A good case against God

[FallentoReason]

i don't need to present evidence that the world is flat but you must give evidence of the world being round'.

Too easy.

In all seriousness though, let me ask you something. Why don't you believe in dragons?

[Ace Otana]

the burden of proof is rubbish! perhaps you are assuming that theists have the burden of proof just because you are atheist.

No, theists claim that a god exists and so the burden of proof is on them. As an atheist I'm not claiming that there is no god, I have simply rejected the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

[NickB]

'Why don't you believe in dragons?'
I don't believe in dragons, not because we don't have evidence for their existance but because we have good reasons to believe they don't exist! i.e. they are mythological, their phisiology is very highly unlikly and they are made up?

'theists claim that a god exists and so the burden of proof is on them. As an atheist I'm not claiming that there is no god, I have simply rejected the claim. The burden of proof is on you.'

you have yet to give a reason. i am saying the same thing as a theist i.e. As a theist, i'm rejecting the claim that there isn't a god. now the burden of proof in on you. if we argue like this, it gets very boring.

In the words of William Lane Craig : 'absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'

[LastPoet]

the burden of proof is rubbish!

What an ignorant thing to say
If you really think that way, I have a bridge in Brookilyn that I'll make a good price, just send me10 K dollars and its yours.

perhaps you are assuming that theists have the burden of proof just because you are atheist.

No, because you say X exists(in your case, god), its your burden to show us that X exists. I am an atheist as a conclusion from the fact that there isn't a spec of evidence for a god, not mentioning your speciphic god.

this is just assuming from a theological standpoint, you could twist that logic e.g. a person from the flat earth society might say ' i don't need to present evidence that the world is flat but you must give evidence of the world being round'. your logic is lazy. in order to prove the non-existance of god you must present your own arguments. otherwise its looks like you are just trying to cop out of an argument. come on people!

I don't make any claims, I reject the claim theists make that there is a god. There is no evidence, just woo and switching the burden to us.

Why is your god real, and not the hindu pantheon? Either you acknowledge its a matter of faith, or you will have to be dishonest enough to claim bigger knowledge than hindus, just on faith.

BTW, there is such thing as 'lazy logic'.

---

In the words of William Lane Craig : 'absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'

Yes, but the absence of evidence don't give you the right to claim any god, and WLC is just a snake oil salesman, his favourite argument is nothing but a big non-sequitur. BTW, it wasn't WLC that coined that phrase.

[NickB]

'What an ignorant thing to say
If you really think that way, I have a bridge in Brookilyn that I'll make a good price, just send me10 K dollars and its yours. '

I don't disbelieve this because i see no evidence but rather because i have evidence to disbelieve it: its highly unlikly that an online stranger wants to sell me a bridge, and your writing style gives me the impression that you made that up on the spot.

'No, because you say X exists(in your case, god), its your burden to show us that X exists. I am an atheist as a conclusion from the fact that there isn't a spec of evidence for a god, not mentioning your speciphic god.'

Why is it not your burden to show me that X dosen't exist?

'I don't make any claims, I reject the claim theists make that there is a god.'

but that in itself is a claim, and why can't i reject the claim atheists make that there isn't a god?

also, as you can see i dont know how to paste as a quote cus i'm new. if someone could tell me it would be a big help.

[Ace Otana]

you have yet to give a reason. i am saying the same thing as a theist i.e. As a theist, i'm rejecting the claim that there isn't a god. now the burden of proof in on you. if we argue like this, it gets very boring.

You want me to give a reason why I don't believe? Ok - there is no evidence to suggest that a god exists. Besides I don't HAVE to give a reason. YOU claim there is a god, YOU have the burden of proof. I have not claimed anything, if you think I have, show me where I've claimed that god or gods don't exist.

[frankiej]

but that in itself is a claim, and why can't i reject the claim atheists make that there isn't a god?

You obviously don't know what an atheist actually is then.

[Ace Otana]

but that in itself is a claim,

No it's not. Rejecting a claim is not a claim in itself.

and why can't i reject the claim atheists make that there isn't a god?

Because no claim has been made from atheists. Atheism is a response to the claim that theism presents.

[FallentoReason]

I don't believe in dragons, not because we don't have evidence for their existance but because we have good reasons to believe they don't exist!

The same goes for the 3 000+ gods that humanity has invented. There's good reasons to believe none of them are real.

i.e. they are mythological, their phisiology is very highly unlikly and they are made up?

In other words, you have evidence of absence more or less. The same goes for the historical Jesus, unless if you have some evidence for him.

[NickB]

ok lets do this slowly

1. by making a claim you have the burden of proof
2. you have the option of rejecting a claim aswell
3. to conclusivly reject a claim you must present reason (or proof)
4. therefore the conclusive rejection of a claim requires the burden of proof
5. therefore the conclusive rejection of a claim is also a claim

do i make myself clear?