Burden of Proof [I Am Not An Atheist]

Totally wrong my friend. You are absolutely up the creek without a paddle@Elessar

@Speedyman You insult because you can't possibly win the argument? What an old fart, really. As (much smarter) people used to say over 2000 years ago:

[i]Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat[/i]

Or, in modern English:

[i]The burden of proof is on those who assert, not those who deny.[/i]

Name calling is the prerogative of a weak argument which you have already lost! @Elessar

@Speedyman In fact the first to do it is you.

[i]Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat[/i]

Prove that there is no designer then @Elessar

@Speedyman Can you understand what "asserting" and "denying" mean?

Can you understand you have produced no argument! @Elessar

@Speedyman In fact it's you the one who's ought to, since:

[i]Onus probandi incumbit [b]ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat[/b][/i]

Quote all the Vulgar Latin you like. The weight of proof is on you and you have none! @Elessar

@Speedyman That line is a core pillar of civilized society, like it or not. So nope, burden of proof remains on you who asserts, not on me who deny your assention until you've provided sufficient [b]and proper [/b]evidence. Which you can't supply, because it doesn't exist.

The core of a civilised society is the be
If in a creator who ordered the world. The core to an illogical and tyrannous society is atheism. Ask Neitzsche@Elessar

@Speedyman Strange, a creator is not in my constitution, nor the American's, nor British, nor German's, nor French's. Maybe in Saudi Arabia they have a point like that?

Funny that. America as well as in Europe for as long as we can remember@Elessar

@Speedyman Not really, funny how you're misinformed. The U.S. first amendment:
[quote]Congress shall make [b]no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/b]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. You can read more about it on here: [u]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause[/u]

Speaking of Europe, let me take Italy, that has similar clauses and has one of the most Catholic populations, also historically:
[quote][b]Art. 7[/b]: The State and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign, eachwithin its own sphere. Their relations are regulated by the Lateran pacts. Amendments to such Pacts which are accepted by both parties shall not require the procedure of constitutional amendments.
[b]Art. 8[/b]: All religious denominations are equally free before the law.Denominations other than Catholicism have the right to self-organisation according to their own statutes, provided these do not conflict with Italian law. Their relations with the State are regulated by law, based on agreements with their respective representatives.
[b]Art. 9[/b]: The Republic promotes the development of culture and of scientific and technical research.It safeguards natural landscape and the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation. [/quote]

None of the constitutions, also, mention the existence or recognizement of a creator.

Also, as per the clauses above, are both technically "secular":

Unfortunately God does not work from secular text books. But in any case the USA was founded by people who were looking for religious freedom. Your case is ludicrous. In Europe there was always a Christian foundation. You are just p,aim wrong again @Elessar

@Speedyman Unfortunately for you, you've just been proven wrong. America and Europe are secular since their respective foundation. Your god only matters to you, not to the countries, nor the slice of population who doesn't belong to your cult.

Go back to school. The class you need is ‘History’@Elessar

@Speedyman Oh I don't think I should, the material referenced above is actually taught in History classes. You would know if you got an education in the first place, I'm surprised you can even read (even if I have strong suspicion you merely understand what you read, from this and the previous exchanges).

As you never did any history I don’t think you can judge@Elessar

@Speedyman Lol, the citations above are straight from the respective Constitutions. But I get that you like going against hard evidence

So the Almighty God takes notice of human constitutions? The Almighty creator is driven by his creations? You are a very strange God - no wonder you don’t believe in him. He is entirely one of your own imagination@Elessar

@Speedyman The "almighty creator" doesn't exist outside your and your pals head, that account for not even the 30% of the entire world population.

But aside from that, which isn't even the point, you're projecting your ignorance on others, that's the point. The excerpts above are from the respective constitution of the two countries I cited as an example, like it or not. You claimed those countries aren't secular, I proved you wrong.

My dear boy truth is truth whether everyone believes it or no one believes it@Elessar

@Speedyman Exactly, and truth requires evidence, that you don't have.

The truth is all around you@Elessar