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]

Its easy, run a back ground check.

Check my finances.

I am also a military officer in good standing, which precludes criminality.

I also hold a valid religious document that requires me to attest to my actions under oath in front of religious authorities.

None of that can prove your innocent. Also, if you're saddled with the burden, that implies that YOU have to provide me the documents you listed (which of course is ridiculous). Not even a court will find you innocent; they'll find you "not guilty". This subtle difference is what seems to be so confusing to some people.

In my world of logic and reason, the null hypothesis would be that you're not a car thief. The alternative hypothesis would be that you are. Due to lack of evidence, we would reject the alternative and accept the null. But the null can still never be proven. Makes sense, right?

You would not be convinced anyway ... evidence does not work for you, and we cannot arrive at any conclusions whatsoever?

Again, please familarize yourself with the argument from absurdity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

This indicates to me that you're not getting the point I'm making. Of course it's absurd. This was a fictitious exercise shifting the burden of proof to demonstrate to you how absurd it is, and thus, why we don't do it. Again, please familiarize yourself with the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

If I don't know whether or not there's a god, I don't have to prove anything. Undecideds have no burden. Gnostic atheists and gnostic theists, however, do. They're the ones running around making positive assertions. This burden is a simple concept, and I'm surprised I'm still defending it.

Atheists don't have a burden of proof, it's like asking that one proves the books in the fiction section of the library contain fiction, that's not how it's done.

Most atheists don't, but gnostic atheists do.

Anything "gnostic" does. Unlike us agnostics, they claim to know and make positive assertions.

Of course, god's existence is unfalsifiable like leprechauns, so any gnostic atheist attempting to prove god doesn't exist is indulging in an exercise of futility, which is why I think we don't see much of them, fortunately. The fallacy of trying to falsify an unfalsifiable negative unfairly tarnishes our image, because of course people like StubbornOne and Gadarene lump all us non-theists into the same category and employ guilty-by-association tactics.

To suggest that something described in unfalsifiable terms does not exist is not unreasonable. Leprechauns are described in unfalsifiable terms so stating that they don't exist is a given, but suggest that gods described in unfalsifiable terms don't exist and all hell breaks loose, theists go into fits of rage and then tell atheists that it's atheists that are emotional over the non existence of their invisible god, go figure.

Its amazing how the emotional accuse others of being emotional.

Once again falsifiable begins by checking claims, as we have already done in this thread, like little shoe factories all over the place as claimed in the mythology of ... Leprechauns.

God does not make that claim does he?

So, somehow, for literally thousands of years, humans have managed to figure out BOTH how to classify things accurately based on assessment using ... gasp! ... falsifiablity, and we have things accurately classified as mythology, religion, and just straight up creative writing.

Atheists however, struggle with the simple concepts, indicating that their logic has regressed to the point of proto humanity where there ability to make a distinction has been lost.

Worse, this proto intellectualism and inability to discern has been recognized by more advanced human beings ... and long classified BTW ... as an argument from absurdity. Man kind long ago created systems and rules to prevent this adoption of superfluous and illogic ... systems that have been rejected by certain aspects of modern atheism.

Worstest (a deliberate pun), is the claims that theists, who have already politely explained this, are apparently 'losing their minds' at this vastly superior regression in human logic?

Tell me, why should anyone respect a faith that leads people to derisive illusions about their fellow man?

Whatever we do with it, we certainly should NOT treat it like its either logical or rational.

[ytrewq]

StubbornOne,

You seem to have a real 'bee in your bonnet' over this burden of proof thing.

I sense that what really irks you is people's implication that theists are stupid. My take here is that atheists cannot help but think that certain religious beliefs are silly, BUT (and this is the important part IMHO) this in no way implies that the person holding the belief is silly or unintelligent. There are some extremely clever and intelligist theists/mystics/Christians out there, that would probably whip me senseless in a game of chess, for example.

While I don't approve of treating people disrespectfully, maybe you need to grow a thicker skin. This is a debate forum, so you need to expect people to be honest about their own opinions, and to challenge yours. Fight back against those mean and nasty atheists with impeccable evidence and logic, not by constantly complaining and getting angry.

