Damn Atheists!!

[QuestioningMind]

It is the ridicule aspect of it. Ridicule is contempt. And if they enjoy prying with questions, and can't take any questions in return, and then go on to insult character then it's more of a witch Hunt.

Burden of proof is a courtroom. This is a forum of open discussion. Debate the topic instead of insulting the character and mental capacities of the individual so scorned.

Burden of proof is just a way of avoiding an open discussion. If you don't want to be open I could care less. But they expect you to answer questions with accusatory remarks.

Wouldn't it be better to say you have not met my standards of proof then demanding a tell all response?

Burden of proof applies to accusations being made. If I was to accuse you of something I would have to bear the burden of proof.

Most of the time religious claims are statements of personal conviction and faith based. If there are accusations in the claims then you are free to hold court on the accusations. If the claims infringe on your rights and others, by all means hold court on the subject.

As far as your question goes the claimant has to meet a standard of proof, and produce evidence and that evidence must follow logic if the claim is to be considered. Otherwise everyone should feel free to reject it.

If it's an open conversation in an open forum then you probably shouldn't hold court.

If it's a debate then stick to the topic and avoid character contempt. Feel free to hate the claim, but don't go attacking a person otherwise with ridicule.

Burden of proof is a courtroom. This is a forum of open discussion. Debate the topic instead of insulting the character and mental capacities of the individual so scorned.

Sorry, but burden of proof isn’t restricted to the courtroom. Burden of proof is JUST as relevant in a debate. If one side makes a claim, the other side not only has the right, but they have an obligation to demand evidence to back up the claim.


Burden of proof is just a way of avoiding an open discussion. If you don't want to be open I could care less. But they expect you to answer questions with accusatory remarks.

That’s simply not true. Burden of proof doesn’t avoid an open discussion. Burden of proof forces both sides in a debate to provide evidence for their claims. Without a burden of proof anyone can make any outlandish claim, regardless of its veracity.


Burden of proof applies to accusations being made. If I was to accuse you of something I would have to bear the burden of proof.

It CAN apply to accusations being made… as in a courtroom. But it ALSO applies to ANY claim being made, especially in a debate. For example, let’s say we’re having a debate about whether or not sugar can contribute to tooth decay. I’m taking the side that says sugar does NOT contribute to tooth decay and I claim that not only doesn’t it cause tooth decay, eating sugar actually makes it FAR less likely that you’ll suffer from tooth decay. You – who may happen to have a dozen reports from experts ALL indicating the exact opposite – has EVERY RIGHT to ask me for some sort of verification for my claim. The burden of proof is on ME to provide evidence that my claim is true.


Most of the time religious claims are statements of personal conviction and faith based. If there are accusations in the claims then you are free to hold court on the accusations. If the claims infringe on your rights and others, by all means hold court on the subject.

I really don’t see what the fact that religious claims are personal or based on faith has to do with anything. My claim that I have a magical invisible dragon in my garage may be personal and based on faith, but that doesn’t mean that if I make the claim you don’t have a right to ask me for evidence to back it up. And IF I were to try and turn the tables and insist that it’s YOU who has the burden to prove that my dragon DOESN’T exist, you would have every right to ridicule such a ridiculous contention. YOU'RE not making any claims, so YOU don't have a burden of proof… you are simply rejecting my fantastical claim due to any lack of evidence.

 

[osgart]

Burden of proof is a courtroom. This is a forum of open discussion. Debate the topic instead of insulting the character and mental capacities of the individual so scorned.

Sorry, but burden of proof isn’t restricted to the courtroom. Burden of proof is JUST as relevant in a debate. If one side makes a claim, the other side not only has the right, but they have an obligation to demand evidence to back up the claim.


Burden of proof is just a way of avoiding an open discussion. If you don't want to be open I could care less. But they expect you to answer questions with accusatory remarks.

That’s simply not true. Burden of proof doesn’t avoid an open discussion. Burden of proof forces both sides in a debate to provide evidence for their claims. Without a burden of proof anyone can make any outlandish claim, regardless of its veracity.


Burden of proof applies to accusations being made. If I was to accuse you of something I would have to bear the burden of proof.

It CAN apply to accusations being made… as in a courtroom. But it ALSO applies to ANY claim being made, especially in a debate. For example, let’s say we’re having a debate about whether or not sugar can contribute to tooth decay. I’m taking the side that says sugar does NOT contribute to tooth decay and I claim that not only doesn’t it cause tooth decay, eating sugar actually makes it FAR less likely that you’ll suffer from tooth decay. You – who may happen to have a dozen reports from experts ALL indicating the exact opposite – has EVERY RIGHT to ask me for some sort of verification for my claim. The burden of proof is on ME to provide evidence that my claim is true.


Most of the time religious claims are statements of personal conviction and faith based. If there are accusations in the claims then you are free to hold court on the accusations. If the claims infringe on your rights and others, by all means hold court on the subject.

