If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[ZenMode]

Yup. And asking them to prove it makes sense, because anyone making an assertion bears that burden.

Exactly. I'm not making an assertion. I'm saying that theists bear the burden of proof.

No, because you think you can make assertions without providing proof.

Nope. The people claiming gods exist are making assertions just as people who believe in astrology are making assertions. It's not my responsibility to disprove the existence of gods or astrology because neither has been proven in the first place.

Me saying "gods don't exist" or "astrology is fake" is just another way of saying "YOU haven't provided sufficient evidence to support your claim".

Again, the default isn't to believe claims until they are disproved. The burden is on those making the assertion.

 

[gfm7175]

all you need is the golden rule.

The golden rule isn't everything.

throw the racism away.

What racism?

 

[Monad Portal]

The golden rule isn't everything.

it is.

What racism?

Jewish racism.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Exactly. I'm not making an assertion. I'm saying that theists bear the burden of proof.

Nope. The people claiming gods exist are making assertions just as people who believe in astrology are making assertions. It's not my responsibility to disprove the existence of gods or astrology because neither has been proven in the first place.

Me saying "gods don't exist" or "astrology is fake" is just another way of saying "YOU haven't provided sufficient evidence to support your claim".

Again, the default isn't to believe claims until they are disproved. The burden is on those making the assertion.

Boy, you have bitten off much more than you can chew...so you are spitting stuff out and pretending you have "swallowed it."

You are heaping scorn on religionists who are saying that they "believe" a god exists...and demanding that they prove that one does.

You, on the other hand, are saying that you "believe" there are no gods...and denying that you have a burden of proof for that.


C'mon! You do. That is why the more intelligent atheists pretend that they do not "believe" there are no gods...just that they are merely saying they do not "believe" there ARE gods.

You are in the mire now. Either prove your contention that there are no gods...or stiffen your spine and acknowledge that you have fucked up now that you are arguing with an agnostic type rather than picking on religionists.

 

[ZenMode]

You are in the mire now. Either prove your contention that there are no gods...or stiffen your spine and acknowledge that you have fucked up now that you are arguing with an agnostic type rather than picking on religionists.

I don't have to disprove what has never been proved.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I don't have to disprove what has never been proved.

You bear the burden of proof for your assertion that no gods exist.

Prove it or acknowledge that you can't. (You cannot!)

Or...continue to pretend you can make assertions without having to prove them. It is cute...and I certainly enjoy it.

 

[Cypress]

What 'Universal Truths'??

You militant atheists are free to believe in moral relativism, and that everything is just subject to opinion and cultural convention

I think that there is a universal moral truth and an absolute right and wrong.
Torturing babies, disemboweling pregnant women, and gassing Jews is objectively wrong for all time and all place independent of human opinion or whim.

The Universe is unorganized!!!

 

[ZenMode]

You bear the burden of proof for your assertion that no gods exist.

If I said "Santa doesn't exist" would you say I had to prove my assertion?

 

[Ross Dolan]

If I said "Santa doesn't exist" would you say I had to prove my assertion?

YES. Every assertion bears the burden of proof in a debate.

 

[Monad Portal]

Boy, you have bitten off much more than you can chew...so you are spitting stuff out and pretending you have "swallowed it."

You are heaping scorn on religionists who are saying that they "believe" a god exists...and demanding that they prove that one does.

You, on the other hand, are saying that you "believe" there are no gods...and denying that you have a burden of proof for that.


C'mon! You do. That is why the more intelligent atheists pretend that they do not "believe" there are no gods...just that they are merely saying they do not "believe" there ARE gods.

You are in the mire now. Either prove your contention that there are no gods...or stiffen your spine and acknowledge that you have fucked up now that you are arguing with an agnostic type rather than picking on religionists.

shut up, you masonic little bitch cretin.

you're a whore.

 

[Monad Portal]

YES. Every assertion bears the burden of proof in a debate.

no it doesn't.

burden of proof is a strictly legal construct.

 

[ZenMode]

YES. Every assertion bears the burden of proof in a debate.

But you can't explain, or given an example of, how to prove a negative assertion.

 

[Ross Dolan]

But you can't explain, or given an example of, how to prove a negative assertion.

Correct. Which is why I consider it morbidly stupid to assert a negative.

But..."there are no gods" IS NOT ACTUALLY A NEGATIVE ASSERTION. It is a positive assertion. It positively asserts that in the REALITY of existence...no gods exist.