DJ

I don't quite understand how it can be considered ethical to actually enforce that law. What's next? Will it be illegal to look at a billboard, tree, building, or my radio next? This is basically saying, you can't look "here" while driving. Sure, some people shouldn't be texting while driving, but guess what? Some people shouldn't be driving AT ALL. I just don't get it. There are probably an infinite number of things someone could do in their car that would be potentially dangerous because they aren't aware of their surroundings. We can't make them all illegal.

Sidenote: I'm not trying to be insensitive towards people who HAVE been injured in situations like this, I'm just saying I don't understand the logic behind enforcing this law. So please don't read it thinking that is my intention.

Why do Christians think that the burden of proof falls on atheists? The burden of proof always falls on the party that is making the extra claim. If you are stating something to be true, then you must show support for this claim. Saying something like "Well if I am wrong than prove me wrong." is blatant fallacy. It's called shifting the burden of proof.

Lets look at the two arguments here:

1) God exists.

2) I do not believe God exists.

In order for the first claim to be justified there must be support given to this claim. How is it logical to blindly accept a statement without any support to suggest an inkling of truth within that statement? A claim without support does not merit rational belief. This can be observed if we use another argument as an example.

Dragons exist, and are very real.

If I were to say that to you and I believed to be true, would it be your responsibility or mine to provide support on the position? If the burden of proof always fell on the one in disbelief than any number of irrational ideas would be accepted as true simply because there is a lack of evidence to prove these claims wrong. This is completely irrational.

In the US court systems accused criminals are innocent until proven guilty. The key word here is "accused". It is the prosecutor who is making the claim that someone committed (x) crime and the burden of proof falls on them to support this claim with evidence.

Hopefully that clears up some of the misconceptions about burden of proof.

...= Christianity? I ask because a lot of Christians seem to think that this is their domain and nobody else belongs. Obviously many of them still don't understand why atheists are in this section, even though it is a stance on religion.

But based on a previous question I notice that Wiccans are not allowed either? A girl posted a comment in regards to the other question I am referring to, fairly peaceful and I noticed her getting thumbs downed almost immediately:

"Just because one doesn't believe in God does not mean they are not involved in a religion. I don't believe in God, and I have religious views.

Source(s):

I'm a proud Wiccan <3"

If a comment like this is not allowed in Religion & Spirituality, than Christians I ask you...what the **** is allowed? Or is censorship just second nature at this point?

would Christians here on Yahoo answers be upset with Muslims posting in this section of Yahoo?

I ask because Christians always seem to be upset that there are atheists in this section, although Muslims also oppose many of the beliefs of Christianity and do not accept your God as truth yet they are welcome. I am also curious...Do Christians not understand the word Spirituality?

even though I'm an atheist and they suck? Losing to the Cowboys is not looking like a fun day.

magic in a young girls heart? How the music can free her, whenever it starts. And it's magic, if the music is groovy, It makes you feel happy like an old time movie. Ill tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul, but its like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock and roll...I know...pretty lame. I had to.

Roughly how many times do you think you have facepalmed today?

So today I have noticed an increase in the number of people on here asking questions about how to deal with voices they are hearing in their head, more specifically God or Satan. Just out of Curiosity, I was wondering what religious affiliations you might have. So, if you don't mind writing down your age, what religion you follow, and what voices you hear I think we might see some interesting results here.

I'm not gay, and all the time I hear you saying that it is a choice. I don't ever recall choosing to be straight, but lets try a simple test. If being gay really is a choice, then it should be no problem for you to decide to be gay. Here's how it works:

1)Make sure no guys are around if you are a guy (and vice versa for girls). You wouldn't want it to become permenant

2)Choose to be gay for just 5 minutes, don't worry there's no guys around so you wont do anything bad.

3)After choosing to be gay for 5 minutes write down how you felt.

4)Go repent and all that good stuff to make sure you're forgiven.

I have tried this, and I just cant seem to choose to be sexually attracted to guys, since you all claim it is a choice, can you please tell me what your secret is? Thanks in advance.

I think I may have found a possible way to deter Christians, or Muslims from trying to convert you in public! Tthis method will unfortunately not work online but oh well. Before I post the link I should advise you that the person in this youtube video somewhat annoys me, and she may annoy you as well, but I believe her method could be very effective!

If you wan't to skip right to it (I recommend) start the video at 1:05.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRXa971Xw0

I know many of you don't do links, but I'm really not trying to troll. I am seriously considering doing this next time I'm out somewhere and someone tries to convert me.

I am an atheist, but lets suggest for a moment that you are right, and God does in fact exist. So we will go ahead and establish that there is in fact a creator. That's all fine and well, but how can you on top of that say not only is there a creator but he MUST be the same exact God described in Christianity? How can you ascertain that your God is any more responsible for this planet than any other? If you say that you know this is true because of the bible, I would like to point out that many other religious texts claim truth in their own writing. Serious answers appreciated.

Can you please point out to me some of the verses from the bible that you feel atheists commonly take out of context? I am asking which ones you have seen quoted by atheists so I may make an honest attempt to read it in the proper context. Thank for any people who actually answer this with some level or respect.

Considering she blocks every damned one of them. lol

A lot of times I see Christians saying "Oh that's the old testament that does not apply". What I don't understand is this, if it's the word of God in the Old Testament, and God is also Jesus then why do people like to disregard many of the things in the Old Testament?

http://loled.net/?p=14218

There are things in the bible that Christians decide not to follow anymore, for example, slavery. In the Bible it explains when and how it is okay to beat your slave, and when its okay to kill him. Obviously today Christians no longer believe this to be acceptable behavior, so why then is it okay to say that gay people are an abomination? Why do you decide owning, beating, and killing slaves is not okay, but hating gays is? I don't understand how you can decide which things to ignore and which to apply. Please explain.

I have a theoretical question pertaining to self defense in the event of a home invasion in Maryland. My parents live in Montgomery County, and today my mom told me that our neighbors got robbed while they were gone. This lead me to some thinking. In my house my Dad and Mom legally own fire arms for home protection (kept safely locked within their room). I was talking to my mom and I said that in my opinion the best thing to do would be not to confront the burglar in the event of a robbery and to just get my sister in their room and lock the door with my dad. I also said that they should call the police, and wait in there room with their guns until police arrive, instead of trying to confront the burglar. Now here is my question, if they did this, and the burglar attempted to break into their room, and my parents announce to the burglar that they are armed, Would they have the right to use their weapons to incapacitate the burglar if he broke into their room? I don't know what the law states about this, How would they know if they are using equal force to protect themselves? By the time they look around to see if he does in fact have a gun it may be too late for them to use their own. Can anyone please give my some insight into this theoretical scenario?

I wasn't sure which category to choose, but I figured Military would be the correct place for this question. Okay so I know the Barett (M82 if im not mistaken) is a bad *** piece of weaponry. The other day me and a buddy were just talking about different guns and so on, and when it came to this gun he told me something that I found to be a little bit hard to believe, so I was hoping someone could either confirm or deny that this is possible. He said that it was possible for this gun to fire a round at such a velocity, that even if it just missed the target, it could still rip and entire arm or head off just by the sheer velocity of the round (at certain distances). How or where he claims to know this I do not know, and I have never heard of anything like that being possible and since I have a general interest in guns so on I was hoping someone might be able to clear this up for me. Thank you for your time and answers, and if you are a member of the US Military I would like to also thank you for service in advance.