Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[fr0d0]

So you admit that you're wrong stimbo and we have here in this thread someone who says that they know that God doesn't exist.

On that point, I concede I was in error

Good good.

So on to the next point... you said that a person with such a stance should equally shoulder the burden of proof. Something you were protecting maelstrom from.

So there you go maelstrom, please shoulder your burden and give us the proof that God doesn't exist, as you claim. Stop dodging the question, as people are fully justified in requesting it of you.

[Cyberman]

Yet again you deign to speak for me. Are you generally this much of an arsehole, or is this a special courtesy you extend only to me?

Where did I say I was protecting Maelstrom from the burden of proof?

Honest minds would really like an answer to this. That you are not such is evidenced by your choosing to cut off my quote at the point that suited your purpose and ignored everything else I said. While I am indeed flattered that you consider me worthy of being quotemined, please knock it off.

[fr0d0]

Needless to say, I concur on your points here.

If you concur with someone making idiotic statements, this makes you idiotic too right?

At what point do you distance yourself from his, illogical to you and I, stance on proof? Because he's making those points here... So are you lying?

[Theo Zacharias]

The purpose of my post is to show that it's not that easy. Do you agree that it's easy? If you do, could you please tell us just one phenomenon that, if observed and valid, will prove the existence of God? Or you agree that it's not that easy?

You want atheists to come up with something to prove your god and then discuss whether or not we'd consider it as valid proof?

Seriously? Please tell me you didn't say that with a straight face!

I see no reason or argument on your post, i.e. why it's wrong if someone expects that? For me both theist and atheist should do that. Both theist and atheist (and also agnostic) should seek the evidence for God existence/non-existence and also should seek any reasons to belief or disbelief in God.

I'm sorry, I'm not interesting in dogmatic position like the burden proof is *only* and *always* on theist (without saying what's the reason). To me the burden proof is to both (who claims to know something).

I'm also not interested in the "default disbelief position" (without saying what's the reason). To me there is no default position (other than maybe apatheism). If you choose to be a rational theist, you should have a reason. Same goes for a rational atheist. I already told my reason in my previous post. What's the reason for atheist?

I'm sorry, I won't response to any post unless the post is supported with argument/reason. I'm not interested in dogmatic position.

[fr0d0]

Yet again you deign to speak for me. Are you generally this much of an arsehole, or is this a special courtesy you extend only to me?

Where did I say I was protecting Maelstrom from the burden of proof?

Honest minds would really like an answer to this.

Well I've seen you be dishonest before, but this is bare faced. Why weigh in on the discussion where maelstrom the illogical was dodging his burden, stating that only a person that claimed to know bore that burden?

Honest minds might not be very bright.

[Cyberman]

I'm sorry, I won't response to any post unless the post is supported with argument/reason. I'm not interested in dogmatic position.

Yet you purport to believe in "God" despite acknowledging that there is not and can never be evidence for its existence. If that's not part of the definition of 'dogmatic', it ought to be.

So are you lying?

Yes, I am, indeed, lying. Have I managed to get you off now? My arm's getting tired.

[Silver]

Keep digging that grave, Fr0d0.

[Cyberman]

Yet again you deign to speak for me. Are you generally this much of an arsehole, or is this a special courtesy you extend only to me?

Where did I say I was protecting Maelstrom from the burden of proof?

Honest minds would really like an answer to this.

Well I've seen you be dishonest before, but this is bare faced.

How can a statement of opinion be dishonest, especially if the opinion is held honestly?

I repeat: where did I say I was protecting Maelstrom?

Why weigh in on the discussion where maelstrom the illogical was dodging his burden, stating that only a person that claimed to know bore that burden?

Because, if memory serves, I was answering Theo's questuon about the burden of proof and where it lies. Then you decided to weigh in and try to score some cheap points. What's up with you today, fr00dy? You're never usually this arsey. (That was genuine concern, btw.)

[Honest minds might not be very bright.

No, that's a mirror.

[fr0d0]

Keep ignoring your burden maelstrom. Smoke and mirrors I believe it's called. Honest? No.

A cop out is as good as an admission of guilt in the circumstances stimbo. Apologies accepted!

[Theo Zacharias]

I'm sorry, I won't response to any post unless the post is supported with argument/reason. I'm not interested in dogmatic position.

Yet you purport to believe in "God" despite acknowledging that there is not and can ever be evidence for its existence. If that's not part of the definition of 'dogmatic', it ought to be.

Another straw man argument. I challenge you to point out the post where I acknowledge that there can never be evidence for God existence. I never said that there can never be evidence for God existence. On the contrary, I explicitly said before that I open to the possibility that there may be someone who can come up with evidence for God existence or evidence for God non-existence.