Burden of proof

[rosey]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

[stubbornone]

The day you claimed to be atheist you made that claim. It really is that simple kiddo. That IS the definition of atheism.

Nope, it's not the definition of agnostic-atheism, which is what I claimed to be, for the umpteenth time.

I won't defend myself any further against being a gnostic hard atheist when I'm clearly not.

Welcome to my ignore list, liar!

Its THE definition of atheism. Period.

And another emotional atheist, violates the forum rules in a clearly personal attack because people will not sign up for her shoddy, illogical faith?

Might I suggest that so called agnostic atheists simply go to www.agreewitheverythingisay.com?

[Star]

I'm an atheist because I refuse to accept faith based claims of invisible gods out there. I don't do religious faith, and the reason science rejects gods is because there are no facts as it concerns gods, which is good enough for me.

You can also be an atheist for just simply never hearing about god before.

My nephews are both technically in the atheist category. They don't know what "god" or "religion" means.

I imagine certain stubborn ones would burden them with evidence, too.

[stubbornone]

For anyone who wants to learn more about agnosticism and atheism, without any kind of the simple-minded and prejudice apologist dogma we've witnessed here, use your favorite search engine to research these terms/concepts...

Types of atheism...
Implicit vs. explicit
Positive vs. negative (or strong vs. weak)

Types of agnosticism...
Agnostic theism vs. agnostic atheism
Strong vs. weak agnostic atheism
Difference with gnosticism

Now research what it means to be both an agnostic and an atheist.

If Stubborn claims an "agnostic-atheist" by definition must positively assert there's no god one more time, he's going on ignore along with "Truth101" because it's just pointless to continue engaging such intellectual dishonesty and incoherence.

For thos enot interested in simple preaching but actual support, you will notice that NO ONE claims to be an agnostic theist for the simple recusal from the burden of proof.

A fact that apparently drives certain atheists batty.

[d.thomas]

The day you claimed to be atheist you made that claim. It really is that simple kiddo. That IS the definition of atheism.

Nope, it's not the definition of agnostic-atheism, which is what I claimed to be, for the umpteenth time.

I won't defend myself any further against being a gnostic hard atheist when I'm clearly not.

Welcome to my ignore list, liar!

Its THE definition of atheism. Period.

And another emotional atheist, violates the forum rules in a clearly personal attack because people will not sign up for her shoddy, illogical faith?

Might I suggest that so called agnostic atheists simply go to www.agreewitheverythingisay.com?

Yes, because it's atheists that practice faith.

[stubbornone]

I'm an atheist because I refuse to accept faith based claims of invisible gods out there. I don't do religious faith, and the reason science rejects gods is because there are no facts as it concerns gods, which is good enough for me.

You can also be an atheist for just simply never hearing about god before.

My nephews are both technically in the atheist category. They don't know what "god" or "religion" means.

I imagine certain stubborn ones would burden them with evidence, too.

No, that would make you an agnostic.

If you have never heard about God before, a logical person would ask for evidence (as happens throughout this forum) and then make upi there mind FROM AN EXPLAINABLE position.

They would not walk around ignoring anything about God, rudely, create entire stratification of creative writing to avoid their burden of proof, and claim that debating Christians surprisingly dealt with ... God.

Your claims are without merit.

[TheTruth101]

The day you claimed to be atheist you made that claim. It really is that simple kiddo. That IS the definition of atheism.

Nope, it's not the definition of agnostic-atheism, which is what I claimed to be, for the umpteenth time.

I won't defend myself any further against being a gnostic hard atheist when I'm clearly not.

Welcome to my ignore list, liar!

Its THE definition of atheism. Period.

And another emotional atheist, violates the forum rules in a clearly personal attack because people will not sign up for her shoddy, illogical faith?

Might I suggest that so called agnostic atheists simply go to www.agreewitheverythingisay.com?

Yes, because it's atheists that practice faith.

Yeah exactly. Your practicing your faith as a non believer and have faith towards the world in the eyes of Theists.

[Star]

And one more time, for anyone too lazy to Google what it means to be an "agnostic-atheist", or who doesn't understand the basic English concept that the "agnostic" in front with the hyphen makes it a compound word and thus alters its meaning, this is from RationalWiki...

Agnostic atheism

Agnostic atheism holds that insufficient evidence exists to disprove a god. Agnostic atheists lean towards atheism as a sound null hypothesis, particularly in practice, but acknowledge that they could be wrong. The difference between atheism and agnostic atheism is subtle and may not be always be discernible, though agnostic atheists are generally more tolerant of the religious than more convinced atheists.

