Atheists: do you not claim something doesn't exist (god) and then demand proof otherwise? (see link)?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuDmT_oiWNmlzoo9F0w9BMnsy6IX?qid=20060922101035AAkesUG

If you claim no god exists and no one provides you with proof that convinces you to the contrary here and now, do you assume you are right?

If I claim none of you are human and none of you provide evidence that could not be duplicated by interactive software, and you cannot provide proof to the contrary here and now, shall I assume I am right?

How interesting you do not see the parallel. ;-)

hmmm...11 answers and no proof you're not all interactive software...guess I'm right ;-)

14 answers...and still no proof.

17 answers, and still no proof.

Answer 1

fine you could draw that conclusion, but i would never send you to Hell for not believing i'm human.

Answer 2

that's a moot aspect, you could in no way educate atheism acceptable, that's a situation with good judgment. you won't be able to posit an absolute with out countless understanding. you won't be able to say immediately "Nowhere in this universe is there a pink unicorn!" you should desire understanding of the completed universe to finish that. To have countless understanding, you should must be God. if you're God, there's a god. Now before you shrug that off as semantics, imagine it by, that's fairly exciting. to respond to your question, one's selection on the existance of God, both way, it created from the sum of the of info. the bottom line is, there is not any longer definitive evidence both way (i.e. the religion arugment comes into play), yet there are a approach of products of useful info which could actually help you're making an recommended selection. I do discover it humorous now that Christians are growing rooted in good judgment, lots of an analogous issues that atheists used to do at the on the spot are being complained about at the same time as the tables are grew to change into.

Answer 3

Horrible reasoning. Basically what theists are saying is "Do you see that invisible man?" and providing no proof that there is a man who is invisible there then are you proving anything..NO...is my belief that there is no invisible man in any way shaken or shown as incorrect...NO

If you turn to someone and say they are not human and provides no evidence it could be because 1) they look human with matching physical characteristics 2) Not responding to your attempt to provoke a fight due to your religious obligation to endorse and promote evil+violence.

If I tell you that you do not exist and are not made of carbon...your very existence in front of me proves me wrong.

Here is another basic logic fact that people like you throw out window since you hate light, reason and intelligence...if you say someone is not human then YOU are making the statement and hence it is up to YOU to provide the proof that the person is not human.

Interesting how anti-atheists use lies and outright slander to promote their arguments and demonstrate how they hate and despise anything good and decent in the world

Answer 4

Well, the way you phrase your question is suggestive. And in that one sided view there is some truth. But there are also a lot of people who do not believe in God, without claiming that there is no God. They just don't believe, because they want proof.

Answer 5

Again you a missing the point
I, we are not trying to proof the existence of god, you are. And if you are trying to 'prove" the existence of god, then you must start with evidence...physical, measurable evidence. If I don't have any phenomena to base a hypothesis on then who can I even begin the experiment.
What you are trying to do in no different than proving the existence of the Easter Bunny.
Good Luck on that.

Answer 6

How many times do you have to be told that since YOU'RE the one making the claim, the burdon of proof is upon YOU?

Seriously..... how many?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnWDQGUZgZJJFSD5C5WeOvjsy6IX?qid=20060922101035AAkesUG

Answer 7

Geez, talk about driving something into the ground...

I guess you didn't like (or chose to ignore) my proof in your last question.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnWDQGUZgZJJFSD5C5WeOvjsy6IX?qid=20060922101035AAkesUG

Therefore I call shenanigans on you...

Where is science does it say that a theory has to be proven "here and now"

you're silly....

Answer 8

How interesting that you don't think I can prove I'm a human....

I think you hit the pipe this morning, brother...

Edit - Noticing your edits, the sad thing is... you think you're proving something, simply by not acknowledging that your argument has failed. That really is infuriating. I'll give you that. The fact that, even in the face of defeat, you won't admit it.

You are a prime example of religious faith, at its lowest denominator.

Answer 9

Difference is there is ample evidence of all kinds to prove that we are indeed human. The same can not be said for your notion of a god.

Answer 10

If your life depended upon whether or not you believed that I was, in fact, human, I could ask you for your address and travel to visit you, where you could see with your own eyes that I am.

I have the same standing offer for God. He knows where I am at all times, and my eternal life supposedly depends upon me believing in him. So why has he never visited me, or given me clear evidence that I could see, smell, taste, or hear?

Answer 11

You really got lay off the drugs.

There is nothing sadder than a guy that thinks he is making a great point, and he is really making an *** of himself. Since you are thick, I will tell you that that is you.