Atheists The New Theists ?

It does not depend on the confronter. You cannot prove the lack of existence of something. You can assume due to lack of evidence, but you can never prove a lack of existence.

See the link to explain why the burden of proof is always on the believer.

Also, you cannot say you believe in evolution and not macro evolution.

It's the same damn thing.

They are absolutely not the same thing, and even in the scientific community are they not labeled all in one and inclusive to the other.

Macroevolution is a collection of microevolutions. It's more of placing benchmarks than anything else.

If one tiny change occurs in a few generations, it's a microevolution. When ten thousand tiny changes occur in a few ten thousand generations and the original and new fellow are deemed different enough to warrant different names we call that macroevolution.

That is not how the world works. I dare you, right now. Go to the middle of Iran and tell them all that God doesn't exist, then tell them they must prove it too you. I dare you. You're right aren't you? They will believe you won't they?

No, you are wrong in their eyes.

If you are to confront someone and tell them that they are wrong, the burden of proof is on you. Not them. They did not ask to be told that they are wrong, they did not ask you to go there. So how is it on them to prove that they are right?


Opposite day. Extreme Muslim comes up to you and declares God is real. Will you believe them on just their word? I doubt it. The burden of proof is on them in this case. They are trying to prove their God is real.

Are you even capable of comprehending the difference?

The burden of proof is on the confronter, not the confronted or as I like to call them "victim"

You're silly. That's all.

It's apparent that you don't understand what the term "burden of proof" means.

Edit: I bet you didn't even read a damn word of the link.

If you simply view in aspect of another in the way you stated then we are in agreement. However there are many who view "Macro" as a full evolutionary leap from one species to the next. Since, even in the Human biology and evolution text books I have next me even state that the term macro evolution not only means micro x100 = macro for example, but that it is also in terms of "evolution on a scale of separated gene pools...The process of species leaping may fall within the purview of either (Macro or Micro evolution), depending on the forces of thought to drive the theory."

The thing is since there is extremely limited evidence as to how mankind came into the existence both sides, creationist and evolutionist, simply fill in the many, many large wholes in theory with what they see fit. If you really study either side you will understand how large the holes are.

In the realm of my personal beliefs I am simply stating what I believe and that I have a wide area of acceptance for others beliefs as long as they are not an infringement upon someone else health and safety. To sit and argue what people have been arguing over thousands of years is quite futile. What you choose to believe I say you do with full conviction, and evaluation, and education. I am not here to sway or to argue you belief system as it does not effect me or my family in any way.

Nobody is able to prove anything regardless the evidence brought to the table. So why bother arguing about it? History is written by the victors, so not everyone is going to believe it for fact. Even if you manage to go back in time, and bring pictures of your evidence for said time/argument, people will question it because that's the logical way to think. Religion shouldn't be the scapegoat people use when trying to run a society, but be aware that it is their basis of morality and the way they make decisions in life. Likewise, non-religious personnel should also not be discredited due to their disbelief of someone else.

A society based on absolute logical thought leaves no room for advancements because there is no imagination or anything to disprove, because there would already be a template as to what is fact and what is fiction; and a theist society leaves too much room for error and irrational thinking also halting advancement. Questioning why something has survived so long and trying to disprove it is as pointless as questioning why Art forms have grown since the beginning of society and have had an impact on both the logical and spiritual world.

The only things that people should fight about are the tangible things that affect you, and the next two generations, because it's actually the reasons why atheists and religious folk are fighting for. It's not for what they believe in within the home, it's about how can we make a good society, how can we make it better (advance), and how can we survive (arguments of life and death). It doesn't matter how it came to be, because you can't convince the world, much less the new few generations. Everything will change drastically and what we take as fact now will be completely changed in a thousand years (ex: Futurama episode on how we got to the moon..). And even if these arguments are pushed aside, people will just find another big thing to fight about (ex: South Park episodes on Cartman freezing himself waiting for the Wii and ends up meeting the Aethists in the future..). People like to act like life is complicated. Aethists don't have a reward in the end, they simply want to just live without being critiqued on their disbelief for a higher being; and Christians just want to live to serve their Lord. Christians don't lose anything even if they find out when they die that God doesn't exist and it was all a hoax, and neither do Aethists. Life is so simple we Have to make everything complex. We're just that bored.

~_~

Creatures don't just leap from one creature to a totally different creature though. It's a bunch of tiny steps. You defined it right there: when they get to a point that the genes are different, it's a macro.


