is no God.

You cannot prove a negative, for fucks sake.

Now you have been informed as to what types of atheists there are (gnostic and agnostic), where the burden of proof lies, and the illogical notion of proving negatives. So, in the future you can't claim to be ignorant when you do this again (and you most likely will as you've been exceedingly stereotypical thus far) you'll just be another dishonest theist fuck who's tainting his own 'mission' like the rest of the bunch.

Have a nice day asshole.