I don't agree with you that atheists are more 'intellectually dishonest' in general than theists, BTW. I could start a thread about that, and on cold, hard analysis, I'm not sure you would like some of the points that could be raised. You are in danger of being that pot that calls the kettle black.

Re 'burden of proof', we agree that whoever makes a claim that something exists incurs a responsibility to provide eveidence for that claim. OK. Let's get specific, and see how that works for the theist/atheist debate.

The original and principle claim on this debate forum comes from the theists, who claim that thier God exists, and that he/she/it has certain abilities and powers.

StubbornOne, whether you like it or not, that means that in the first instance it is up to the theists to provide credible evidence to suppor that claim. Unless and until they do, the atheists are completely correct in adopting the stance that whatever is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Now, with the greatest of respect, your postings have been short on evidence, and long on accusations against atheists. This is a debate forum. It is up to YOU to provide your initial evidence that your God exists, and that he can do whatever you claim he can. It is not up to the atheists, nor is it up the the other theists When you are personally engaged in debate, then it is up to YOU. For the most part, all the atheists are doing, albeit with undue disrespect, is asking you to provide your initial evidence for the God you believe in, and evidence for your claims of what feats he performs.

When you do that, then the next step is for the atheists to consider your evidence, and try to poke holes in it. The burden of discrediting your evidence falls upon them, but you have to provide the evidence first!! If they descredit your evidence, then we are back to the original situation, where what was asserted without credible evidence can be dismissed without evidence. More likely though, they will not be able to completely discredit your evidence, in which case they will need to provide some counteracting evidence of their own, showing good reason why we would NOT expect your God to exist, and/or why we should doubt that your God is able to perform the feats you claim. The better atheists do this anyway.

I understand that you were originally atheist, and then converted to religion. That is interesting and significant in its own right. You must have very good reasons for making that switch, and those reasons are likely part of your evidence for your God. Tell us why you switched, and tell us the other reasons (which all form your evidence) why you believe that your God exists, and why you believe he can perform the feats you claim. I apologize that you may have presented this evidence before, but I don't know where it is, so point us to it, or tell us again. Until then, there is literally nothing for the atheists to debate with you. As I see it, the ball is now in your court. Go!

[Star]

Agh, so in the rest of your free time you spend all of your time in a bowling alley running around telling everyone that you don't bowl? Ludicrous.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but it's not the same. The answer is no, we wouldn't go to a bowling alley to tell bowlers we don't bowl.

But then again, we wouldn't go into a church to tell people we lack a belief in god, either (unless we were invited to talk about it, or, complete and utter jerks, one of the two).

We also don't spend our entire lives being told we should bowl and threatened with eternal damnation for not bowling. We don't tell gays they can't get married because of bowling. We don't tell women they don't have free choice because of bowling. We don't fight evolution in schools because of bowling. We don't have airplanes flying into buildings because of bowling. I could go on...

[stubbornone]

StubbornOne,

You seem to have a real 'bee in your bonnet' over this burden of proof thing.

I sense that what really irks you is people's implication that theists are stupid. My take here is that atheists cannot help but think that certain religious beliefs are silly, BUT (and this is the important part IMHO) this in no way implies that the person holding the belief is silly or unintelligent. There are some extremely clever and intelligist theists/mystics/Christians out there, that would probably whip me senseless in a game of chess, for example.

While I don't approve of treating people disrespectfully, maybe you need to grow a thicker skin. This is a debate forum, so you need to expect people to be honest about their own opinions, and to challenge yours. Fight back against those mean and nasty atheists with impeccable evidence and logic, not by constantly complaining and getting angry.

I don't agree with you that atheists are more 'intellectually dishonest' in general than theists, BTW. I could start a thread about that, and on cold, hard analysis, I'm not sure you would like some of the points that could be raised. You are in danger of being that pot that calls the kettle black.

Re 'burden of proof', we agree that whoever makes a claim that something exists incurs a responsibility to provide eveidence for that claim. OK. Let's get specific, and see how that works for the theist/atheist debate.

The original and principle claim on this debate forum comes from the theists, who claim that thier God exists, and that he/she/it has certain abilities and powers.