I really don’t see what the fact that religious claims are personal or based on faith has to do with anything. My claim that I have a magical invisible dragon in my garage may be personal and based on faith, but that doesn’t mean that if I make the claim you don’t have a right to ask me for evidence to back it up. And IF I were to try and turn the tables and insist that it’s YOU who has the burden to prove that my dragon DOESN’T exist, you would have every right to ridicule such a ridiculous contention. YOU'RE not making any claims, so YOU don't have a burden of proof… you are simply rejecting my fantastical claim due to any lack of evidence.

I don't buy into ridicule. Ridicule is contemptuous. I don't mind correction and defiance. Why does debate have to be battle?

If I were religious I would make my case, and the other side is free to make their case. No harm done. Let the arguments be decided by persuasion.

Ridicule wouldn't work on a YouTube video where both sides are confronted with each other. And you see in the videos that are well done, ridicule doesn't enter into the debate.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't buy into ridicule. Ridicule is contemptuous. I don't mind correction and defiance. Why does debate have to be battle?

If I were religious I would make my case, and the other side is free to make their case. No harm done. Let the arguments be decided by persuasion.

Ridicule wouldn't work on a YouTube video where both sides are confronted with each other. And you see in the videos that are well done, ridicule doesn't enter into the debate.

Sorry, but it all depends on the arguments being made. If I claim that the burden is on YOU to prove that my magical invisible dragon DOESN'T exist, such a claim DESERVES ridicule, because it flies in the face of common sense and rational thinking.

 

[RabbiO]

Why do we have to answer ANY questions?

Do people that don't believe in invisible pink unicorns subject to questions, too?

Well, since I am sure that if any people who post on the forum proclaimed themselves as a believers in pink unicorns they would be bombarded with questions, it seems only fitting that those who do not so believe also be subjected to questions. The only problem is there are too many of them!

 

[Windwalker]

It's a so-so list of questions. There are better ones that are less... well, maybe it's better to let the better questions speak for themselves:

• Conceptions of god vary tremendously among different types of theism. Which ideas about god to you reject, and why? What does it mean to reject these conceptions of god?
• Conceptions of god typically relate to a culture's highest values or principles. What are your deeply held values or principles? Aren't these principles the functional equivalent of honoring gods?
• Conceptions of god are often conveyed in ways that embrace artful use of creative expression, but taking these expressions literally can be a problem and is often not intended. If you approached religious mythology as a creative exercise, how might your acceptance of gods change?

Damn, this is good! As I was reading the OP, all those questions came from the low-hanging fruit section. I was thinking there are better questions to ask, and you asked them! However, in reading through this entire thread, I didn't see anyone take up this real challenge. That's a pity.

If nobody picks these up and answers them, I'll take a stab at them myself and answer historically the ways I considered these very questions in realizing that most of what atheism is is a rejection of mythic-literal beliefs, rather than a truly rational understanding of human spirituality and cultural symbolism. Kudos on the questions. They go straight to the heart of this.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

1. Does science answer everything?

Science is really just a tool. It's an extremely important tool , but that is all that it is, like a hammer or a screwdriver. It isn't there to answer for itself. A car cannot explain the existence of roads, and a plane can't explain the presence of a sky. I maintain however, that science should be understood before religion is.

2. Why do atheists care if people worship God?

That's a question for atheists I guess. Maybe some of them are dogmatic in their non-belief, which I don't think is good, just like I don't think religious people should give atheists such a hard time. We're all kind of in this together, and everyone has a role to play, as they serve the purpose of exploring different perspectives.

3. Can nothing create something?

I think maybe we don't even know what 'nothing' is, so we can't really tell what it would so. Everywhere you look there is something, so who can tell you what the properties of nothing are? If everything become 'nothing' once again, would something occur?

4. How do you know that God doesn't exist?

How do they know, if they can't possibly have explored every perspective they can in their short time here? Too many people make their mark in the sand, and say they have made concrete decisions about what is and what is not. But as I said, they still fulfill a purpose in doing this, as part of life is about exploring standpoints.

5. What is the origin of life?

As far as science can seem to tell, it has something to do with specific settings that can arise on planets. That's part of it, but the 'soul' is the next part / first part: the part that sends life into motion, that gives it a goal. It comes from the earth and universe, it believes in us and gives us a chance to exist in harmony. It originates us with the goal of providing the spirit the possibility of a good home

6. Where does our morality come from?

The video guy tries to parse animal and human morality , which I'm not sure I trust. We are the creature that often seems to fall lower in the scheme of things, deviating often into evil. This seems to be part of our contest here. With maturity, we can optimize all balance and align ourselves with the rest of nature. From there, we can elevate. In failure, we send the world to hell, and become forgotten in the ash.

