What to do...

[Edwardo Piet]

Then how was the universe created?

I don't know. I don't know if it ever was created at all. Maybe a part of the universe has always existed? Maybe nothing has ever been created at all and energy has only expanded? Can energy be created or destroyed or does it just inflate and shrink? I don't know.

How did we get here?

We didn't. We've always been a part of the universe in some form.

Prove god doesn't exist

Why?

[Nitsuj]

To leveni: I'm all right. You? And yes, my parents do know about my beliefs, but they don't know the kids are giving me a hard time about it. I feel like I want to show them the new survey that atheists aced, but of course, they'll be all "You can't prove that's true." Theists.

[Minimalist]

They are teens just like you and no one wants to be wrong about what they believe

Doesn't seem to slow you down at all, G-C.

[Nitsuj]

Another problem: What do I do when they say "It's called having faith" (Besides barfing)?

[Ace Otana]

Another problem: What do I do when they say "It's called having faith" (Besides barfing)?

I'd reply by saying that my standards don't go that low.
Also religion doesn't deserve special treatment. It should and will be treated like any other extraordinary claim that has no evidence to back it up.....rejection!

[Nitsuj]

Thanks, Ace! I'll use that!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

NEVER even try argue with apologists, especially if you are out numbered; it's not safe..

I'm assuming your position is simply" I don't believe due to lack of evidence"

They're trying to shift the burden of proof. You need prove exactly nothing. They are the ones making the claims, they are the ones who need to prove their claims. That will be interesting,as no one in recorded history has yet managed that task.

They'll probably end up calling you a Nazi or a Communist. as they don't understand the difference. That's what mentally lazy and ignorant people tend to do. These are the offspring of such people but worse,they are just little parrots. You are thinking for yourself and they will hate you for that.

BUT if your position is "There is no God" or "I believe there is no God", you're fucked. Such a position also attracts the burden of proof. IE You DO have an obligation to provide evidence to support your claim.That has never been done so far either.


Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary",[4] that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

[Minimalist]

They are the ones making the claims, they are the ones who need to prove their claims.

Yes, but their standard of evidence tends to be so low as to be virtually invisible. For a true xtian shitstain, "it's in the bible" is evidence.

The same rational can be used to prove the existence of Darth Vader or any other fictional character but they rely on special pleading for their god boy.

[Existentialist]

It is only necessary to be authentic in response. If I am worried about being faced with questions I cannot think of an answer to and that I will bumble and stutter an incoherent response, I just decide to let that happen, because that is a genuine response. It doesn't particularly matter if it happens, I still have the freedom to be an atheist even if I've argued my position badly. Atheists are under no more obligation to be rational, well-argued, or particularly articulate than anyone else. After any conversation with people who believe in god, it is highly unlikely that any of them will convert to atheism. And so what if they convert you? It's equally unlikely though. The important thing is that the decision is the individual's, not one forced onto the individual because they haven't performed particularly well in a debate.

The whole proof/no-proof debate is a bit of an irrelevance really. You could be presented with a valid proof of the existence of God and yet still decide for yourself that such proof must be an illusion, or indeed that your own identity is an illusion. We don't particularly need reasons for the positions we adopt, we just need to be reasonably comfortable in ourselves with them. The reasons and rational justifications tend to follow the position we take, not precede it. Take me for example, I'm an existentialist but I expect it'll be some years before I can robustly argue why.

[Sami]

The best answer to their questions is "I don't know" (assuming you don't).

There is no requirement that you have an alternative to their claims to justify your disbelief, just tell them you are not convinced by the evidence.

They are essentially saying that if you can't prove otherwise then they must be right which is an argument from ignorance.