StubbornOne, whether you like it or not, that means that in the first instance it is up to the theists to provide credible evidence to suppor that claim. Unless and until they do, the atheists are completely correct in adopting the stance that whatever is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Now, with the greatest of respect, your postings have been short on evidence, and long on accusations against atheists. This is a debate forum. It is up to YOU to provide your initial evidence that your God exists, and that he can do whatever you claim he can. It is not up to the atheists, nor is it up the the other theists When you are personally engaged in debate, then it is up to YOU. For the most part, all the atheists are doing, albeit with undue disrespect, is asking you to provide your initial evidence for the God you believe in, and evidence for your claims of what feats he performs.

When you do that, then the next step is for the atheists to consider your evidence, and try to poke holes in it. The burden of discrediting your evidence falls upon them, but you have to provide the evidence first!! If they descredit your evidence, then we are back to the original situation, where what was asserted without credible evidence can be dismissed without evidence. More likely though, they will not be able to completely discredit your evidence, in which case they will need to provide some counteracting evidence of their own, showing good reason why we would NOT expect your God to exist, and/or why we should doubt that your God is able to perform the feats you claim. The better atheists do this anyway.

I understand that you were originally atheist, and then converted to religion. That is interesting and significant in its own right. You must have very good reasons for making that switch, and those reasons are likely part of your evidence for your God. Tell us why you switched, and tell us the other reasons (which all form your evidence) why you believe that your God exists, and why you believe he can perform the feats you claim. I apologize that you may have presented this evidence before, but I don't know where it is, so point us to it, or tell us again. Until then, there is literally nothing for the atheists to debate with you. As I see it, the ball is now in your court. Go!

And what pray tell should we do about people who are driven to run around claiming that people are stupid based solely on their faith choice?

Are you saying we should ENCOURAGE that stuff? Are you saying we should NOT, on a debate forum, expose it for the ridiculousness that it is?

Are you saying its rude to point out that the behavior is based in emotion rather than logic, but running around calling people dolts is .. what exactly?

Tell me in a debate forum, how exactly do atheists, when their illogic is fully exposed, NOT resort to being victims of 'rudeness'?

I am sorry brother, but when your faith choice causes you treat someone horribly, I would hope that someone, especially in a debate forum, has enough honor to stand up to you and TELL you that you are not just being illogical, but downright rude.

Or do you encourage non-confrontationism, in a debate forum of all places, because it might come off as rude?

So, to recap:

#1 - If you walk around claiming that God is a fantasy ... its NOT up to others to prove YOU wrong, its up to YOU to back up that claim.

Failure to do so is simply rudeness. Period.

#2 - Once again, BOTH sides have a burden of proof. Its not just sitting there and attempting to poke holes in OTHER people's attempts. The logical process is:

Thesis:

Supporting evidence:

Rebuttal of common counter claims:

Conclusion:

Using that methodology, you can be certain that someone understand the argument at hand, and is making a good case one way or the other.

If however we are left with, "Geez, I already told you I don;t begrudge you your silly little fantasy ..." I think its pretty clear that such a argument has no bearing on anything in the logical or civil exchange of information.

There are several open threads that detail the evidence for God. Please feel free to go there.

The subject of this one is about why ATHEISTS have or do not have a burden of proof.

And when you walk around dismissing everyone as a delusional ... you'd best be able to back it up ... especially on a debate forum.

And when someone calls you to task for such statement, on this forum, its called debate ... not rudeness.

And making claims about 'rudeness' is, IMO, simply a dodge for a weak argument.

[stubbornone]

Agh, so in the rest of your free time you spend all of your time in a bowling alley running around telling everyone that you don't bowl? Ludicrous.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but it's not the same. The answer is no, we wouldn't go to a bowling alley to tell bowlers we don't bowl.

But then again, we wouldn't go into a church to tell people we lack a belief in god, either (unless we were invited to talk about it, or, complete and utter jerks, one of the two).

We also don't spend our entire lives being told we should bowl and threatened with eternal damnation for not bowling. We don't tell gays they can't get married because of bowling. We don't tell women they don't have free choice because of bowling. We don't fight evolution in schools because of bowling. We don't have airplanes flying into buildings because of bowling. I could go on...

Nope you just come into a Christian debate forum and preach atheism while telling people (actually dt did) that you have no burden of proof because ... you ahve no interest in God.

