1 2 3
Very few non-religious people really give a fuck. And the religious people simply regard the Bible as concrete proof.
9/25/2012 3:47:25 AM
So... whether he does or doesn't exist, the world is exactly the same and nothing changes.
Some God you have there
9/25/2012 3:50:20 AM
I have an invisible pink dragon that follows me around day in and day out.
Prove that I don't!
9/25/2012 3:52:47 AM
Science has never attempted to disprove God. Science merely operates on the assumption that the existance or otherwise of a diety is irrelevant.
This assumption flew men to the moon.
Your assumption flew men into buildings.
9/25/2012 3:53:16 AM
You're right: it's innocent until proven guilty. So lets say you accuse me of having committed some crime. You say that I did it and I say I didn't. The burden of proof is on you, the person making the positive claim. Now keys extend that to the claim of the existence of god. You say he/she/it exists and I say he/she/it doesn't. Like the accusation of a crime (your metaphor, not mine), the burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim. So show me your proof.
Oh, and by the way, you don't have a clue how science works.
9/25/2012 3:55:37 AM
Which god is thereby proven, seeing as there's no evidence for any of 'em?
9/25/2012 4:13:26 AM
"Actually, the existance of FSM has been proven, by the lack of evidence that he does not exist."
9/25/2012 4:29:41 AM
Oh My Dog!
"Actually, the existance of dragons has been proven, by the lack of evidence that dragons do not exist. Science falls flat on it's face trying to disprove dragons being real. It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof MUST lie with those who don't believe in dragons."
See how silly that sounds.
Why can't you be like most theists and admit it is just a matter of faith.
9/25/2012 4:32:49 AM
*yawn* Shifting of the burden of proof again. You know, if I were a Christian, I'd be seriously worried about the actual lack of evidence that God exists. I guess some of them cope by claiming that nobody can prove God doesn't exist.
9/25/2012 4:49:42 AM
Replace "God" with dragon-in-garage, spaghetti monster, cosmic teapot, etc.
9/25/2012 4:54:35 AM
"Actually, the nonexistance of God has been proven, by the lack of evidence that he does exist. Theism falls flat on it's face trying to prove God. It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof MUST lie with the theist."
9/25/2012 4:59:28 AM
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," says God, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore he goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
9/25/2012 5:35:25 AM
Russell's teapot is still my favourite stfu to this kind of crap.
9/25/2012 5:54:46 AM
Science, by definition, only deals with the natural world. God, but definition, is supernatural. Science, again by definition, can make no statement, either positive or negative, about god or gods.
Personally, I will put my trust in the one that gives reliable, tangible results. I have seen the tangible results of science (I am typing on one right now). However, even the most emphatic supporter of miracles has to admit that they are less than reliable.
That's proof enough.
9/25/2012 6:04:54 AM
So, wait. God is innocent of not existing? I'm confused.
9/25/2012 6:15:29 AM
No fucktards, the burden of proof lies with the theist. You assholes are the ones putting forth a claim, we are simply asking for evidence that you never provide.
9/25/2012 6:30:51 AM
Innocent until proven guilty, yes. And so far, God is innocent of the charge of existing.
9/25/2012 6:34:27 AM
You have accused god of existing. Innocent until proven guilty. See how the burden of proof works?
Besides, your "proof" can only get you as far as "a god exists". Even if we were to accept your faulty reasoning, you must still prove it is your god that is doing the existing. The jury doesn't determine that a crime was committed, the jury decides if they have enough reason to believe a specific person committed it. You have a suspect. You haven't even made it to the indictment, much less trial.
9/25/2012 6:46:58 AM
"Actually, the existance of God has been proven, by the lack of evidence that he does not exist."
This is probably one of the most asinine things I've ever heard anyone say. Ever.
"Science falls flat on it's face trying to disprove God."
No branch of science is trying, or has tried, to disprove your god or any other god. Gods are entirely irrelevant in science.
"It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof MUST lie with the atheist."
Where as in the real world, the person making the positive claim (i.e., that a god exists) is the one who has to show evidence in favor of that claim. Good luck with that.
9/25/2012 6:58:14 AM
The Crimson Ghost
Nice try, buddy. If you as a christian are trying prove the existence of your god then the burden of proof lies with YOU. You're only trying to shift responsibility onto the non-believers because you know you have no proof.
Science seeks to answer our questions about our universe & HAS answered many of our questions whereas religion has answered NONE of them. It did for awhile-before we had made any real scientific discoveries, despite being held back by religion. Science has made & is still making religion irrelevant & one day it will be left in the bin of failed human inventions. Religion has outlived its usefulness. It's time to grow up & ditch the security blanket.
9/25/2012 7:04:19 AM
Raised by Horses
By that logic, hobbits exist. "But that's preposterous!" you may exclaim, but bear in mind that it is written down in a big, heavy and portentous-looking book, therefore it must be true.
Now, with the existence of hobbits thusly established, the burden MUST lie with the a-hobbitist to prove otherwise.
9/25/2012 7:09:50 AM
Backwards and upside down.
9/25/2012 7:15:56 AM
Sigh; Russels Teapot.
9/25/2012 7:23:19 AM
See a rainbow, just after a rain shower, and the sun comes out, M. Cat...? With the emphasis on see.
Now prove it physically exists.
The same could be said for your 'God'. What is a deity? A miserable little pile of man-made lies. But enough talk, the burden of proof is on you, fundies.
9/25/2012 7:34:11 AM
science has no opinion on God, because God is not something natural that can be investigated.
Science may have shown that a lot of things appear to not require a God, but thats not the same thing.
9/25/2012 8:07:09 AM
1 2 3