Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[lostwanderingsoul]

Lol I'm the OP on a forum I started called debate an atheist. Did you just come to troll. Sounds like your grossly unequipped to engage in a polite and good natured discourse. If it's the christian god, I'm glad, that guys a phsyco. Allah too.

Like I said, your mind is made up. You do not want to debate but just want to tell others they are wrong.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Do you think the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim?

Yes.

If I say, dogs are red. I have to prove that.

If you start a thread with no one else, and say, dogs aren't red. You have to prove they aren't.

The best debates, both sides make positive and negative claims. And they try to back them up. And also challenge the other.

I say, dogs are red.

You respond and say, I don't believe dogs are red.

The burden of proof is on me.

If you instead start the conversation with,

Dogs aren't red

I say, dogs are red

The burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on the one asserting a particular claim, positive or negative.

If all you do is challenge views, you can still dodge having the Burden of Proof if it's carefully worded. But that kind of makes a boring, one-sided debate.

 

[infrabenji]

No. Doesn't work like that. Sounds like you need to do a bit more study on how debate works



Yes. Though in the case of lawsuits, it can get more complicated than that. The Plaintiff and Defendant can both have claims against each other. One example of how crazy things get: You sue me for $1000. I counter sue for $2000 for frivolous lawsuit. If you didn't have a law degree, you might get confused and drop the case. Yet I can keep my case for the $2000. If I'm misunderstanding, correct me - you're the person with the law degree.



But only if it's on your terms and not playing by the rules of formal debate.

No. Doesn't work like that. Sounds like you need to do a bit more study on how debate works



Yes. Though in the case of lawsuits, it can get more complicated than that. The Plaintiff and Defendant can both have claims against each other. One example of how crazy things get: You sue me for $1000. I counter sue for $2000 for frivolous lawsuit. If you didn't have a law degree, you might get confused and drop the case. Yet I can keep my case for the $2000. If I'm misunderstanding, correct me - you're the person with the law degree.

I'm not looking for a complicated court filing and by the way I work in corporate health insurance law. You're analogy fits perfectly though I think. Let's look at it this way. If the prosecutor states his evidence and the jury rules in favor of the prosecution then the defendant would be forced to change his position which may include penalties, court fees, and usually you have to pay the lawyers fees for both parties and vice versa. That's what I'm trying to convey in my definition. That the burden of proof lays with the person making the claim but if in the face of the preponderance of evidence I am proved wrong or my arguments fallacious I will adjust my position. Also, I'm referring to a formal debate in reference to this forum and how the debates seem to go. I'd like to add a slight touch of an actual formal debate. But for that we'd need an adjudicator, a point system, a time limit et. al.

But only if it's on your terms and not playing by the rules of formal debate.

 

[infrabenji]

Like I said, your mind is made up. You do not want to debate but just want to tell others they are wrong.

Don't troll. You have no arguments worth consideration. If you're not here to debate, kick rocks. Unless you like to watch

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

We don't need an adjudicator, a point system, a time limit, etc. Just present the best arguments, and the crowd can make up for themselves who won.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I wanted to provide a better article on the Burden Of Proof in Law as what you stated is, I'm afraid, a bit of an oversimplication:

Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia

 

[infrabenji]

Yes.

If I say, dogs are red. I have to prove that.

If you start a thread with no one else, and say, dogs aren't red. You have to prove they aren't.

The best debates, both sides make positive and negative claims. And they try to back them up. And also challenge the other.

I say, dogs are red.

You respond and say, I don't believe dogs are red.

The burden of proof is on me.

If you instead start the conversation with,

Dogs aren't red

I say, dogs are red

The burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on the one asserting a particular claim, positive or negative.

If all you do is challenge views, you can still dodge having the Burden of Proof if it's carefully worded. But that kind of makes a boring, one-sided debate.