Seriously, please ratchet down the victim mentality, notice that you are accusing religious people of shoving their faith down your throat, but here you are on an obviously CHRISTIAN forum ... where you are victim of the God being discussed?

And THAT is apparently why atheists get to abandon the standards of logic while claiming they are logical?

Seriously, have you given up on trying to prove that point, and are you simply left with attempting to justify your animosity?

Your animosity is yours brother, no one else's.

BTW - some Muslims tell me the same thing, that I am following the wrong Prophet and will wind up in hell. BUt you know what? It doesn't bother me, because I am not Muslim, am allowed to disagree, and being threatened with going to hell ... has no effect whatsoever. I believe what I believe and AM WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.

Perhaps I should join an Islamic forum, which of course I have ZERO interest in obviously, and tell people what a victim I am because of their opinions? Tell them how horrible they are for threatening to send ME, good ol' me, to hell! I hate you! But I have no interest in your faith ... silliness.

I have to wonder, are you afraid and offended by what you believe in an imaginary Hell? Tell me, are you also offended when some threatens to hit with an invisible baseball bat? Send care bears after you to give you a great big care bear stare?

Well, here is a test on the old injury scale. I would like you to walk into the nearest police station and tell them to arrest the local Christians for threatening you with eternal damnation. If you think its that serious, I suggest you do something about it.

If not, its simply looking for an excuse to be a victim.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Seriously, please ratchet down the victim mentality, notice that you are accusing religious people of shoving their faith down your throat, but here you are on an obviously CHRISTIAN forum ... where you are victim of the God being discussed?

...

Perhaps I should join an Islamic forum, which of course I have ZERO interest in obviously, and tell people what a victim I am because of their opinions? Tell them how horrible they are for threatening to send ME, good ol' me, to hell! I hate you! But I have no interest in your faith ... silliness.

This is not a "Christian forum" except in the sense that Christianity is one of the main topics of discussion. It is not a forum specially geared towards Christians or the promotion of Christianity or anything of the sort.

The purpose of this site is to engage in civil debates on anything pertaining to Christianity and religious issues between people of different persuasions. Everyone of any belief system is welcome to participate, this includes, but is not limited to, atheists, agnostics, deists, theists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, Taoists, and Hindus.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4

[bjs]

To be precise, agnostic atheism does not make any claims. It is the position that God might or might not exist, which is not a positive claim.

Under traditional definitions, agnosticism could be called the position that God might or might not exist. Why are you throwing on the word “atheism� after the word agnostic?

I use the term agnostic atheism to differentiate it from gnostic atheism, which does make a positive claim. Atheism is the default position, but only in the sense of lacking belief (agnostic atheism), not in the sense of God being nonexistent (gnostic atheism).

Agnosticism is, by the way, a positive claim. It is just a claim about my intellectual state, not about the reality outside of me.

Sure. The point is that it is not a positive claim with regard to the existence of God.

Okay, then why is agnostic atheism the “default position.� Why not agnostic theism?

Agnostic atheism seems to be saying that there may or may not be a God, but then living as if there is no God.

Agnostic theism would then be saying that there may or may not be a God, but living as if there is a God.

Both positions meet their own burden of proof. Since both positions only make claims about what I believe and not about anything outside of me, claiming to hold the position is sufficient proof that it is indeed what I believe.

I can see no reason why either of these should be the “default position� other than personal preference.

Of course, this leaves us little to debate. We become ships passing in the night. The atheist only says, “I do not believe in God.� The theist only says, “I do believe in God.� Both statements are equally true.

Until we are willing to make a claim about something beyond our own personal thoughts, there is essentially nothing to debate.

[GADARENE]

"So only now that you left atheism you expect atheists to take on the burden of proof. I tell you what,


-- explain how you know leprechauns don't exist and you will have all the so called evidence you need to know why atheists don't concern themselves with invisible gods --



anymore than they concern themselves with any other fictitious imaginary character read of in books."

I think I see what you are saying, but I am not quite convinced.
atheists, agnostic/atheists, jesus myth theorists- the ones oblivious to invisible irish leprechaun gods have posted 97,556,087, 023 posts in 4 days!

