Theists, why is it so hard for you to grapple with the burden of proof?

Atheists have no proof - quite the opposite!! As provided by archaeologists and even theologians!!

In simple terms academia states that in the absence of proof of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable proof is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one!!! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!!

At best he was an amalgam of those others!!

people regularly corrupt the word "absence of info isn't info of absence" into "absence of info isn't info of absence". The latter of direction, isn't actual. With each and every time you seek for some thing and fail to discover any incidences of it, you may decrease the risk of it, yet on no account to 0. the burden of info does not lie with the detrimental declare. it is the place Russell's teapot is accessible in. If I say that there is a teapot orbiting the solar, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, too small too be seen by utilising a telescope, and it is been there considering that earlier we had spaceflight potential, that declare has a burden of info. The declare that the teapot does not exist does not carry any burden of info. You left an significant and easy assertion out of the middle: "i don't think that God exists." enable us to study the declare. No reason is given. they have made no affirmative declare of nonexistence. there is no burden of info. to that end, nonetheless, there are assorted believers who will say that the guy somewhat believes yet is in denial. there is no info to refute that declare, yet there are some who will. the burden of info argument, as atheists use that's in many circumstances valid. The detrimental burden of info utilized by utilising theists is quite often not valid.

Main Entry: faith

Function: noun

Etymology: from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust

2 b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

by definition, a person who believes in God doesn't need proof; the question or demand for it is irrelevant (and often seems silly or absurd)

and yes - a person who has complete trust in any idea (thiests and athiests both) might expect that others should use the same idea as the basis for moral/social/ethical thinking. such a position is rational/reasonable, but perhaps unfair and unwise

Some atheists use the fact that it's human nature to come up with ideas of magic and Gods to explain unknown things that are later proven by science. That can be conceived as proof he does not exist.

I can't prove Santa doesn't exist. But for all practical purposes an assumption that he doesn't is reasonable.

God is not god as the religions would have you believe, but there is something in control of everything in the way of chemistry and physics. But that does not mean you will be punished for your actions in life by burning in some sort of hell for eternity because of your actions or inaction in life. But as minuscule as we are in everything, it is asinine to believe that all this was created for us and that we are here to live out perfect lives or be judged for our actions. Look at nature itself, created by this religious God supposedly. Completely contradicts everything that religion teaches. People didn't become the top of the food chain by humanitarianism and we weren't just created on top. Sorry. Logic tells me that, I don't need "proof" other than what I see with my own 2 eyes and think with my own brain that doesn't just say, yeah someone wrote it in a book thousands of years ago and it was changed by people who thought certain parts needed to be left out (King James Version how then did it get it's name?) so it must be true. Remove it from your thoughts perceive life as it is and then decide, is it really the way it is, or just someones opinion of the way things ought to be in a perfect world where no one ever gets hurt and everyone lives forever in euphoria. Use your brain, it is there for that, not so you can just listen to what others tell you. 80% of what you know, is what someone told you. 20% is actual original thought. try to increase that number please, the world would be a better place.

I would not even attempt to prove or disprove anything ... especially here. People should live and let live ... believe what they feel is right ... but not shove it down the throats of others.

I happen to believe in God ... that doesn't mean I'm telling you to ... or that I expect you to prove me right, or wrong. I am free to have faith, as others are free not to. That's what free-will is about.

Warm fuzzy feelings do not change a persons heart and therefore their lives. Warm fuzzy feelings does not provide the words to eternal life.

I sure would like to have that warm fuzzy feeling.

Because the most vocal among them have no idea what those words actually mean. The smart ones play their cards closer to their chest.

without God, objective moral values cannot exist.

there are things, such as rape, that are objectively immoral, and not relatively immoral. In the animal kingdom, rape is very common, Whereas, we as a society definitely look down on the act. The best answer for this is that there is a being that objective moral values is "anchored" in.