<p>The fact that you guys (meaning atheists) make such a big deal out of me asking you to provide me with proof makes me think you don't have any.</p>
<p>In a court trial, they don't accuse people of committing crimes and then say, oh, we don't care that you say you didn't do it. it's our burden of proof, so you don't get a chance to prove you didn't commit the crime.</p>
<p>If you had a decent argument to support your side, you'd set aside the rules of debate and show me it.</p>
<p>^^just because athiests are wrong doesn't make you right I'd like to point out, theres still no proof on the theist side either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
quit *<strong><em>ing shifting the burden of proof, the burden is on anyone making any sort of claim at all, for you to claim that there is without a doubt NOT a god (an athiest) you need to prove that just as much as if someone says there IS a god, if all you require is proof one way or another you're an agnostic, so quit shifting the *</em></strong>ing burden and either admit you're agnostic or provide PROOF that there isn't a god.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, no. In the beginnings of human thought, we did not think of the concept of a God. Why do you think Abraham actually had to sign the covenent? Unless you want to falsely claim that Abraham was the first human being, it is fairly definite that God not existing is the default position. Likewise, it is the default position that the moon's not a big piece of cheese in space, so if someone were to claim that it was, it would be upon them to lay the evidence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that you guys (meaning atheists) make such a big deal out of me asking you to provide me with proof makes me think you don't have any.</p>
<p>In a court trial, they don't accuse people of committing crimes and then say, oh, we don't care that you say you didn't do it. it's our burden of proof, so you don't get a chance to prove you didn't commit the crime.</p>
<p>If you had a decent argument to support your side, you'd set aside the rules of debate and show me it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Non-theists don't believe to know all the answers. You do. To us, you merely point out false ones, and we refute it based on the idea that your side has insufficient evidence. </p>
<p>Take a war. You do NOT need to conquer the opposition in a defensive war, just merely last the attrition, and you'd still have won. </p>
<p>And yes, in a court trial, you're innocent until proven guilty. The O.J. case was won by O.J., the defendant's side, because the judiciaries felt that there was insufficient evidence for the accusation.</p>
<p>default position? that's debatable, nearly every society through history has invented some sort of god, so an arguement could be made that the "default" belief is that there is a higher being.</p>
<p>besides that, the default position can be wrong. Everything in front of me is flat, and if the world was a circle the stuff on the bottom would just fall off, so the world must be flat, right?</p>
<p>Just because it's "default" doesnt mean that no evidence needs to be provided</p>
<p>Look, if we had told Plato without any evidence that there were billions and billions of galaxies, he would have been RIGHT to dismiss us as crazy.</p>
<p>And no, you cannot say that organization came before unorganization. Organization is an adaptation to the fallabilities of an unorganized structure. Not the other way around.</p>
<p>Edit: Notice how both the flat earth theory and the geocentric theory have both come to have been disproved through display of evidence. If God indeed DOES exist, there first needs to be evidence that supports it before it is deemed as true.</p>
<p>Justinian I, apology accepted :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Organization is an adaptation to the fallabilities of an unorganized structure. Not the other way around.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>nicely put, amievil.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In a court trial, they don't accuse people of committing crimes and then say, oh, we don't care that you say you didn't do it. it's our burden of proof, so you don't get a chance to prove you didn't commit the crime.
[/quote]
Wrong. Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution always has the burden to prove the defense wrong. The defense can then negate the prosecution's developments. In essence...start presenting some ideas so that they can be refuted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that you guys (meaning atheists) make such a big deal out of me asking you to provide me with proof makes me think you don't have any.