"StubbornOne, whether you like it or not, that means that in the first instance it is up to the theists to provide credible evidence to suppor that claim. Unless and until they do, the atheists are completely correct in adopting the stance that whatever is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."



remember stubbornone, he loves you and love isn't test tube tidy, ready for scientists to pick apart. some hope to reduce him to nothing more than that and to endless arguments that never lead anywhere. consider this, too. jesus myth theorists cannot prove conclusively with verifiable, repeatable evidence (their fallback mantra) that they love their children. can't be done. some things just don't yield to the limits of scientific testing, you know? (you know what's funny? they know he's real. no doubt. they know better than most who acknowledge his divinity.)

it is good to know that these polished, perfect, disinterested, superior in every way, always a joy and polite, believers in nothing, don't post 989,812,089,327,442 times in 5 days, ain't it?

[stubbornone]

Seriously, please ratchet down the victim mentality, notice that you are accusing religious people of shoving their faith down your throat, but here you are on an obviously CHRISTIAN forum ... where you are victim of the God being discussed?

...

Perhaps I should join an Islamic forum, which of course I have ZERO interest in obviously, and tell people what a victim I am because of their opinions? Tell them how horrible they are for threatening to send ME, good ol' me, to hell! I hate you! But I have no interest in your faith ... silliness.

This is not a "Christian forum" except in the sense that Christianity is one of the main topics of discussion. It is not a forum specially geared towards Christians or the promotion of Christianity or anything of the sort.

The purpose of this site is to engage in civil debates on anything pertaining to Christianity and religious issues between people of different persuasions. Everyone of any belief system is welcome to participate, this includes, but is not limited to, atheists, agnostics, deists, theists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, Taoists, and Hindus.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4

Guess you missed the part about which section you are debating in?

Christianity and Apologetics

Whoops ...

[stubbornone]

"So only now that you left atheism you expect atheists to take on the burden of proof. I tell you what,


-- explain how you know leprechauns don't exist and you will have all the so called evidence you need to know why atheists don't concern themselves with invisible gods --



anymore than they concern themselves with any other fictitious imaginary character read of in books."

I think I see what you are saying, but I am not quite convinced.
atheists, agnostic/atheists, jesus myth theorists- the ones oblivious to invisible irish leprechaun gods have posted 97,556,087, 023 posts in 4 days!

StubbornOne, whether you like it or not, that means that in the first instance it is up to the theists to provide credible evidence to suppor that claim. Unless and until they do, the atheists are completely correct in adopting the stance that whatever is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

remember stubbornone, he loves you and love isn't test tube tidy, ready for scientists to pick apart. some hope to reduce him to nothing more than that and to endless arguments that never lead anywhere. consider this, too. jesus myth theorists cannot prove conclusively with verifiable, repeatable evidence (their fallback mantra) that they love their children. can't be done. some things just don't yield to the limits of scientific testing, you know? (you know what's funny? they know he's real. no doubt. they know better than most who acknowledge his divinity.)

it is good to know that these polished, perfect, disinterested, superior in every way, always a joy and polite, believers in nothing, don't post 989,812,089,327,442 times in 5 days, ain't it?

Here you go:

The only way an atheist can arrive at the conclusion that no evidence is required for their position is by completely ignoring the rules of logic and context.

We often take the atheists claim of rationality for granted, incorrectly, and assume that atheists are familiar enough with logic that their statements will not be deliberately illogical. Yet the constant demand for proof, coupled with the failure to lay out any of their own – despite the ‘logic’ of their claim is a continuous demonstration of the opposite of the supposed claim to rationality.


Here is why.

First, there is knowing what a logical argument is:

"One must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false)."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

For more, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/logic.html

The specific of the burden of proof lies in a portion of what is often highlighted by atheists but, equally often, completely ignored.

As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Yes, it is indeed true that this statement is a fallacy.

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

It is why most logical Christians could more accurately be quoted as saying:

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He MIGHT."

It is also why we list things like miracles, answered prayers, calling, and strong, patterns in the universe that indicate purpose rather than accident, and other circumstantial evidence to back up the claim as required by the burden of proof. We also acknowledge that the belief in God is not totally logical, that is requires faith - an exception required by the dictates of logic.

