Houshphandzadeh wrote:Why are you putting the burden of proof on Crash when you wouldn't put it on anyone who does profess a religion or belief in a god?

TenuredVulture wrote:There's a brand of atheism out there that goes simply an individual holding the belief that there is no divine entity in the universe.

However, many atheist go beyond the belief in a factual proposition and make an ethical claim that says no one is entitled to the belief in a divine entity because of the evidence against that belief. That is the proselytizing move that has entered this conversation.

But it's an odd move to make. From the perspective of a theist, it's a self-contradicting argument. It begins with a skeptical premise, but must end in a positive assertion (thou shalt not believe) and thus the conclusion.

1. Thou shalt not believe things which one lacks sufficient evidence.
2. Thou lacks sufficient evidence for the existence of the God of Abraham.
3. Conclusion: Thou shalt not believe in the God of Abraham.

However, not believing is still a belief. So we're back at the beginning.

As an aside, it is interesting that most accounts of atheism I'm aware of are based on rejecting the existence of the God of Abraham as if the Abrahamic tradition was the only spiritual tradition in existence.

CrashburnAlley wrote:None is needed. The burden of proof isn't on atheists.

If I told you an invisible mutant bunny lived under the sink in my kitchen, you probably wouldn't believe me. In fact, you'd probably go so far as to say that I'm lying -- that said rabbit does not exist.

So would you have the burden of proof here -- to prove that this invisible mutant bunny does not exist?

At any rate, an atheist failing to prove that God doesn't exist wouldn't make the atheist "religious".

Barry Jive wrote:not arguing about god's existence here, because I'm agnostic, but this argument isn't very productive. Even if god exists, something had to occur to create our world. The bunny under your sink has no relative impact on your life. Theists, on the other hand, have devised an answer to the world's biggest mystery, and whether they can prove it or not, your response does nothing to further the quest for a right answer.

Point being, I don't believe either side has it right. And unless you have the answer, it's best just to let people without it believe what they want to believe.

jerseyhoya wrote:I think atheism is stronger in its rejection of belief in a higher power than you are making it out to be. Agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing, and I think they sort of are mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is saying we can't know if god exists or not. Atheism says god doesn't exist.

CrashburnAlley wrote:The conclusion should not be, "Well, at least they have an answer." Instead, it should be, "Does the theory have a logical basis?" I would rather have no reliable answer than fall back on an obviously flimsy theory.

smitty wrote:Jesus was a devout Jew who certainly believed in God since He was his dad (Although much, much more complicated than that for sure).

smitty wrote:He had meals and associated with prostitutes and tax collectors.

Woody wrote:This is, and will always be, the most worthless thing to ever try and debate in the entire world. Even if you could prove God doesn't exist, which of course you can't, the very nature of faith allows any evidence to be dismissed instantly. Furthermore, has anyone who believed in God ever been swayed by the arguments of an atheist, or vice-versa? It's pointless, like devoting your life to following the MLB draft.

smitty wrote:Also, burden of proof is not even an issue here. That's why they call it faith.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

smitty wrote:Jesus was a devout Jew who certainly believed in God since He was his dad (Although much, much more complicated than that for sure).

Some think Jesus may have had siblings, but I can't imagine. I mean, you know there would be the old "Why can't you be more like your brother" from Joe and Mary.

smitty wrote:He had meals and associated with prostitutes and tax collectors.

For anyone that may not know the reason tax collectors were so hated and reviled... back in those days, tax collector wasn't a government job, it was a business. The tax collector would pay the governing entity the total tax for his respective "district" up front, figure out what each person's cut was, then go out and collect the money from everyone (plus extra for personal salary/profit and to cover potential future tax increases). Since he was laying out the total up front, you can imagine the kinds of tactics he would employ for those that wouldn't or couldn't pay... think mob loan shark tactics.

Didn't I? wrote:My answer to this question would change drastically if the Flyers can come back and win the cup.

CrashburnAlley wrote:
The conclusion should not be, "Well, at least they have an answer." Instead, it should be, "Does the theory have a logical basis?" I would rather have no reliable answer than fall back on an obviously flimsy theory.