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.

[d.thomas]

Asking atheists to provide proof for not sharing in god beliefs is like asking non bowlers for proof as to why they don't bowl.

[McCulloch]

It's why, a while back, when asked what I though the biggest threat was to atheism my reply was, "Simple honesty."

I missed that. Could you please expand on this? You see, it was a brutally honest appraisal of the foundations of my beliefs that turned me from trying to believe in God into not.

If asked what I think the biggest threat to theism is, my reply is, "Simple honesty."

[Star]

Stubborne one, there are so many strawmen arguments in your posts that I'm beginning to think you're being intellectually dishonest and that it's a waste of time continuing to explain things to you.

I've made distinctions between agnostic and gnostic atheists. I've agreed with you that gnostic atheists have the burden of proof when they assert there's no god, yet you keep throwing that in my face. I've even bolded and italicized the first letters in gnostic/agnostic to help you notice the distinction. Maybe you stop thinking clearly when you get angry, but whatever it is, I'm through with it, at least for now.

My advice to you would be to go to your local community college and learn basic statistics and math before you go around pretending you have evidence in these fields that somehow supports your religious claims. Even if you still don't agree, at least you'll have the skills to form a more convincing argument in these areas.

[stubbornone]

It's why, a while back, when asked what I though the biggest threat was to atheism my reply was, "Simple honesty."

I missed that. Could you please expand on this? You see, it was a brutally honest appraisal of the foundations of my beliefs that turned me from trying to believe in God into not.

If asked what I think the biggest threat to theism is, my reply is, "Simple honesty."

Take a gander at the current propaganda of atheism.

#1 - The Christ Myth? Wells and his supporters produced one of the worst histories I have ever seen, a clash of standards and accountability whose sole goal is denial. An honest assessment, which has been done many times over, quickly revelas the travesty of integrity that produced such a claim.

#2 - Hitchens and other prominent denunciations of faith:

"In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.

Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody."

http://atheists.org/religion

Tell me as both a warrior and a professional historian, do I really need to go into an examination of all the wars fought with no religion whatsoever? Do I need to detail the conflicts in which religion helped resolution rather than exacerbated the situation?

Again, these claims are based on what my faith calls a lie of omission.

#3 - Atheist lawsuits, though some may not be without merit, many are. When atheist groups find something religious, which has caused no one any greif whatsoever, and THEN after the fact, go find an atheist 'some where' to claim offense ... that is simple dishonesty.

The idea that art can be offensive to some, is true. The idea that religious art in and of itself become so offensive that it undermines the fabric of our society, where those religious symbols have stood (apparently without damage) for decades ... Please take a gander ar Barcelona where religious symbols dot the city and are publicly funded, and ... are not doing any damage.

The entire basis of this common tactic in organized atheism is silly, if not outright dishonest.

#4 - the evidence. The evidence for God is inconclusive, yet we routinely see atheists claiming there is none. We see, as we do here, that atheists claim they are driven by evidence, and yet they have no burden of proof in explaining how evidence drove them to their conclusion?

That is simply not honest.

The list goes on, but it exceeds the current topic of the thread.

[stubbornone]

Stubborne one, there are so many strawmen arguments in your posts that I'm beginning to think you're being intellectually dishonest and that it's a waste of time continuing to explain things to you.

I've made distinctions between agnostic and gnostic atheists. I've agreed with you that gnostic atheists have the burden of proof when they assert there's no god, yet you keep throwing that in my face. I've even bolded and italicized the first letters in gnostic/agnostic to help you notice the distinction. Maybe you stop thinking clearly when you get angry, but whatever it is, I'm through with it, at least for now.

My advice to you would be to go to your local community college and learn basic statistics and math before you go around pretending you have evidence in these fields that somehow supports your religious claims. Even if you still don't agree, at least you'll have the skills to form a more convincing argument in these areas.

THere is no strawmen.

You are making another totally unsupported claim, and I am calling you to task. Back it up as per the rules of the forum. Demonstrate the strawman,

Additionally, and as claimed, the comments about needing to go to community college are rude, unhelpful, and ALSO violate the rules of the forum.

For a guy claiming there is no emotion in you evidenced driven position, your emotional comments and vacuous accusations without proof speak volumes in the opposite direction.

Atheists have a burden of proof, and I am sorry that the acknowledgement of such makes you so angry that you need to lash out.

Finally, I will explain once again, I don't give a rip about the fantastic claims about the differences between gnostic and agnostic atheists, its nothing more than creative writing meant to undermine the rules of logic.

Explain it all you want and then fail, as you continue to do, to respond to the rebuttals of your position.

In effect, you are stating, "Take my position without comment!!!!"

Its a debate forum. No thanks.

I'd rather not make an illogical excuse the foundation of evidenced position that does not require evidence.

[d.thomas]

It's why, a while back, when asked what I though the biggest threat was to atheism my reply was, "Simple honesty."