A negative claim is a colloquialism (informal speech) for an affirmative claim that asserts the non existence or exclusion of something. I'll try to make some claims. Maybe they'll be fallacious. Let's find out. Thanks for watching Kat Kat. Keeping me on my toes. Believe it or not this only my second night of online debates with religious people ever. Let alone on this specific forum.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I wanted to provide a better article on the Burden Of Proof in Law as what you stated is, I'm afraid, a bit of an oversimplication:

Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia

Burden of proof is a legal duty that encompasses two connected but separate ideas that apply for establishing the truth of facts in a trial before tribunals in the United States: the "burden of production" and the "burden of persuasion." In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct, while the other side bears the burden of producing evidence persuasive enough to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of legal dispute. There are varying types of burden of persuasion commonly referred to as standards of proof, and depending on the type of case, the standard of proof will be higher or lower. Burdens of persuasion and production may be of different standards for each party, in different phases of litigation. The burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of fact to consider a disputed claim.[1]:16–17 After litigants have met the burden of production, they have the burden of persuasion: that enough evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct. There are different standards of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts.[1]:17

The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[2] In civil suits, for example, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the defendant's action or inaction caused injury to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant bears the burden of proving an affirmative defense.

The party that does not carry the burden of proof is presumed to be correct, until the burden shifts after party with the burden of proof meets its burden in an American criminal case, where there is a presumption of innocence by the defendant. Once a party meets its burden of proof, the burden then shifts to the other party. However in English law, there is no such presumption. In England, if the claimant fails to discharge the burden of proof to prove their case, the claim will be dismissed: the defendant will not have a case to answer. If however the claimant does adduce some evidence and discharges the burden of proof so as to prove its own case, it is for the defendant to adduce evidence to counter that evidence of proof of the alleged facts. If after weighing the evidence in respect of any particular allegation of fact, the court decides whether the (1) the claimant has proved the fact, (2) the defendant has proved the fact, or (3) neither party has proved the fact. Thus the concept of burden of proof works differently in different countries: ie under different systems of law.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Assuming that such a thing happens .. what would prevent you from saying “ohh it happened by an unknown natural mechanism” just because we don’t know what fixed the eye that doesn’t mean that God did it.

Rest assured. I am not a theist with apologies. That will be a clear sign of the power of all-mighty and I will gladly accept it for the rest of my life. I will not go back on my word. The members of RF are my witness. It will be a great win for your God. He just has to do it for one minute and then leave me to my 'karmas'.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

A negative claim is a colloquialism (informal speech) for an affirmative claim that asserts the non existence or exclusion of something. I'll try to make some claims. Maybe they'll be fallacious. Let's find out. Thanks for watching Kat Kat. Keeping me on my toes. Believe it or not this only my second night of online debates with religious people ever. Let alone on this specific forum.

Okay, if you're careful, you can still challenge and do it in a very honest way to others. For example, saying "God doesn't exist." may in some cases require proof. But saying "I don't believe in God." requires no proof.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

@infrabenji - For what it's worth, I think you're among the better new members we've had. You got the whole forum talking, and about religion. I consider that positive.

 

[infrabenji]

@infrabenji - For what it's worth, I think you're among the better new members we've had. You got the whole forum talking, and about religion. I consider that positive.

Thanks Kat Kat, this is definitely a learning process. I'm happy to have all the support I can get. I'm no genius counter apologist. I'm, regardless of what others think, genuinely seeking to test the validity of my beliefs.

 

[Deeje]

Let's start with the second thing first. Nothing from Nothing? What is nothing? We have no examples of comparison as there has always been something. We don't know what happened before the singularity.

OK, so admitting that science cannot know what came before the Big Bang, or even what precipitated it; that starting point is not a mystery for Bible believers who understand (from his written communication to mankind) that an infinite Creator existed before the physical universe.....everything in existence comes from this powerful Entity, the one who can create “something from nothing”.....and whom science will never be able to quantify, nor invent any physical “test” for his existence......he will not perform tricks for anyone to prove his existence....because his creation already speaks volumes about him. He doesn’t need to prove anything to any of us......I believe that it is we who need to prove ourselves to him. So that is the major difference IMO. So many atheists judge God by the idiots who claim to represent him......he is nothing like their man-made doctrines portray.

The universe exists, I see the world as beautiful, therefore god exists. Arguments from design as I told the last gentleman have been around for hundreds of years and though they've changed ever so slightly are still fallacious. I could give you the 20 incongruencies in the argument but I think you trust me.

When does design not need a designer? When does any human invention not come from an intelligent source and fulfill the purpose for which it was designed? When does information not need an informer or a physical means to transmit it? When does programming not need a programmer? Science IMV, has never been able to answer those questions in any satisfactory way. Making suggestions based on what “might have” or “could have” taken place before there was a means to document anything, makes theoretical science nothing more than an educated guessing game to me.

