Silly Atheists.

[Reltzik]

Okay, lemme go through the OP and address it point by point.

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

The antecedent does not apply to me (I do not find the arguments for a god convincing), but I'll consider that you've found the rebuttals unconvincing regardless of whether I found your arguments convincing.

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.

To an extent, yes. However, if you (collectively) keep insisting we look at bad argument after bad argument, at some point we're perfectly justified to at some point regard that process as a waste of time and either move on or start treating the whole thing as absurd. If after that someone were to hypothetically present a good argument, which we don't pay attention to because you lost credibility with your earlier bad arguments, then that's the fault of the people who couldn't muster a good argument until too late. I'm not going to spend half my life arguing with the guy who keeps insisting that crystal healing works no matter how many times he fails to make the case. Nor the dowser, nor the prayer-warrior, nor the UFO conspiracy theorist, nor anyone else in that vein. There's a threshold past which bad ideas no longer have a right to be taken seriously.

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.

See, this is the sort of thing that I cannot take seriously. You're arguing from definition... and yet the theistic definition of God keeps getting shifted to whatever's most convenient to the argument, rather than held to with any consistency. Here you are saying the definition of God includes importance. But when it's time for the cosmological argument? Then the definition of God becomes the creator of the universe, and the argument is presented as having proved God without any effort to show that God is important. When it's time for the presuppositionalist argument, God becomes the thing that allows logic and reasoning to happen... and no effort to show that God is also creator is provided, even though that was in theory part of the definition before. On and on and on. The more things you say are part of a definition, the more things you have to prove in order to show that the definition is met and the greater the burden of proof becomes. But the fewer things you say are part of the definition, the more of these arguments would have to be discarded as complete non-sequitur. So apologists seem to just adopt and drop pieces of the God definition as convenient, and shows a lack of intellectual integrity and principles. I have no respect for the definitions of people who themselves do not respect them.

But that's just an in theory objection to what you have said. Far more significant is what you said about seeing it as irrational and evil to belittle an idea and being forgiving of that. Whether it is irrational to believe in God depends on the weight of evidence and argument in favor of the idea's proposition, not the importance of the proposition if true, and to think otherwise is to not know what irrationality is. That's a pointed insult. Whether it is EVIL to belittle the idea is far more dangerous. This idea of it being evil is DANGEROUS. It leads to inquisitions, blasphemy laws, and all sorts of ugliness. There is a line of cause-and-effect between regarding disrespect for the idea of evil, and thought-crimes and all sorts of atrocities in the name of religion. That is definitely something to oppose. Forgiveness does not enter into it. I am quite capable of pitying, rather than hating, a theist caught in this mindset. But it is as dangerous and deadly as a forest fire, and I WILL unleash a fire hose of criticism upon it when the time comes.

And in the face of widespread censure for expressing doubt, criticism, and disbelief, a countervailing disrespect is both an act of defiance against and liberation from oppression. ESPECIALLY when the people who are pushing the idea insist that it (and they) are the most important things in your life and WILL NOT SHUT UP ABOUT IT. It's like dealing with telemarketers. Rudely insistent telemarketers who WILL NOT STOP CALLING and who get invited to Thanksgiving.

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.

I.... can't really decipher this. Something about goodness being irrelevant to morality and presupposing it's based on God somehow? I don't follow and I suspect an error in phrasing.

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.

Believers and non-believers alike can value human life and dignity. Believers and non-believers alike can dismiss human life and dignity. This is a matter of historical fact. Arguing about whether the person is valuable innately, or whether the only value they have is linked to God, is not any sort of evidence. All it accomplishes is a back-and-forth over attribution... and to say that a person is innately valueless without your God. I prefer to value people regardless.

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.

.... okay, I'm getting the sense that English is not your first language and that's okay, you're making a good effort and most of the time you're mostly understandable. As a result, I shouldn't poke fun at little slips like "testification".

....

.... nope, I shouldn't do that at all.

.....

....

.... gimme a bit, I'm mustering all my restraint, this is difficult.

.....

.....

.... phew, okay, I'm good. For future reference, the word you wanted was testimony or testimonial. Though assertion or statement or claim would probably be a better fit.

I'm new here, so I don't think your statement is aimed at me, and I don't know your history with the people here that is the basis for your skepticism. I'd speculate that a lot of it had to do with my response to your 2nd point -- that after a while, an individual or proposition that consistently and frequently falls flat on its face stops deserving serious consideration.