The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave

[Esquilax]

This is why I feel the burden of proof IS ON the atheist.

What you feel means very little; we have the burden of proof set up a certain way because it's the only one that logically makes sense. If the atheist isn't making the claim- and we're not- then obliging us to shoulder a burden of proof entails that everyone else who isn't making a claim also have one regarding things they don't believe, and that's ridiculous.

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?

Yes, yes, and the atheist answer "we don't know yet" makes you uncomfortable, I understand. Why does that mean you get to twist the burden of proof?

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.

I agree, that is definitely a question with an answer. I'm just saying I don't know what it is yet, and for all your pretensions of knowing yourself, you've utterly failed to give us any reason to accept your claims as knowledge. Trite nothings like "the empty tomb," don't cut it.

Even if the atheist says, "I don't believe in God," that is dodging the question that needs to be addressed.

No, it's providing a position on the answer to that question that you've broached. Don't mistake our disagreement with the entirety of our position on any given question.

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.

So in your estimation it's more important to have an answer, any answer, even an incorrect answer, than to just honestly admit ignorance? A lie is preferable to not having the truth, so long as you just assert that you know it? Why the hell do you think this is an argument for your position?



Do you actually think the last panel is a compelling answer?

Then you can say, were is your proof. I answer,,,creation is proof.

Right, so you baselessly assert that what we're living in is a creation, offer absolutely no proof of that beyond your circular reasoning that creations need a creator, and expect all the rational people to just play along with your sophistic word game. Nope, I'm not going to do that.

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.

Ha ha, I haven't had to deal with the watchmaker argument for a while, that's cute.

So, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere in this thread, we don't just magically intuit design; we recognize design via comparison to the natural. Here's a watch, and everything we know about watches demonstrates that they're designed by people. We have plenty of evidence that watches are designed by people, and none that they are naturally occurring.

Conversely, we have no evidence at all that planets, universes and so on are designed, aside from your profound misunderstanding of how one recognizes design, and so we can't possibly think that they're designed.

In fact, you're kinda begging the question when you say that complex things must have been designed, because you've got no reason to think that, at all. Got anything else?