Just because something seems impossible to us doesn't get us anywhere near god did it. Science is a methodology. The fact that science hasn't uncovered a method for testing the supernatural isn't a fault of science or science trying to eliminate god. Science isn't static. It changes when new information is processed through the methodology of science and found to be fact.

This is another aspect of science that I find extremely annoying.
Science stands itself on a pedestal and makes claims that it can’t substantiate, then accuses those who see clear evidence of intelligent design in the physical world, as those who need the bear the burden of proof. If science can confidently state that it needs no proof for any of its assertions, why does the Creator need to answer to their lack of belief? If people don’t “believe” by observing his creation, then what makes them think he owes them more? If you go to a gallery that is exhibiting paintings by Van Gough....do you need proof that they are genuine, or can you trust those that know his work intimately to guarantee that they are not reproductions?

It's more of testament that we should withhold belief until such time as the evidence warrants it. As there is currently no evidence for the supernatural or any mechanism by which we can test it.

But if the “evidence” (for evolution specifically) is misinterpreted or biastly interpreted and presented as fact, then “belief” can run amok from both sides.....one in defense and the other in support....but "belief" is all that separates them.

Absolute “proof” does not exist for either claim, so you have two sides who cannot “prove” their case, but science seems to see its position as superior.....I cannot see why, unless science itself has become just another “religion” of "believers" with a different mind set and a different way of evaluating creation.

All science has is its own interpretation of its evidence, but at the end of the day, in the bigger picture, whilst so many are arguing about the details, stepping back to see the big picture tells a different story.

Science’s first premise (amoebas to dinosaurs) has not a single shred of evidence to prove that it ever happened the way that science suggests it “must have”.....or even that it was biologically possible. To suggest that "adaptation" can lead to new creatures, via 'common ancestors' has never been proven. These “common ancestors” on every graph I have ever seen, are never identified. That is like having a chain with no links. These links are suggested because without them evolution falls in a heap. Who can talk to me about proof then....?

All experiments in adaptation have led to new varieties within a single species, but have never stepped outside of that “family”. Interbreeding capabilities or not, they never became creatures that were outside of their biblical “kind”...did they?

If you build a castle on matchsticks, how long will it stand? You can admire the construction all you like, even argue about details of the construction materials, but don’t ignore the foundations. (Matthew 7:24-27)

Not sure about the quality of evidence thing as I can't see my original post. What I find hard to believe about any god or gods is the lack of testable evidence. We don't have anything to go off of but arguments from personal experience. Anecdotal evidence, Tired and worn apologetics from by gone era's. Do you know it's been about 600 years last time I checked since an original argument for the existence of god was put to paper.

This is, I guess the most difficult thing for atheists to comprehend....the fact that this incredible Creator can actually interact with us individually, and confirm his existence to us in a very real way. Do you honestly think he has any interest in those who have no interest in him? He knows us and what is in our heart. To believers, creation is the absolute proof of God’s existence, his interaction with us just confirms it.....but to unbelievers, creation is no such thing....science has eliminated all need for an intelligence responsible for creation, so excuses are found to make him go away. If you want him to go away, he will. He does not need us....we need him. I believe that we will all find that out in the not too distant future.

Doesn't that give you pause? Inserting god arbitrarily or after the fact or in place of a simple I don't know isn't necessary and in my experience always leads to flawed reasoning and participation in logical fallacies. Does it give you pause that every single argument for the existence of god for hundreds of years has failed to meet the burden of proof?

No, on the contrary, it proves to me what the Bible says....that no one can come to the Creator without his personal invitation. (John 6:65) Those who demand proof will get it eventually, but not in a way that will benefit them. God is choosing citizens for his Kingdom, and each one of us will need qualifications in order to be accepted. Believers will not all qualify, let alone unbelievers. (Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Peter 4:17-18)

The answer is simple. I don't know what it would take to convince me. But, if god exists, he does and has so far chosen not to provide this evidence. So how can my belief be warranted.

Could there be a reason why God has chosen not to show himself to those who need to be convinced by more “evidence” than the vast amount that already exists? Giving it a different interpretation doesn’t necessarily make it the right one. Time will tell, but in the meantime, have you tried asking God in humility and with an open heart to reveal his truth to you?