[/quote]
If neither of us were to present anything, the atheists would win the debate because the existence of god would never have been proved. The existence of god is not an assumption...it is a conclusion, now just insert the logic here: ___________</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that you guys (meaning atheists) make such a big deal out of me asking you to provide me with proof makes me think you don't have any.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you provide us with your definition of god, I would be glad to present evidence and arguments against him/her/it. </p>
<p>For me, evidence against the existence of god:</p>
<p>1) Absolutely no evidence for existence. (ie - absence of evidence is evidence of absence) To believe in something, we mush have some evidence for it. If I said an invisible pink unicorn exists in your garage, but it doesn't affect or change anything there, would you believe me? In fact I can make any number of unprovable, untestable statements - that doesn't make them true.</p>
<p>2) Various logical and philosophical problems with the concept of a omnipotent/omniscient/benevolent/creator god.</p>
<p>3) The evidence in favor of any given god being man-made, including the enormous number of religions out there, the huge number of variations on any given faith, the connection between religious principles and the moral and scientific "truths" of the times, and the connections between religions that are supposedly different.</p>
<p>Considering all of these, it seems far more rational to accept that the concept of "god" is man-made, but slowly evolved. In the process, it created various religions. The less promising ones went extinct. The ones more favorable and suited to the society of the times lived and gained prominence.</p>
<p>Seriously...God doesn't exist..lets not make up bs reasons for either case.</p>
<p><a href="ie%20-%20absence%20of%20evidence%20is%20evidence%20of%20absence">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, absence of proof is NOT proof of absence. Sorry, I'm not going to let some crappy leap in logic undermine the value of the argument of the whole side.</p>
<p>
[quote]
absence of proof is NOT proof of absence
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with your statement. If we were doing math, and I was trying to prove a theorem, the fact that there doesn't seem to be a proof doesn't imply there isn't.</p>
<p>But here, we're discussing why we believe or don't believe in something. Then my point is warranted, imo.</p>
<p>Here's an interesting thread on this:</p>
<p>Yes, it means it is more rational to believe the other.</p>
<p>However, that's why believers use faith.</p>
<p>
[quote]
absence of proof is NOT proof of absence
[/quote]
absence of proof is failure to prove presence. The burden in any form of debate lies with the affirmative. Absence of proof, in essence, is failure to establish presence...something which the theists must do. At no point am I saying that the theist lack of evidence means no god exists. My view of god's absence lies not in theist failure to provide evidence, but my own reasons which contradict theists. That is assuming that you attribute the "leap of logic" to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
refute it based on the idea that your side has insufficient evidence.
[/quote]
THis seems to contradict what you said. In debate, this attitude is justified...even though it does not suffice for absolute truth.</p>
<p>perhaps i am not fully understanding what is going on here..</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is assuming that you attribute the "leap of logic" to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or perhaps I was attributing it to the person I was quoting. This is the logical step.</p>
<p>
[quote]
THis seems to contradict what you said. In debate, this attitude is justified...even though it does not suffice for absolute truth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can use this to refute the other side's argument affirming, but it doesn't necessarily denote the contrary to their argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can use this to refute the other side's argument affirming, but it doesn't necessarily denote the contrary to their argument.
[/quote]
My thoughts exactly. The distinction is in establishing the "truth" and winning an argument. In establishing the absolute truth, absence of proof does not refute the idea; in a debate, absence of proof by affirmative is a valid refutation. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Or perhaps I was attributing it to the person I was quoting. This is the logical step.
[/quote]
I missed that..apologies</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, it means it is more rational to believe the other.</p>
<p>However, that's why believers use faith.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. The person above, who I quoted, was asking for evidence, and that's just what I tried to provide. It certainly is not proof - there really cannot be any. We weren't discussing the issue of belief without need for evidence, ie blind faith.</p>
<p>One thing I've noticed about Christianity specifically. If they strictly believe/adhere to the following ideas, they will remain unmoved:</p>
<ul>
<li>God works in mysterious ways</li>
<li>Everything happens for a reason</li>
<li>God has a plan for everyone</li>
</ul>
<p>Hypothetical situation: </p>
<ul>
<li>Annie's parents go on their honeymoon and are robbed and murdered by a ruthless, local gang.</li>
</ul>
<p>Annie can either see this situation as a "If God were real, he'd never let this happen" or if she's faithful, she'll go "God must be testing me. I must remain faithful because everything happens for a reason."</p>
<p>This little excerpt has no relevance to anything anyone's been discussing. But I felt the need to share.</p>
<p>would a god that is emotionally secure need to continuously test his followers?</p>
<p>Haha, clever.</p>