Why does the believer in God's existence have the burden of proof?

[LuisDantas]

You only need one reason to believe.

Hardly! Belief needs no reason whatsoever. It is just an esthetical inclination.

I use cause and effect.

Wrong verb, but whatever. I have no reason and less inclination to care about your reasons for belief in god and afterlife. I hope you do not expect me to.

Would like to hear your 'good' reason for disbelief.

The idea of a creator god is ludicrous. That is really reason aplenty.

But if you want something less personal (and frankly, that is quite unnecessary and pointless), a creator god would leave less chaotic an indication of his existence, if he wanted to be perceived at all.

But if you mean your specific variety of beliefs, which tend to gravitate quite decisively towards some odd expectations of some sort of choice involving a destiny in an eternal afterlife...

... well, I am just not the kind of person who cares about those matters. It would make no sense for me to lose any time on that.

If you want to know, I feel a bit guilty about perhaps giving you the impression that I might care. It feels disrespectful towards you that I might.

The bottom line is: I do not worry about an afterlife. I feel no need, I have no duty and no reason to even consider the idea.

And if that troubles or inconveniences you in some mysterious way, too bad.

 

[Thief]

Hardly! Belief needs no reason whatsoever.




The idea of a creator god is ludicrous. That is really reason aplenty.

But if you want something less personal (and frankly, that is quite unnecessary and pointless), a creator god would leave less chaotic an indication of his existence, if he wanted to be perceived at all.



... well, I am just not the kind of person who cares about those matters. It would make no sense for me to lose any time on that.


The bottom line is: I do not worry about an afterlife. I feel no need, I have no duty and no reason to even consider the idea.

And if that troubles or inconveniences you in some mysterious way, too bad.

Faith needs no reason true.
Belief is something I question.
Who told you that and why did you believe it?......is my typical retort.

Your emotional response ('ludicrous') is noted.....but that's not reasoning.
and then you claim to not care....which raises the question why ARE you here?.....trolling?

 

[LuisDantas]

You call belief "faith", quite unproperly.

Not my problem.

 

[JRMcC]

No. I don't.

Why not? Just wondering.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Wrong again, look up the definition of Atheist and Agnostic, they are two seperate things, and while you're at it look up the definition of troll, because you're being one.

There IS no definitive definition of atheist and agnostic. I suspect you are referring to something similar in nature to what Dawkins uses in The God Delusion, which is fair enough.

However, this is NOT the only valid way of defining such things. I term myself an agnostic atheist, and this is a very common usage of the words (more common than Dawkins 7 point scale).
For the purposes of comparison, an agnostic atheist would be pretty much anyone who falls above 4, but below 7 on the Dawkins scale.

 

[Bunyip]

Why not? Just wondering.

Because I don't have a spaceship buddy. I haven't had an opportunity to search the universe.

 

[McBell]

If it is presented as a belief, then it doesn't require proof.

And if you are content to hide behind your faith, more power to you.

 

[Lyndon]

Tough words coming from the man hiding behind that avatar!!

 

[McBell]

Tough words coming from the man hiding behind that avatar!!

For all the whining you do about all the alleged hate, name calling, and attacks from atheists, one must conclude that you are an atheist based upon the amount of hate, attacks, and name calling you do.

 

[Lyndon]

references???

 

[McBell]

references???

Posts :

61
63
82
101
109​

in this thread alone.

Shall I peruse all 1,431 of your posts or are the ones in this thread enough?

 

[Lyndon]

Posts :

61
63
82
101
109​

in this thread alone.

Shall I peruse all 1,431 of your posts or are the ones in this thread enough?

Obviously you have trouble separating reasoned responses from hate speech, read your quotes again and try to tell me how they meet the criteria you outlined above.

 

[McBell]

Obviously you have trouble separating responses from hate speech, read your quotes again and try to tell me how they meet the criteria you outlined above.

Weasel word fallacy
Calling hate speech "responses" does not make them any less hate speech.

 

[Lyndon]

Now you're the one with the persecution complex!! Anything that contradicts your rather transparent agenda is labeled as hate speech.

 

[McBell]

Now you're the one with the persecution complex!!

You really should understand what a phrase means before you try using it.

 

[McBell]

Anything that contradicts your rather transparent agenda is labeled as hate speech.

You are the one trying to weasel word hate speech, not me.

 

[Lyndon]

The burden of proof lies on you, mestimia. You are the one making unsubstantiated claims, you are the one that has to prove your claims.

 

[McBell]

The burden of proof lies on you, mestimia. You are the one making unsubstantiated claims, you are the one that has to prove your claims.

I already began a list of your posts that support my claim.

You then made a claim that "responses" are not hate speech.
No idea why you went that way, guilty conscience I suspect, but I pointed out that it does not matter that it is in response to something, hate speech is hate speech.
You then further demonstrate my claim by calling me names...

like it or not, you are your own worse enemy on this forum.

 

[Lyndon]

ditto!!

 

[McBell]

ditto!!

I am not the one trying to claim the higher ground....