It seems as if you have never studied anything that would lead you TO God.....”religion”...”theology”....”philosophy”...so far has not led you to God, but rather these have confirmed for you the error of those things as a means to know God. "Seek and you will find"....are you a seeker?

 

[infrabenji]

OK, so admitting that science cannot know what came before the Big Bang, or even what precipitated it; that starting point is not a mystery for Bible believers who understand (from his written communication to mankind) that an infinite Creator existed before the physical universe.....everything in existence comes from this powerful Entity, the one who can create “something from nothing”.....and whom science will never be able to quantify, nor invent any physical “test” for his existence......he will not perform tricks for anyone to prove his existence....because his creation already speaks volumes about him. He doesn’t need to prove anything to any of us......I believe that it is we who need to prove ourselves to him. So that is the major difference IMO. So many atheists judge God by the idiots who claim to represent him......he is nothing like their man-made doctrines portray.


When does design not need a designer? When does any human invention not come from an intelligent source and fulfill the purpose for which it was designed? When does information not need an informer or a physical means to transmit it? When does programming not need a programmer? Science IMV, has never been able to answer those questions in any satisfactory way. Making suggestions based on what “might have” or “could have” taken place before there was a means to document anything, makes theoretical science nothing more than an educated guessing game to me.


This is another aspect of science that I find extremely annoying.
Science stands itself on a pedestal and makes claims that it can’t substantiate, then accuses those who see clear evidence of intelligent design in the physical world, as those who need the bear the burden of proof. If science can confidently state that it needs no proof for any of its assertions, why does the Creator need to answer to their lack of belief? If people don’t “believe” by observing his creation, then what makes them think he owes them more? If you go to a gallery that is exhibiting paintings by Van Gough....do you need proof that they are genuine, or can you trust those that know his work intimately to guarantee that they are not reproductions?


But if the “evidence” (for evolution specifically) is misinterpreted or biastly interpreted and presented as fact, then “belief” can run amok from both sides.....one in defense and the other in support....but "belief" is all that separates them.

Absolute “proof” does not exist for either claim, so you have two sides who cannot “prove” their case, but science seems to see its position as superior.....I cannot see why, unless science itself has become just another “religion” of "believers" with a different mind set and a different way of evaluating creation.

All science has is its own interpretation of its evidence, but at the end of the day, in the bigger picture, whilst so many are arguing about the details, stepping back to see the big picture tells a different story.

Science’s first premise (amoebas to dinosaurs) has not a single shred of evidence to prove that it ever happened the way that science suggests it “must have”.....or even that it was biologically possible. To suggest that "adaptation" can lead to new creatures, via 'common ancestors' has never been proven. These “common ancestors” on every graph I have ever seen, are never identified. That is like having a chain with no links. These links are suggested because without them evolution falls in a heap. Who can talk to me about proof then....?

All experiments in adaptation have led to new varieties within a single species, but have never stepped outside of that “family”. Interbreeding capabilities or not, they never became creatures that were outside of their biblical “kind”...did they?

If you build a castle on matchsticks, how long will it stand? You can admire the construction all you like, even argue about details of the construction materials, but don’t ignore the foundations. (Matthew 7:24-27)


This is, I guess the most difficult thing for atheists to comprehend....the fact that this incredible Creator can actually interact with us individually, and confirm his existence to us in a very real way. Do you honestly think he has any interest in those who have no interest in him? He knows us and what is in our heart. To believers, creation is the absolute proof of God’s existence, his interaction with us just confirms it.....but to unbelievers, creation is no such thing....science has eliminated all need for an intelligence responsible for creation, so excuses are found to make him go away. If you want him to go away, he will. He does not need us....we need him. I believe that we will all find that out in the not too distant future.


No, on the contrary, it proves to me what the Bible says....that no one can come to the Creator without his personal invitation. (John 6:65) Those who demand proof will get it eventually, but not in a way that will benefit them. God is choosing citizens for his Kingdom, and each one of us will need qualifications in order to be accepted. Believers will not all qualify, let alone unbelievers. (Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Peter 4:17-18)


Could there be a reason why God has chosen not to show himself to those who need to be convinced by more “evidence” than the vast amount that already exists? Giving it a different interpretation doesn’t necessarily make it the right one. Time will tell, but in the meantime, have you tried asking God in humility and with an open heart to reveal his truth to you?

