The Burden of Proof

[fr0d0]

Equally Anti religious claims shoulder the same burden. IOW : STFU

But note, only if they are claims

Are you the only one in this assylum that gets this? Certainly the OP doesn't seem to have a fucking clue.

[Atheistfreethinker]

Equally Anti religious claims shoulder the same burden. IOW : STFU

But note, only if they are claims

Are you the only one in this assylum that gets this? Certainly the OP doesn't seem to have a fucking clue.

I absolutely get the idea. But I'm not making a supernatural improbable claim. I am simply doubting that the object of the assertion by theist exist. I don't have to support my position because I'm not making the fucking claim. What is it with you retarded fucking religious assholes and your fucking inability to understand that if you make an extraordinary claim that it is up to you to prove it. Are religious fanatics like you on drugs? Is there something in the water? What makes you think that the most ridiculous story ever told is true because there isn't any evidence that it isn't? THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT IS TRUE! Theists like to use this red herring to throw people off the fact that their whole proposition is bullshit.

Any claim that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can't use reason with superstition the two are incompatible. If you give respect to one you in turn must abandon the other.

[Godnose]

The men who wrote this infallible [sic] document were fighting against a totalitarian, despotic regime where the monarchy was, and still is, the head of the church.

I understand the men who wrote the document also were all believers in the existence of a god.

(Just a passing thought)

[Atheistfreethinker]

The men who wrote this infallible [sic] document were fighting against a totalitarian, despotic regime where the monarchy was, and still is, the head of the church.

I understand the men who wrote the document also were all believers in the existence of a god.

(Just a passing thought)

Maybe and then maybe not. Most, could be described as deists at best. They certainly believed in the separation of church and state.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Atheistfreethinker Wrote: The men who wrote this infallible [sic] document were fighting against a totalitarian, despotic regime where the monarchy was, and still is, the head of the church.

Really, I didn't know that. I thought they rebelled against England,which in the eighteenth century was a constitutional monarch,hardly either totalitarian or despotic. Arrogant and unwise,certainly.

The American evolution was fomented by a bunch of well-off,slave owning white men who felt hard done-by over taxes. It was about money and power,not freedom.

Wars are never about moral principle, except perhaps for some of the poor dumb bastards who do the actual dying. Hard to tell,when most countries fill their ranks by conscription and bare faced lies in times of war.

The English monarch is the titular head of The Church Of England,just as she is the of head of state. However,she has no actual power,religious or political.

[The Grand Nudger]

Enough people felt aggrieved to rebel. Surprise surprise people do terrible things, and under the sterile light of modern scholarship heroes of the past may not seem so heroic.

[fr0d0]

@ supposed freethinker: yes it is a cop out made by anyone... if an atheist were to claim that there 'was no God' then the burden of proof rests with them. It's a positive claim can you see?

[The Grand Nudger]

No hiding behind the armor of deism. I say that the christian god exists in the bible. I also say that the bible is a fictional narrative. Have I said something that is factually incorrect?

[fr0d0]

You haven't addressed any facts yet.

[Napoléon]

You haven't addressed any facts yet.

I bet that must be a familiar thing for you eh fr0d0.