Dear atheists,

[Jericho]

It is the tactic that I have come across most often when talking with theists who attempt to belittle me and my lack of belief in their fantasy. I will refer back to one of my older posts in this thread…

How does it make sense that with no evidence whatsoever of God's existence, he would expect me to fully buy into a glorified book of fairy tales as reality? And if I didn't believe this book that has as much realistic information as the How to Train Your Dragon series, then I am going to be tormented in Hell for eternity?

So theists, I await your inevitable attempt to either:

1. Call me out and insist that I need to provide evidence.
2. Forget all logical explanation and tell me I am going to hell.
3. All of the above.


I look forward to the response. Have a lovely day.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheists just have different burden's of proof related to the issues touched upon by their disbelief. For example, prove that your atheism does not entail existential, moral, and/or rational nihilism.

[FatAndFaithless]

You think we have to 'prove' that we don't believe something?

[Bad Wolf]

Nope nope nope

[TheRealJoeFish]

Atheists just have different burden's of proof related to the issues touched upon by their disbelief. For example, prove that your atheism does not entail existential, moral, and/or rational nihilism.

I think the difference there is that "atheism does (or does not) entail existential nihilism" is a logical/philosophical question rather than an empirical one.  Surely, proofs about existence (say, of a deity) are proved with different methods, and require different burdens, than proofs about philosophies/logic.  Obviously, there is some overlap, but the theist's position depends on existence, while the atheist's position depends on non-existence.  This has nothing to do with, say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as it follows from the nature itself (rather than the content) of the various claims.

Maybe.

[henryp]

Atheists just have different burden's of proof related to the issues touched upon by their disbelief. For example, prove that your atheism does not entail existential, moral, and/or rational nihilism.

I think the difference there is that "atheism does (or does not) entail existential nihilism" is a logical/philosophical question rather than an empirical one.  Surely, proofs about existence (say, of a deity) are proved with different methods, and require different burdens, than proofs about philosophies/logic.  Obviously, there is some overlap, but the theist's position depends on existence, while the atheist's position depends on non-existence.  This has nothing to do with, say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as it follows from the nature itself (rather than the content) of the various claims.

Maybe.

What isn't logical/philisophical for Atheists is the existence of free will which a lot of neuroscientists seem to think can't exist with our understanding of physics.  

Reading people talk about free will, and people talk about the existence of God is alarmingly similar.  I was pretty surprised to see where this community was on the topic given the general disdain for believing in things that have no evidence of existing outside of some shoddy philosophical thinking.

[Pyrrho]

Atheists just have different burden's of proof related to the issues touched upon by their disbelief. For example, prove that your atheism does not entail existential, moral, and/or rational nihilism.

What?

That makes as much sense as me telling you:

Prove that your theism does not entail existential, moral, and/or rational nihilism.


Or:

Prove that your theism does not entail...


where one finishes the sentence with some random bullshit.

What is entailed by atheism is a lack of belief in a god.  What is entailed by theism is a belief in at least one god.  (One does not have to be a Christian to be a theist, or any other type of monotheist, as one could be a polytheist, pantheist, or any other kind of theist, if there are other kinds of theists.)

[Ravenshire]

This alleged god can change my mind if he cares to do so.  If he doesn't care, why should I?

I would go even further... Not only can gawd change my mind, if it exists, it knows exactly what it would take to do so without violating my "free will" that the christers so love to go on about. Were discussing an allegedly all powerful (or at the very least, extremely powerful) entity after all. The very idea the atheists can exist casts serious doubt on the very idea of an all powerful creator that loves it's creations.

Before you christers start throwing free will about, would you allow your children, your creations, to engage in truly self-destructive behavior without the slightest attempt to save them from themselves? This is what your argument from free will sounds like.

[Cyberman]

Prove that your lack of appetite does not entail [insert list of unrelated consequences, the more obviously distasteful the better].

[downbeatplumb]

Atheists just have different burden's of proof related to the issues touched upon by their disbelief. For example, prove that your atheism does not entail existential, moral, and/or rational nihilism.

I don't find the arguments or "evidences" submitted for gods convincing. This position does not require that I provide evidence just to not find yours good enough.