It seems as if you have never studied anything that would lead you TO God.....”religion”...”theology”....”philosophy”...so far has not led you to God, but rather these have confirmed for you the error of those things as a means to know God. "Seek and you will find"....are you a seeker?

Give me a moment to go thru

OK, so admitting that science cannot know what came before the Big Bang, or even what precipitated it; that starting point is not a mystery for Bible believers who understand (from his written communication to mankind) that an infinite Creator existed before the physical universe.....everything in existence comes from this powerful Entity, the one who can create “something from nothing”.....and whom science will never be able to quantify, nor invent any physical “test” for his existence......he will not perform tricks for anyone to prove his existence....because his creation already speaks volumes about him. He doesn’t need to prove anything to any of us......I believe that it is we who need to prove ourselves to him. So that is the major difference IMO. So many atheists judge God by the idiots who claim to represent him......he is nothing like their man-made doctrines portray.


When does design not need a designer? When does any human invention not come from an intelligent source and fulfill the purpose for which it was designed? When does information not need an informer or a physical means to transmit it? When does programming not need a programmer? Science IMV, has never been able to answer those questions in any satisfactory way. Making suggestions based on what “might have” or “could have” taken place before there was a means to document anything, makes theoretical science nothing more than an educated guessing game to me.


This is another aspect of science that I find extremely annoying.
Science stands itself on a pedestal and makes claims that it can’t substantiate, then accuses those who see clear evidence of intelligent design in the physical world, as those who need the bear the burden of proof. If science can confidently state that it needs no proof for any of its assertions, why does the Creator need to answer to their lack of belief? If people don’t “believe” by observing his creation, then what makes them think he owes them more? If you go to a gallery that is exhibiting paintings by Van Gough....do you need proof that they are genuine, or can you trust those that know his work intimately to guarantee that they are not reproductions?


But if the “evidence” (for evolution specifically) is misinterpreted or biastly interpreted and presented as fact, then “belief” can run amok from both sides.....one in defense and the other in support....but "belief" is all that separates them.

Absolute “proof” does not exist for either claim, so you have two sides who cannot “prove” their case, but science seems to see its position as superior.....I cannot see why, unless science itself has become just another “religion” of "believers" with a different mind set and a different way of evaluating creation.

All science has is its own interpretation of its evidence, but at the end of the day, in the bigger picture, whilst so many are arguing about the details, stepping back to see the big picture tells a different story.

Science’s first premise (amoebas to dinosaurs) has not a single shred of evidence to prove that it ever happened the way that science suggests it “must have”.....or even that it was biologically possible. To suggest that "adaptation" can lead to new creatures, via 'common ancestors' has never been proven. These “common ancestors” on every graph I have ever seen, are never identified. That is like having a chain with no links. These links are suggested because without them evolution falls in a heap. Who can talk to me about proof then....?

All experiments in adaptation have led to new varieties within a single species, but have never stepped outside of that “family”. Interbreeding capabilities or not, they never became creatures that were outside of their biblical “kind”...did they?

If you build a castle on matchsticks, how long will it stand? You can admire the construction all you like, even argue about details of the construction materials, but don’t ignore the foundations. (Matthew 7:24-27)


This is, I guess the most difficult thing for atheists to comprehend....the fact that this incredible Creator can actually interact with us individually, and confirm his existence to us in a very real way. Do you honestly think he has any interest in those who have no interest in him? He knows us and what is in our heart. To believers, creation is the absolute proof of God’s existence, his interaction with us just confirms it.....but to unbelievers, creation is no such thing....science has eliminated all need for an intelligence responsible for creation, so excuses are found to make him go away. If you want him to go away, he will. He does not need us....we need him. I believe that we will all find that out in the not too distant future.


No, on the contrary, it proves to me what the Bible says....that no one can come to the Creator without his personal invitation. (John 6:65) Those who demand proof will get it eventually, but not in a way that will benefit them. God is choosing citizens for his Kingdom, and each one of us will need qualifications in order to be accepted. Believers will not all qualify, let alone unbelievers. (Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Peter 4:17-18)


Could there be a reason why God has chosen not to show himself to those who need to be convinced by more “evidence” than the vast amount that already exists? Giving it a different interpretation doesn’t necessarily make it the right one. Time will tell, but in the meantime, have you tried asking God in humility and with an open heart to reveal his truth to you?

