Burden of proof

rosey · Post by **rosey** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:00 am

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 · Post by **stubbornone** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:37 pm

TheTruth101 wrote:
Star wrote: It's like banging your head against a brick wall.

How about some satire?

Stubborn: Atheists have the burden to prove god doesn't exist
Me: Only the atheists who assert there's no god do, and I'm not one of them
Stubborn: You assert there's no god, you have the burden
Me: No, I don't assert there's no god
Stubborn: Yes you do
Me: No I don't
Stubborn: Yes you do
Me: As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not
Stubborn: It's only logical you're burdened to prove that
Me: But I don't assert there's no god because I don't know
Stubborn: Yes you do, you're atheist
Me: No, I'm agnost-atheist and don't know
Stubborn: You're wrong about what you think you don't know
Me: These are strawmans and not going anywhere so I give up
Stubborn: You're breaking the board rules by not telling me what the strawmans are

It's simple, prove why you think there is a god and there isn't. In other words, prove your stance as to your belief system. In this case, you have to prove to atheist why god exists, and prove to christians why god do not exist. And in all, prove to all why you are in the middle grounds. You have a lot of burden of proof on your stance, troller.

If you are an ... ahem ... atheist who claims there is not God, then you are not an atheist.

That is the very definition of atheism:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

That is pulled right out of Websters, and these same atheists, who claim they don;t actually believe there is no God, but that isn't quite what they are saying ... just that God is a fanatsy, which is not the same thing as denying God .. no SIR, er ... what?

In short, the entire creation of agnostic atheism is an illogical bit of creative writing meant to give atheists whose claims back them into a corner requiring them to prove their claims ... a get out of jail free card - in short, is a childish excuse to avoid the consequences of SOME atheists own claims.

And gosh, those people who accept both logic and the reality of the insults hurled by athiests don;t accept he creative writing and magical startification of atheism into ... a claim that does not require a burden of proof ...

Because agnostic atheists don;t think God is not real, they just repeatedly point out he is fantasy ...

The brick wall is atheism's own illogic.

TheTruth101 · Post by **TheTruth101** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:53 pm

stubbornone wrote:
TheTruth101 wrote:
Star wrote: It's like banging your head against a brick wall.

How about some satire?

Stubborn: Atheists have the burden to prove god doesn't exist
Me: Only the atheists who assert there's no god do, and I'm not one of them
Stubborn: You assert there's no god, you have the burden
Me: No, I don't assert there's no god
Stubborn: Yes you do
Me: No I don't
Stubborn: Yes you do
Me: As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not
Stubborn: It's only logical you're burdened to prove that
Me: But I don't assert there's no god because I don't know
Stubborn: Yes you do, you're atheist
Me: No, I'm agnost-atheist and don't know
Stubborn: You're wrong about what you think you don't know
Me: These are strawmans and not going anywhere so I give up
Stubborn: You're breaking the board rules by not telling me what the strawmans are

It's simple, prove why you think there is a god and there isn't. In other words, prove your stance as to your belief system. In this case, you have to prove to atheist why god exists, and prove to christians why god do not exist. And in all, prove to all why you are in the middle grounds. You have a lot of burden of proof on your stance, troller.
If you are an ... ahem ... atheist who claims there is not God, then you are not an atheist.

That is the very definition of atheism:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

That is pulled right out of Websters, and these same atheists, who claim they don;t actually believe there is no God, but that isn't quite what they are saying ... just that God is a fanatsy, which is not the same thing as denying God .. no SIR, er ... what?

In short, the entire creation of agnostic atheism is an illogical bit of creative writing meant to give atheists whose claims back them into a corner requiring them to prove their claims ... a get out of jail free card - in short, is a childish excuse to avoid the consequences of SOME atheists own claims.

And gosh, those people who accept both logic and the reality of the insults hurled by athiests don;t accept he creative writing and magical startification of atheism into ... a claim that does not require a burden of proof ...

Because agnostic atheists don;t think God is not real, they just repeatedly point out he is fantasy ...

The brick wall is atheism's own illogic.

Star claims atheism plus theism. She can't completely say 'there is no God' because there are reasons that make her think that way. She has the burden of proof to the atheists why she dosent completely wave off God.

And to Thesist, she's saying there are reasons why God can't be completely existent. She has the burden of proof to show to theists why she can't completely believe Gods existence.

These are the worse kind pretty much because God sees right through them, and when it comes down to it, immaturity in spiritual nature is clearly seen. In other words, they voice the idea of, if God shows up one day I will believe and he can't say anything because I never disclaimed him. And when the world (let's just say) proves 100% God do not exist one day, they simply adapt with no guilt voicing, " I thought so".

