Hey Anti-Theists! Prove Your Claim

[Polaris]

I just don't get the mindset that produces a statement along the lines of "I am sure that my god exists and the burden of proof lies upon anyone who doubts me".

Is it any different than saying I dismiss all existing evidence of God's existence and the burden of proof lies upon the theist to provide new evidence I can't possibly dispute?

[Chad32]

I just don't get the mindset that produces a statement along the lines of "I am sure that my god exists and the burden of proof lies upon anyone who doubts me".

Is it any different than saying I dismiss all existing evidence of God's existence and the burden of proof lies upon the theist to provide new evidence I can't possibly dispute?

I have not heard of anyone getting the nobel prize for bringing concrete evidence of Yahweh's existence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sorry I couldn't resist making fun of the inane "Hey Atheists..." titled threads. Anyway...

For those of you that self-describe as anti-theists, you face the same burden of proof as believers. So, please share the compelling proof or evidence that you believe disproves the existence of a god or gods.

According to Russell's Teapot, the person who is making the claim (you and other theists) should be the one carrying the Burden of Proof, not the people doubting your claim (me and other Atheists and Anti-Theists).

So the real question should be:

"Where is your evidence that God/Gods exists?"

Russell's teapot does not apply. The OP is directed toward gnostic* atheists who are making a claim that they know God does not exist.

*I misunderstood the usage of the term anti-theist in the OP but that mistake was corrected by the posts of others.

[Ryantology]

Is it any different than saying I dismiss all existing evidence of God's existence and the burden of proof lies upon the theist to provide new evidence I can't possibly dispute?

There's existing evidence to dismiss? When did this happen?

[Zen Badger]

According to Russell's Teapot, the person who is making the claim (you and other theists) should be the one carrying the Burden of Proof, not the people doubting your claim (me and other Atheists and Anti-Theists).

So the real question should be:

"Where is your evidence that God/Gods exists?"

Russell's teapot does not apply. The OP is directed toward gnostic* atheists who are making a claim that they know God does not exist.

*I misunderstood the usage of the term anti-theist in the OP but that mistake was corrected by the posts of others.

While we can't disprove the existence of a generic god, we can certainly disprove the existence of the malevolent prick you cravenly worship.

[Esquilax]

Is it any different than saying I dismiss all existing evidence of God's existence and the burden of proof lies upon the theist to provide new evidence I can't possibly dispute?

Do you have any evidence and not, say, just a series of logical contortions you require us to perform solely in our heads without any form of external marker or indicator that it might be true?

Basically, are we going to get evidence, or just more tarted up variants of "look how complex all these things are! Must be god!"?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I just don't get the mindset that produces a statement along the lines of "I am sure that my god exists and the burden of proof lies upon anyone who doubts me".

Is it any different than saying I dismiss all existing evidence of God's existence and the burden of proof lies upon the theist to provide new evidence I can't possibly dispute?

What evidence?

There is no evidence.

Evidence is something that can be verified, tested, and reproduced under the same conditions multiple times.

There is nothing even remotely like that for any god. All there are are books with spurious ludicrous claims and assertions of truth from believers. That's it.

If you take that as evidence, then that's fine. But you can't expect others to just bow down and accept it as 'the troof'. We'll just have to conclude that we, as skeptics, have set the bar for evidence far, far higher than you.

[robvalue]

If a story book is evidence that the characters in it are real and the events actually happened, without anything else to back it up, then every book ever written has to be taken seriously as describing real characters and events.

A story book is evidence of nothing, except how bad the thing you worship is. I've only read the bible myself, and by jolly there's plenty more to hate in there than to like. Why do all the horrific atrocities that god commits never get read out?

Could god do whatever plan he has in mind without having to have all the suffering in the world? Could he make it so that you enjoy good things just as much without having to have bad things to compare them to?

The only people in the world who actually take their morals from books like the bible and act on them are considered extremists and would quickly go to jail for what they are doing (in any civilized country). Every other "believer" picks and chooses their morals and actions from the bible, in other words they disregard it and just do what they think is right anyway. Easy examples: slavery, stoning your children to death for being unruly, rape not a big deal and you can hand out your daughters to be raped... If you actually follow precisely how the bible tells you to act, you would be the worst kind of person.

Jesus came to save us from "our sin", and our sin only exists because god (which is also jesus) decided that we have sin. So he is saving us from himself, by sacrificing himself, to himself. That's not a story that even makes sense, let alone has any evidence for it.

Easy question: Is god trying to communicate with us in any way? If yes, then it is the worst attempt ever at communication as it plays out exactly the same as no one trying to communicate.

[bladevalant546]

Look at the world and tell me how this signifies a loving omnibenevolent deity. Also, the idea of eternal punishment because of loyalty issues is not only illogical for a Omni intelligent being, it is highly unreasonable. Finally, the god of the bible has serious emotional issues, the need for constant emotional validation, inability to cope with rejection, regardless if one is good or not if you do not love him he hates you. This is only part of the psychological issues the god of the bible has.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Jesus came to save us from "our sin", and our sin only exists because god (which is also jesus) decided that we have sin. So he is saving us from himself, by sacrificing himself, to himself. That's not a story that even makes sense, let alone has any evidence for it.

haha.