Evolutionists don't fill it in with what they think happened, they fill it in with what evidence points to happening.

Man I could not agree with you more mate (*^.^*)

The Christian itself does not lose anything.

The society they throw chains over, however, loses much.

I bet you aren't able to under stand the concept of burden of proof.

Walking up to someone and saying you're wrong, show me your proof, but you're still wrong. Does not work. It has never worked.

Yes I did read the link, I watched the video. You are wrong. How can you simply not understand that if you confront someone with a different ideal, that the burden of proof is on you? It's the most basic bargaining chip in all of history. Understand your enemy.

Am I seriously dealing with preschoolers or something?

I understood your point, I argued against it. The only argument I received was, "NO, NUH UH, YOU'RE WRONG"

I'm theist, convince me right now that my ideals are wrong.

Are you going to tell me that I must prove myself first? If that is the case, you lost.

Fixed that For you in reference to human nature.
It's no coincidence that our culture now like's small quotes and soundbites.

I think if I write a book about an imaginary entity and manage to make it the #1 biggest piece of firewood in America, that everyone will believe in it just because.

Jesus exists because a book says so, written by someone that none of us know.

Also umad.

Why do people consistently attack Christians, I mean many religious groups through out time have used religious means for genocide, conquering, political advancements, and societal control tactics.

Do you really like reading giant walls of text when it can be summed down to a sentence?

Why does it need to be proven or disproven?

Bring your burden of proof against this guy right here. He's writing a book about gods or god. Tell him he is wrong, seriously, just go ahead and explain it in a rational manner. Discuss with him why he might be wrong. You can't be wrong when the burden of proof is always on him, right?

Well that's all you've been doing, bud. Saying "YOU'RE WRONG QQQ".

But here we go.

I accept that I cannot prove something does not exist. That much I have never stated. I cannot prove that 'God' does not exist.

The burden of proof is, at the simplest root, that you have to back up your claim. The part that you don't understand is that "Your religion is fake" isn't the claim. The claim is that the religion was real in the first place.

It's not that "I lose" because I say that religion has to prove itself; it's like saying "pink unicorns exist" and when I say that "you have to prove that" you say "No, you have to prove they don't."

The original claim is that religion exists. When any religion can fulfill the burden of proof to make such a claim then the burden of proof falls upon those that wish to disprove it.

Simply put, as Russel's Teapot demonstrates, the skeptic has nothing to prove. There is nothing to prove. It's all up to the theist.

Because in my land, they do it the most. When the Jews and Muslims start doing it you'll see me complain more about them, too.

Would you have your children learn lies in school rather than truth?

Why do you ask?
Are you implying that I think culture is bad because I said this:
Remove your implications and read again.
I just said that to illustrate the contrary to what Saith said and show an example of the contrary being used in the real world.

Blaming an entire religion for something a small group is responsible for. This shows real critical thinking and intelligence.

If you think that this is all I've said, then you've entirely missed the point and that is sad.

If you go to a group of people and expect disprove them, then bring proof.

If said group went to you and expected to disprove you, would you not ask that they bring proof?

Because I was curious.
We must of grown up in different N.Y.'s

Look at the exact words I said and stop trying to mold them to your personal attacks against me. That shows, as your other posts are, that you'd much rather try and swing your *** around than do anything else.

A Christian who believes in his own house that his sky fairy is good is no problem; that's his business and doesn't hurt anyone. The perpetuation of his rules over his fellow human beings makes the society lose much, however. He loses nothing. The fact that his rules dictate society makes society lose much.

Staten Island, remember?

Okies, that is fair. I also find the Christian religious propaganda of the united states quite distasteful. And for a country whose very foundations where liberty America is one of the most highly regulated and law'd government against their own citizens then any other industrialized democracy. We all need to step back and read "1984" again. It seems the stealing of many more civil liberties is on the horizon.

You're missing the point that I'm trying to make: you cannot disprove what has not been proven.

You must first prove something in order to disprove it. You can discount what's not been proven, and that's what atheism is about.

Until I present enough evidence on The Zebra Hypothesis, as I shall so affectionately call it, it can be safely discounted. If I were to provide sufficient evidence, however, that states zebras are probably divine, then I can justify asking for evidence that I am false.

The burden of proof lies on me with my zebra idea. Religion has never fulfilled that burden is the problem.