Question

[Whateverist]

No atheist is out to prove there is no god, because the burden of proof is on the believer.

Lots of theists are idiots, but only in terms of their beliefs toward god.

We endure it because we can.

So what would you consider the burdens of proof for atheist?  
 
Also you are saying that you can call someone an idiot just for believing in something that you don't?  I may need to change my user name from G.  to Idiot.

That just depends on the stance the atheist takes.  If someone wants to argue gods don't exist or are not what they seem, then they have a burden to meet if they expect to be taken seriously.  

I don't think that burden can be met any more than yours can if you hope to convince a neutral audience that you are correct to assert (your) God exists.

I personally think that the phenomenon of god-belief is something important in the lives of human beings that it would be interesting to understand.  My own belief is that the gods people believe are 'out there' are really 'in here', within our own minds.  But I'm not here to convince you of that and am not sure I'd push very hard to persuade anyone even if I could out of respect for the autonomy of my fellow humans.

[G Alan]

I assumed all atheist was out to prove there is no God.

I suspect most atheists understand the proper use of 'prove', so you'll find that this isn't a widespread thing among atheists. Remember, 'atheist' -- like 'theist' -- pertains to belief or lack thereof, not knowledge. Proof doesn't really enter into it.

A lot of atheist sure do call theist idiots, morons, ludicrous, etc. over believing in something that they themsleves dont believe in.

Some people don't see any value or integrity in believing risible and unverifiable claims. Go figure. 

It's not like the world is overrun with people who came to their sense of the divine by way of Spinoza, to take one example. Scratch a theist, and nine times out of ten you'll find someone who believes utter horseshit based on some story they read in a 'special' book. Explain what that has to do with conscientious intellectual inquiry. Honesty. Integrity.

I'll wait.

When you say "special book" are you referring to rhe Holy Bible? Why do you call a book that someone believes in horseshit? Have you proved that its horseshit? I know the burden of prove lies upon the theist. Yet you call it horseshit?

[Crossless2.0]

I suspect most atheists understand the proper use of 'prove', so you'll find that this isn't a widespread thing among atheists. Remember, 'atheist' -- like 'theist' -- pertains to belief or lack thereof, not knowledge. Proof doesn't really enter into it.


Some people don't see any value or integrity in believing risible and unverifiable claims. Go figure. 

It's not like the world is overrun with people who came to their sense of the divine by way of Spinoza, to take one example. Scratch a theist, and nine times out of ten you'll find someone who believes utter horseshit based on some story they read in a 'special' book. Explain what that has to do with conscientious intellectual inquiry. Honesty. Integrity.

I'll wait.

When you say "special book" are you referring to rhe Holy Bible?

Among others.

Why do you call a book that someone believes in horseshit?

I didn't. I was referring to particular beliefs that people hold based on certain books. The Bible is one such source. There are others. Credulity is no virtue.

My beef isn't with holy books or even necessarily those who wrote them centuries ago. My issue is with grown-ass 21st Century adults who willingly shut off their critical faculties and read badly, just because they somehow got it in their heads that this particular book must be approached differently than any other.

Nietzsche: When a book and a head come into contact and one makes a hollow sound, is it necessarily the book?

[pocaracas]

So, here goes another attempt at a question.  If i ask wrong for goodness sake somebody on here help me correct it...   i admit that the biggest part of my argument or evidence for a creator and a God is the Bible.  Is it the Old Testament books that ya'll think are the most ridiculous or is it the whole bible including where Jesus comes on the scene?  
Who/or what evidence do yall true atheist go to for proof of no God/gods?
Thanks ya'll.

Honestly, the bible has many good things.
In between those good things, there's some allusion to "magic"... .or, as you'd call it, miracles. These miracles make the story look a lot like fiction. And this works for both OT and NT.
You could have a read at the "Jefferson bible" to see how the NT could look like if it was properly written and without any allusion to miracles. There you'll find what we consider to be the historical Jesus.

But then.... if we look at other "holy books" around the world, we see the same sort of thing. Some good stuff in there, with some magic bits. Take out the magic bits and it sounds like a totally different thing, even if the main story is the same... or has the same outcome.

As far as evidence... I got nothing... is there any evidence that you go for proof of God? Oh, you said the Bible... Why? What in the bible makes the existence of a god be the more realistic view of the world? If there was no bible, would you have nothing to believe in? There was a time, over 2000 years ago, when there was no bible at all... and yet, people believed that god existed... how did they do that? Would you believe under those conditions? Why do you suppose they believed, back then? And, remember, it was these people who then came to write the bible which you use as the basis for your own belief. Why do you trust them?

[Angrboda]

No purposeful sub and no motive for use of the word "true."
Interesting.  Here is an example of why i am on here.... thankyou. I assumed all atheist was out to prove there is no God.  A lot of atheist sure do call theist idiots, morons, ludicrous, etc. over believing in something that they themsleves dont believe in.   Is that because of all the proselytizing and hammering yall have to endure?

When people don't comprehend the beliefs of another person, it's common to rationalize that it's because the other person is stupid, crazy, or a liar. Thinking the other person is stupid or a liar tends to bring out animosity. You notice the same dynamic in any subject where opinions are polarized, for example between liberals and conservatives. It tends to lead people into becoming angry and resentful.

[Astreja]

When people don't comprehend the beliefs of another person, it's common to rationalize that it's because the other person is stupid, crazy, or a liar. Thinking the other person is stupid or a liar tends to bring out animosity.  You notice the same dynamic in any subject where opinions are polarized, for example between liberals and conservatives.  It tends to lead people into becoming angry and resentful.

I think a lot of this comes from the emotional investment that we put into certain types of beliefs, and that the amount of resentment and name-calling is directly proportional to the divide between the two positions.

Also, the more a position depends on belief rather than empirical knowledge, the more incentive to take it personally and jump to its defence.  Generally we don't go ballistic if someone says "7 x 7= 48" instead of 49, because it's easy to fact-check that.

[The Grand Nudger]

When you say "special book" are you referring to rhe Holy Bible?  Why do you call a book that someone believes in horseshit?  Have you proved that its horseshit?  I know the burden of prove lies upon the theist.  Yet you call it horseshit?

I call horseshit horseshit...too.  Can you muster up the same feeling of indignation for horseshit?  If that were the only way that magic book were special..that's still pretty special.  There are lots of other books that people feel the same way about, ofc.  Books that inform them so deeply that the book becomes a part of their identity. Real nerds, you know the type.

[Mister Agenda]

So, here goes another attempt at a question.  If i ask wrong for goodness sake somebody on here help me correct it...   i admit that the biggest part of my argument or evidence for a creator and a God is the Bible.  Is it the Old Testament books that ya'll think are the most ridiculous or is it the whole bible including where Jesus comes on the scene?  
Who/or what evidence do yall true atheist go to for proof of no God/gods?
Thanks ya'll.

I think parts are true and parts are made-up and some of it is poetry and advice (some good and some bad) and some of it is Hebrew propaganda. The God described in the OT comes off as a petty tyrant, the NT version is portrayed in a better light, but the idea of eternal torment for nonbelievers started in the NT, and that's not great, but overall less cringe-worthy than the OT. The miraculous claims are a bit less outlandish in the NT, but all we have are the claims, not the evidence.

Scriptures don't seem to be actual evidence to me, they're the claims, not the evidence, of supernatural beings and events, and that goes for every religion's scriptures. Would you consider the Vedas evidence of the supernatural claims of Hindus?

[brewer]

Everybody seems to forget about the last book of the NT when talking about the NT.

[Mister Agenda]

LOL, everybody should!