I missed that. Could you please expand on this? You see, it was a brutally honest appraisal of the foundations of my beliefs that turned me from trying to believe in God into not.

If asked what I think the biggest threat to theism is, my reply is, "Simple honesty."

Take a gander at the current propaganda of atheism.

#1 - The Christ Myth? Wells and his supporters produced one of the worst histories I have ever seen, a clash of standards and accountability whose sole goal is denial. An honest assessment, which has been done many times over, quickly revelas the travesty of integrity that produced such a claim.

#2 - Hitchens and other prominent denunciations of faith:

"In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.

Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody."

http://atheists.org/religion

Tell me as both a warrior and a professional historian, do I really need to go into an examination of all the wars fought with no religion whatsoever? Do I need to detail the conflicts in which religion helped resolution rather than exacerbated the situation?

Again, these claims are based on what my faith calls a lie of omission.

#3 - Atheist lawsuits, though some may not be without merit, many are. When atheist groups find something religious, which has caused no one any greif whatsoever, and THEN after the fact, go find an atheist 'some where' to claim offense ... that is simple dishonesty.

The idea that art can be offensive to some, is true. The idea that religious art in and of itself become so offensive that it undermines the fabric of our society, where those religious symbols have stood (apparently without damage) for decades ... Please take a gander ar Barcelona where religious symbols dot the city and are publicly funded, and ... are not doing any damage.

The entire basis of this common tactic in organized atheism is silly, if not outright dishonest.

#4 - the evidence. The evidence for God is inconclusive, yet we routinely see atheists claiming there is none. We see, as we do here, that atheists claim they are driven by evidence, and yet they have no burden of proof in explaining how evidence drove them to their conclusion?

That is simply not honest.

The list goes on, but it exceeds the current topic of the thread.

Like I said, asking atheists to provide proof for not sharing in god beliefs is like asking non bowlers for proof as to why they don't bowl.

[Star]

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

[d.thomas]

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: I don't know if there's a god or not
Stubborn: It's only logical you prove there's no god
Me: I don't assert there's no god
Stubborn: Yes you do, you're atheist
Me: No, I'm agnost-atheist
Stubborn: You're wrong about what you think you are
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 strawman is

I see your point but little green men from Alpha Centauri do not exist, and if there is a burden of proof it aint worth arguing about, call it faith on my part for claiming it, but really, how much faith is required considering the amount of faith required to claim that little green men from Alpha Centauri DO exist. The same applies to a lot of imaginary things, so it's no great shakes if an atheist claims no invisible gods exist.

[TheTruth101]

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.

This is why Christ said its better to be either hot or cold in faith then lukewarm. Simply these kind gets attacked by both sides. In all, disliked by general population or mankind in terms of speaking under religion and God in nature.

[stubbornone]

It's why, a while back, when asked what I though the biggest threat was to atheism my reply was, "Simple honesty."

I missed that. Could you please expand on this? You see, it was a brutally honest appraisal of the foundations of my beliefs that turned me from trying to believe in God into not.

If asked what I think the biggest threat to theism is, my reply is, "Simple honesty."

Take a gander at the current propaganda of atheism.

#1 - The Christ Myth? Wells and his supporters produced one of the worst histories I have ever seen, a clash of standards and accountability whose sole goal is denial. An honest assessment, which has been done many times over, quickly revelas the travesty of integrity that produced such a claim.

#2 - Hitchens and other prominent denunciations of faith:

"In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.

Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody."

http://atheists.org/religion

Tell me as both a warrior and a professional historian, do I really need to go into an examination of all the wars fought with no religion whatsoever? Do I need to detail the conflicts in which religion helped resolution rather than exacerbated the situation?

Again, these claims are based on what my faith calls a lie of omission.

#3 - Atheist lawsuits, though some may not be without merit, many are. When atheist groups find something religious, which has caused no one any greif whatsoever, and THEN after the fact, go find an atheist 'some where' to claim offense ... that is simple dishonesty.

The idea that art can be offensive to some, is true. The idea that religious art in and of itself become so offensive that it undermines the fabric of our society, where those religious symbols have stood (apparently without damage) for decades ... Please take a gander ar Barcelona where religious symbols dot the city and are publicly funded, and ... are not doing any damage.

The entire basis of this common tactic in organized atheism is silly, if not outright dishonest.

#4 - the evidence. The evidence for God is inconclusive, yet we routinely see atheists claiming there is none. We see, as we do here, that atheists claim they are driven by evidence, and yet they have no burden of proof in explaining how evidence drove them to their conclusion?

That is simply not honest.

The list goes on, but it exceeds the current topic of the thread.

Like I said, asking atheists to provide proof for not sharing in god beliefs is like asking non bowlers for proof as to why they don't bowl.

Your dogmatic claim has been repeatedly noted, as has your utter failure to explain why or otherwise support your ritualistic claim.