These are the ones God will spit out of his mouth. Spit out of the mouth only is implied because spit signifies stickiness, or brotherhood, and these ones have no loyalty as to their character, and indeed they will be no more comes to eternity.

Star · Post by **Star** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:05 pm

^

Stubborn, quote me exactly where I asserted there is no god, and I'll give you a cookie. Until then, you're lying about me.

The different categories of atheist have been made clear. Atheist just means a lack of a belief in god. They may or may not assert there's no god. I have explained this distinction but you are unable or unwilling to understand. Any definition that defines it ONLY as being the assertion there's no god, is incorrect.

"Truth101" is on my ignore list, and I'm reminded by one of his nested quotes, of the reason why.[/list][/i]

stubbornone · Post by **stubbornone** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:07 pm

TheTruth101 wrote:
stubbornone wrote:
TheTruth101 wrote:
Star wrote: It's like banging your head against a brick wall.

How about some satire?

Stubborn: Atheists have the burden to prove god doesn't exist
Me: Only the atheists who assert there's no god do, and I'm not one of them
Stubborn: You assert there's no god, you have the burden
Me: No, I don't assert there's no god
Stubborn: Yes you do
Me: No I don't
Stubborn: Yes you do
Me: As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not
Stubborn: It's only logical you're burdened to prove that
Me: But I don't assert there's no god because I don't know
Stubborn: Yes you do, you're atheist
Me: No, I'm agnost-atheist and don't know
Stubborn: You're wrong about what you think you don't know
Me: These are strawmans and not going anywhere so I give up
Stubborn: You're breaking the board rules by not telling me what the strawmans are

It's simple, prove why you think there is a god and there isn't. In other words, prove your stance as to your belief system. In this case, you have to prove to atheist why god exists, and prove to christians why god do not exist. And in all, prove to all why you are in the middle grounds. You have a lot of burden of proof on your stance, troller.
If you are an ... ahem ... atheist who claims there is not God, then you are not an atheist.

That is the very definition of atheism:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

That is pulled right out of Websters, and these same atheists, who claim they don;t actually believe there is no God, but that isn't quite what they are saying ... just that God is a fanatsy, which is not the same thing as denying God .. no SIR, er ... what?

In short, the entire creation of agnostic atheism is an illogical bit of creative writing meant to give atheists whose claims back them into a corner requiring them to prove their claims ... a get out of jail free card - in short, is a childish excuse to avoid the consequences of SOME atheists own claims.

And gosh, those people who accept both logic and the reality of the insults hurled by athiests don;t accept he creative writing and magical startification of atheism into ... a claim that does not require a burden of proof ...

Because agnostic atheists don;t think God is not real, they just repeatedly point out he is fantasy ...

The brick wall is atheism's own illogic.

Star claims atheism plus theism. She can't completely say 'there is no God' because there are reasons that make her think that way. She has the burden of proof to the atheists why she dosent completely wave off God.

And to Thesist, she's saying there are reasons why God can't be completely existent. She has the burden of proof to show to theists why she can't completely believe Gods existence.

These are the worse kind pretty much because God sees right through them, and when it comes down to it, immaturity in spiritual nature is clearly seen. In other words, they voice the idea of, if God shows up one day I will believe and he can't say anything because I never disclaimed him. And when the world (let's just say) proves 100% God do not exist one day, they simply adapt with no guilt voicing, " I thought so".

These are the ones God will spit out of his mouth. Spit out of the mouth only is implied because spit signifies stickiness, or brotherhood, and these ones have no loyalty as to their character, and indeed they will be no more comes to eternity.

The simple fact of the matter is that, at least partially, Star is correct. There are different kinds of atheists, just like there are different kinds of Christians. THe Westboro Baptist Church is one example, so is the Lord Resistance Army. What we can do is Christians is use the evidence and our doctrine to confront these way word groups and demonstrate that theyhave drifted far from the teachings of Christ.

Atheism cannot do that.

Ergo, when you have these different types of atheists, what do we do?

Honest atheists, as we see in this thread, acknowledge the scientific evidence for God. They know and acknowledge that it is unconvincing either way. However, they can, and often do, lay out a path that lead them to atheism. Its often little more than, when stripped to bear bones, "I simply do not see enough to believe."

Fair enough.