It seems as if you have never studied anything that would lead you TO God.....”religion”...”theology”....”philosophy”...so far has not led you to God, but rather these have confirmed for you the error of those things as a means to know God. "Seek and you will find"....are you a seeker?

Okay give me just a moment to go through your novel lol. I have a couple people in fron of you but will get back to you with my response shortly. Thanks for your patience.

 

[Truthseeker]

Do you care about what's true? Do you want your model of reality to match actual reality? Everyone from every religion says this. Are they all correct? Does each personal god visit each person and gift them with secret knowledge? How reliable are personal experiences? Are memories static, not subject to influence? Look, if you care about what's true you give intellectually honest answers not fallacious reasoning and unsupported science. We can and have tested these things and found them to be unreliable. The brocas portion of the brain is responsible for that little voice in your head. When scientists tested people from different religious disciplines and asked them to talk to their various gods and to respond when they heard the voice of their gods, the brocas part of the brain was activated. We know that the Brocas section is responsible for the voice in your head. Outside of the publication I've confirmed this with my best friend who is a cognitive scientist. I'd love to hear how personal experiences are a reliable metric to prove the existence of god.

There's no voice in my head. Christians may see it that way, but I certainly don't. Christians falsely believe that the Holy Spirit is a voice in their head. This voice I agree is their imagination. Baha'u'llah said this:

They should in no wise allow their fancy to obscure their judgment, neither should they regard their own imaginings as the voice of the Eternal.
Bahá’u’lláh, "Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh", 160.2

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Science stands itself on a pedestal and makes claims that it can’t substantiate, then accuses those who see clear evidence of intelligent design in the physical world, as those who need the bear the burden of proof.

I saw that you criticized Atheists for judging your god based on poor representatives of him. Be that as fallacious as it may, this above notion is equally dead wrong.

Science stands on no pedestal, and certainly not one mounted by itself. It does not make unsubstantial claims (ironic accusation, coming from a theist). Science is a method of discovery, an ongoing and ever-changing investigation into the nature of existence that is always open to modification in light of new evidence. There is no rigidity beyond what is solidly evident, and even that is subject to change. Everything from what we know about Gravity to what we know about Time. Between and beyond.

That you see "clear evidence" of intelligent design does not for a fact make, and if you are to make claims such as "God exists" then yes, the burden of proof is on you. Proof that, unless it can be clearly demonstrated, replicated, and presented with consistency is not likely to convince anyone of the veracity of your claims. In equal measure, if a scientist makes a positive claim (e.g. "time is relative to gravity") they would be expected to provide the same measure of evidence to support their claim. Where so many of you Christians make mistake is that you try to quantify your god; prove him scientifically. Granted, often this is demanded but usually in response to theological claims made on a scientific stage. If one cannot word their beliefs well and as such, one just shouldn't try.

 

[Truthseeker]

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. The standard of evidence is the degree to which the affirmative must prove its evidence to succeed. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, and the standard required of them is that they prove the evidence against the negative “beyond reasonable doubt”.

That's the usual standard for atheists. That's so familiar. I love Carl Sagan, but this was his position. That's why it's useless to convince people like you. You are stuck in the material world.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yeah, not just Atheists. Anyone with rationality at the core of their mind requires actual evidence before buying into whatever nonsense the next streetside prophet is slinging.

 

[leroy]

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. The standard of evidence is the degree to which the affirmative must prove its evidence to succeed. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, and the standard required of them is that they prove the evidence against the negative “beyond reasonable doubt”.

beyond reasonable doubt”.

oh so basically you are saying that you will be an atheists unless someone's proves the existance of God "beyond reasonable doubt"?

is this a correct interpretation of your position?..

don't you think you are raising the bar unrealistically too high?

why is it that naturalism gets the benefit of the doubt?

do you always expect "proof beyond reasonable doubt" before accepting a proposition? or does this degree of skepticism apply only to theism?

hypothetically, if you find out that there are good arguments for the existance of God, such that you conclude that there is a 80% likelihood that he excists would you still be an atheist? (because there would be room for reasonable doubt)


apart from all that, don't you think your definition of evidence (above) is circular and useless?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Why would someone believe in a god or gods with half measure? Why is it seen as so virtuous to be of blind or clouded faith?