We are also aware of something called the middle ground fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...le-ground.html

It is listed on the same source, and applies directly to the 'in most cases' so often ignored by atheists who offer the burden of proof exemption to their claim.

It is best explained here:

"For example, in the philosophical debate between Theism and Atheism (to some, Strong atheism), theism posits that the nonexistence of God has not been demonstrated and therefore God must exist. This is a burden of proof fallacy. Atheism in turn points out this fallacy and claims that its position is therefore stronger. This is a fallacious defense. In actuality, both positions have a burden of proof, since the Law of the excluded middle does not apply in this scenario."

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/...l_fallacy).htm

Even honest atheists acknowledge this burden of proof.

"The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof� is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support� — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof."

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...denofproof.htm

For an even more thorough explanation:

The Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy (Burden of Proof Fallacy)

This fallacy can take two forms:
Form A: Proposition P has not been proven to be true, therefore P is false
Form B: Proposition P has not been proven to be false, therefore P is true
Context and subject matter make all the difference.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

"All other factors being equal, reasonable expectations can determine when an absence of apparent evidence constitutes a proposition as false. Here we ask how much evidence should we expect in relation to what we have. For example, if someone claims there is a gorilla in the room - the fact that we cannot see the gorilla, hear the gorilla, etc., is an absence of evidence that disproves this proposition. However, if someone says there is a mosquito in the room, then an absence of evidence (not seeing or hearing it) does not disprove the proposition because our reasonable expectations of evidence have changed. In more borderline cases, we should avoid dogmatic conclusions on both sides, for example:

“No one has ever proved that Bigfoot exists, so it must not exist.�
“No one has ever proved that the Bigfoot does not exist, so it must exist.�

Both sides here commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance in that they derive unwarranted certitude when a more reserved stance seems called for. The certitude on both sides is unwarranted for there seems to be no clear way of establishing how much evidence to expect relative to what we have, nor can this determination even be made until all of the appropriate areas where such evidence would be found have been adequately surveyed. A lesser degree of certitude, or even agnosticism, is warranted here."

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

Funny that I have long stated that conclusion regarding logic and the debate over God.

And as you can clearly see, based upon the full application of the rules of logic, rather then partical and deliberately non-contextual application thereof, the burden of proof is still a requirement for those claiming that God does not exist.

I hope that explanation is detailed enough to finally bury that pernicious atheist claim.


Now, I wiull also point out that there are several open threads that discuss just this. That the sub-section we are in is CALLED APOLOGETICS. There are plenty of proofs for God, and indeed, posting ONE proof from JUST statistics threw atheists into orbit.

In the meantime, despite all of that, when someone walks around claiming its all rubbish? Yes G, they get to back that up.

Because, and I feel a bit like I am screaming into the wind here, the best you can do with the evidence for God is preponderance one way or the other. You can neither prove nor disprove God, which is no big deal when we ACKNOWELDGE the requirement of faith needed to reach certainty ... or that the final evidence is not scientifically reproduceable.

Again, the claim that 'Christians haven't gone first' is simply and utterly nothing more than being willfully ignorant.

It addresses ZERO of the common proofs, and it does nothing to explain what drove an atheist to reach HIS OWN CONCLUSION.

And, as you see in the proof above, reasonable expectations MUST ALSO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. If the debate is about whether or not a guy is standing behind a door, BOTH those who think so and think not have to explain why they reached that conclusion.

Claiming someone doesn't have a burden of proof because ... er, they don't, and that someone has to go first, who has ... several times over, is simply not right.

Atheists have a burden of proof. Its not like atheists are unfamiliar with the claims of Christianity are they? Until of course, they are asked for evidence to SUPPORT THEIR CONCLUSION, and suddenly, they are innocent babes who have never heard of this God thing and need to be educated about what they have already rejected?

The entire premise is not just illogical, it is IMO, dishonest to boot.

Love may not be entirely logical G, but abandoning logic to call people delusional, which is what traipsing around claiming everyone but atheists believe in 'fantasy' is neither logical nor is it love.

Love is caring enough to stand up them and tell them when they are wrong. And do you know how I know that? Because that is EXACTLY what God did to me.