Its the other kind of atheists, the so called agnostic atheists or weak atheists, that are the problem. Its these guys that adopt the illogical terms in response to the criticism of their actions, such as, most notably, running around claiming that 'God' is a fantasy and then failing to back it up. They attempt to usurp rationalism to themselves, apparently oblivious to their deliberate dehumanizing of others. And when confronted, we see anger.

My recommendation is not anger or derision, just steady confrontation with the reality that such antics are illogical and at their base emotions rather than logic.

There are honest atheists out there, but there are also, as I can personally attest to, many atheists who are simply mad at God and railing away. Just like you do with a friend who is irrationally angry at something, you confront them, help them overcome the emotion and deal with whatever the issue is.

There is a reason that so called agnostic atheists come to religious forums. At some level, they want to be proved wrong. They may go kicking and screaming, but they will eventually be forced by logic and their simply humanity to deal with the emotions. Its inevitable.

If at the end of that process they decide they are still atheist, so be it. At least then they will be honest atheists and they too can held shepard the angry so called agnostic atheists into some semblance of the rationality that atheism enshrines. (sometimes even correctly).

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with atheism.

There is something horribly wrong with attempting to call anything logical and then claiming you have no burden of proof. This becomes especially egregious if this is part and parcel of justifying prejudice.

stubbornone · Post by **stubbornone** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:13 pm

Star wrote: ^

Stubborn, quote me exactly where I asserted there is no god, and I'll give you a cookie. Until then, you're lying about me.

The different categories of atheist have been made clear. Atheist just means a lack of a belief in god. They may or may not assert there's no god. I have explained this distinction but you are unable or unwilling to understand. Any definition that defines it ONLY as being the assertion there's no god, is incorrect.

"Truth101" is on my ignore list, and I'm reminded by one of his nested quotes, of the reason why.[/list][/i]

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

Once again, I reject your silly startification, I am not bound to accept simply because you get angry about it. I have listed my reason why I reject it, and you will just have to deal with them. You might actually attempt to rebut them rather than hurl them at me dogmatically and DEMAND that I accept them.

Once again, I will not enshrine illogic in my life. I will not run around, for example, claiming that atheists are all delusional and then turn around and equally haughtily claim, "Well, I have no burden of proof because you see I am only an agnostic Christian."

Such behavior is BOTH rude and dishonest.

If you wish to define yourself, or think that your personal position on atheism defines the burden required to support claims ... more power to ya.

Finally, pointing out that you have put someone on ignore is not only unhelpful/emotional, it also violates the forum rules ... rules I will remind you that you were only to happy to quote me on.

You came to a Christian debate forum for a reason. Perhaps it was simply arrogance? A prejudiced view of the faithful that lead you to believe that we we are stupid sheep?

Does finding out that there are logical reasons for people to hold faith make you angry? Honestly, if so, I really don't care.

Atheists still have a burden of proof, no matter what illogical stratification they creatively write about without proof.

Star · Post by **Star** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:18 pm

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.

d.thomas · Post by **d.thomas** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:18 pm

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.

TheTruth101 · Post by **TheTruth101** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:27 pm

Star wrote: ^

Stubborn, quote me exactly where I asserted there is no god, and I'll give you a cookie. Until then, you're lying about me.

The different categories of atheist have been made clear. Atheist just means a lack of a belief in god. They may or may not assert there's no god. I have explained this distinction but you are unable or unwilling to understand. Any definition that defines it ONLY as being the assertion there's no god, is incorrect.

"Truth101" is on my ignore list, and I'm reminded by one of his nested quotes, of the reason why.[/list][/i]

Dosent really matter because I've been ignored by Nickman (who's an atheist) on this forum in the past, then a week later he.started pleading his case again. The reason why I bring this up is to clearly tell you that Atheism is just a bunch of people tha have no reasoning behind there belief system therefore falls short of their belief system, and in end, comes back pleading their case because their belief system is shallow.

Star · Post by **Star** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:28 pm

stubbornone wrote: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!

stubbornone · Post by **stubbornone** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:34 pm

d.thomas wrote: 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.

Once again, it HAS. It has indeed been provided for thousands of years. So your ritualistic dogma is really nothing more than you saying, "I hate religious people for no reason."

That fact that you hate religious people is no excuse to be relieved from the burden of proof brother, its all the more reason to delve into the proof where you quickly find that there are several valid reason to both believe and not believe.

Your religious dogma to the contrary notwithstanding.

Any more instances of your preaching will simply be pushed to the moderators for adjudication. We all know your opinion, your refusal to support it ... indeed, your active avoidance of the very thing you demand ... is the issue.