7. If you had evidence of God would you become a Christian?

I'm not sure why that has to be the obvious choice, as it represents just one system among many. Each religion should be studied, as they are building blocks that all have contributed to sorting out our role here. If christianity suits you, then so be it. If atheism fits, then do that. Whatever you wish to explore, go and journey ahead. Each thing is trying to deal with the same thing

8. Why are there no observable transitional forms in the present?

I thought it was well established that this is visible in ontogeny

9. Do you live according to what you believe or what you lack in belief?

I would say both. I think a well designed religion should make room for you to recognize that there things you don't know , and many of them often seem to leave no bread at the table for the agnostic inclination. However, that part of the soul seems to be what fuels some of our abilities for creativity and innovation. It is perhaps the side of you that forces you to think the most, and thinking seems to be something we need more of here

10. If God exists will you not lose your soul when you die?

The soul sheds the body, and disbands the adventure. It came here to contribute, and it probably seeks another chance in the future. Perhaps a truly weary soul will sink back into the earth from whence it came, and take up residence in nature itself in more of a non-dual sense... It becomes bird-song and wind, and tree branches. It becomes part of the great brew , and maybe returns again to the human form after feeling this homeostasis for a while

 

[Shad]

Sorry that was a bit of a click bait title

Being an atheist my self, there seems to be a lot of post on these forum directed towards religious people and their beliefs and scriptures etc.

So thought that was a bit unfair, so found this video with 10 questions for atheists:

10 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer

These are just the questions written out from the video.

1. Does science answer everything?

2. Why do atheists care if people worship God?

3. Can nothing create something?

4. How do you know that God doesn't exist?

5. What is the origin of life?

6. Where does our morality come from?

7. If you had evidence of God would you become a Christian?

8. Why are there no observable transitional forms in the present?

9. Do you live according to what you believe or what you lack in belief?

10. If God exists will you not lose your soul when you die?

(Obviously I didn't make the questions, so I wont be able to clarify them any further)

1--3, No. 4. I don't 5. Unknown 6. Our minds. 7. Evidence of God does not equate Christianity is true 8. There are. 9. Believe. 10. Unknown.

So I answered most of those question while the other questions are invalid or have no current answer. My, or anyone's, lack of ability to answer a question does not make the claims of God and religions true. Yawn.

 

[Shad]

Sorry that was a bit of a click bait title

Being an atheist my self, there seems to be a lot of post on these forum directed towards religious people and their beliefs and scriptures etc.

So thought that was a bit unfair, so found this video with 10 questions for atheists:

10 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer

These are just the questions written out from the video.

1. Does science answer everything?

2. Why do atheists care if people worship God?

3. Can nothing create something?

4. How do you know that God doesn't exist?

5. What is the origin of life?

6. Where does our morality come from?

7. If you had evidence of God would you become a Christian?

8. Why are there no observable transitional forms in the present?

9. Do you live according to what you believe or what you lack in belief?

10. If God exists will you not lose your soul when you die?

(Obviously I didn't make the questions, so I wont be able to clarify them any further)

1--3, No. 4. I don't 5. Unknown 6. Our minds. 7. Evidence of God does not equate Christianity is true 8. There are. 9. Believe. 10. Unknown.

So I answered most of those questions while the other questions are invalid or have no current answer. My or anyone's lack of ability to answer a question does not make the claims of God and religions true. Yawn.

 

[Thief]

Sorry that was a bit of a click bait title

damn atheists

 

[Nimos]

damn atheists

Always so deceitful ain't we?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, since I am sure that if any people who post on the forum proclaimed themselves as a believers in pink unicorns they would be bombarded with questions, it seems only fitting that those who do not so believe also be subjected to questions. The only problem is there are too many of them!

Too many questions, or too many people who don't believe in pink unicorns?

 

[RabbiO]

you missed the point.

You missed mine. Next time I'll put a footnote that says either - "said tongue in cheek" or "joke"

 

[RabbiO]

Too many questions, or too many people who don't believe in pink unicorns?

Yes.

 

[Terry Sampson]

there are a lot of s***e videos on YouTube.

Damn Scots what don't how to spell s***.

 

[Ebionite]

4. How do you know that God doesn't exist?

I've never made any such claim. Atheism is simply a lack of belief that any gods exist, it's not an assertion that there definitely are no gods.

You're conflating atheism with agnosticism. An infant has no such belief, but that doesn't make them an atheist.

 

[McBell]

An infant has no such belief, but that doesn't make them an atheist.

So what deity does an infant believe in?

 

[Ebionite]

So what deity does an infant believe in?

You're avoiding the point.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You're conflating atheism with agnosticism. An infant has no such belief, but that doesn't make them an atheist.

No, I am not. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. For most atheists that lack of belief is based on a lack of verifiable evidence. An agnostic can't decide if they believe in any gods or not. Apparently sometimes they find the evidence compelling while at others it seems to be lacking.

And yes, an infant with no concept of a god IS an atheist because they do NOT possess a belief in any gods. However, unlike most atheists who lack such belief based on a lack of evidence, an infant lacks such belief because they lack the ability to even conceptualize what a god is.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You're avoiding the point.

No, you're the one who's avoiding the definition of atheism. An atheist lacks a belief in any gods. You claim that an infant is NOT an atheist, which means that they DO have a belief in some god. So, what god do newborn infants have a belief in?

 

[McBell]

You're avoiding the point.

You're avoiding the question.
Why?
What deity does an infant believe in?

What point is it you claim i am avoiding?