The distinction between agnostic atheism and atheism is further blurred if athiests are pressed for specifics about their beliefs. Okay, fine... lack of beliefs. It's clear that most, if not all, atheists are in fact agnostic atheists — as rational-thinking people would certainly stop being atheists if they encounter evidence of God's existence that was sufficient for them. There is a prevalence of fundamentalist theists, but it is far rarer, if not impossible, to find fundamentalist atheists who would stick to their beliefs in the face of sufficient evidence.[1] Thus, if accepting the belief "there probably is no God; I'll act as if there's no God, but will change my mind if necessary" it's really just a matter of personal preference whether to identify as an "agnostic atheist" or just plain simple "atheist.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnostic_a ... ic_atheism

[stubbornone]

The day you claimed to be atheist you made that claim. It really is that simple kiddo. That IS the definition of atheism.

Nope, it's not the definition of agnostic-atheism, which is what I claimed to be, for the umpteenth time.

I won't defend myself any further against being a gnostic hard atheist when I'm clearly not.

Welcome to my ignore list, liar!

Its THE definition of atheism. Period.

And another emotional atheist, violates the forum rules in a clearly personal attack because people will not sign up for her shoddy, illogical faith?

Might I suggest that so called agnostic atheists simply go to www.agreewitheverythingisay.com?

Yes, because it's atheists that practice faith.

DT - what do you think it means if you cannot list out the reasons and evidence that lead you to a conclusion?

(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust.

If claim that you are not using faith, then YOU CLEARLY HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF to demonstrate why you arrived at your conclusion.

Set. Match. Game.

Feel free to reject logic entirely now by claiming you have converted to agnostic atheism.

[stubbornone]

And one more time, for anyone too lazy to Google what it means to be an "agnostic-atheist", or who doesn't understand the basic English concept that the "agnostic" in front with the hyphen makes it a compound word and thus alters its meaning, this is from RationalWiki...

Agnostic atheism

Agnostic atheism holds that insufficient evidence exists to disprove a god. Agnostic atheists lean towards atheism as a sound null hypothesis, particularly in practice, but acknowledge that they could be wrong. The difference between atheism and agnostic atheism is subtle and may not be always be discernible, though agnostic atheists are generally more tolerant of the religious than more convinced atheists.

The distinction between agnostic atheism and atheism is further blurred if athiests are pressed for specifics about their beliefs. Okay, fine... lack of beliefs. It's clear that most, if not all, atheists are in fact agnostic atheists — as rational-thinking people would certainly stop being atheists if they encounter evidence of God's existence that was sufficient for them. There is a prevalence of fundamentalist theists, but it is far rarer, if not impossible, to find fundamentalist atheists who would stick to their beliefs in the face of sufficient evidence.[1] Thus, if accepting the belief "there probably is no God; I'll act as if there's no God, but will change my mind if necessary" it's really just a matter of personal preference whether to identify as an "agnostic atheist" or just plain simple "atheist.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnostic_a ... ic_atheism

And one more time, for anyone to lazy to actually use the ignore function they threaten others with, if one claims that the evidence is insufficient ... that means they have examined the evidence and the question, "What evidence have you examined," becomes rather important.

Once again, this is merely creative writing to justify the rejection of logic. Its commonly known as an excuse.

[d.thomas]

The day you claimed to be atheist you made that claim. It really is that simple kiddo. That IS the definition of atheism.

Nope, it's not the definition of agnostic-atheism, which is what I claimed to be, for the umpteenth time.

I won't defend myself any further against being a gnostic hard atheist when I'm clearly not.

Welcome to my ignore list, liar!

Its THE definition of atheism. Period.

And another emotional atheist, violates the forum rules in a clearly personal attack because people will not sign up for her shoddy, illogical faith?

Might I suggest that so called agnostic atheists simply go to www.agreewitheverythingisay.com?

Yes, because it's atheists that practice faith.

DT - what do you think it means if you cannot list out the reasons and evidence that lead you to a conclusion?

(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust.

If claim that you are not using faith, then YOU CLEARLY HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF to demonstrate why you arrived at your conclusion.

Set. Match. Game.

Feel free to reject logic entirely now by claiming you have converted to agnostic atheism.

That would be theists that cannot list reasons and evidence, that is why theists believe on faith instead. I don't believe theists because the notion of little green men from Alpha Centauri on earth or whatever it was I am supposed to deny makes no sense.