Is there any burden of proof on atheists to disprove the existence of a god? [Spirituality & Religion]

@hippyjoe1955

lol amazing.
Here joe, i've got a challenge for you.
Just put a lid on that simmering cauldron of hatred and disdain you have for everyone who does not share your views and think for a second:

Are all the atheist all around the world just stupid, ignorant people or is it possible that the arguments put forth for god simply aren't as convincing for others as they are for you?


And anyway, you haven't answered the question of this thread.
You may do that now.

@Pikachu You are very sadly mistaken. (Typical for atheists). I don't hate anyone. I am laughing at your foolishness. There is a difference. Maybe you just aren't bright enough to understand. You are an atheist after all and everyone knows atheists aren't very bright. Have fun.

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]Atheists simply deny the evidence[/quote]

Perhaps you'd like to offer some examples of that supposed 'evidence'.

@newjaninev2

*spoilers*

He would not and it's your fault😉

@newjaninev2 You keep trotting out the evidence you never provide. Explain abiogenesis.

@hippyjoe1955 Evidence for what?

Do you understand that evidence needs to be evidence [i]for[/i] something?

@hippyjoe1955 Using a word like evidence does create the notion it is real. God is, at best an unproven theory. There is no evidence that would stand up in court.

@whowasthatmaskedman As is evolution. Move on you really don't understand.

@hippyjoe1955 But evolution DOES stand up in court and has done so, as you well know Joe. But dont let the facts get in the way of a good Trolling.😉

@whowasthatmaskedman As if the courts are proof of anything. lol lol lol lol They deny life. And often send the wrong people to their death.

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]an unproven theory[/quote]

Umm... all scientific Theories are unproven, because [i]nobody[/i] is trying to prove them. Everybody is trying to falsify them.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the most consistent, comprehensive, and coherent, explanation of the evidence that we have.

It remains unfalsified... so s there some sort of relevant evidence you'd like to present?

@newjaninev2 You don't even know what science is and are stuck in stupidity trying to explain the impossible. Impossible since we still don't understand how the universe came to be or what it is made of.

@hippyjoe1955

There's so much evidence for evolution.

Creationists simply deny the evidence. Not very bright of them but a constant out for them

OHHHH SNAP!

So that's the kind of argument you use, joe. In fact except for one word, that [i]is[/i] your argument.
How do you respond to that argument? How do you, joe, carry on a discussion when your opponent says something like that?

Just curious to see if you can respond intelligently to the same things you regularly say to other people.

Give it a go

@Pikachu As to evolutionists. Funny how that works. The fact is you are blind to the evidence and so deny its existence. Its not your fault. You were born that way. However you do provide no end of mirth for the sighted as you stumble about in your darkness. Stubbing you toe on the Obvious and denying Its existence.

@hippyjoe1955

But the sad thing about creationists is the fact is you are blind to the evidence and so deny its existence. Its not your fault. You were born that way. However you do provide no end of mirth for the sighted as you stumble about in your darkness. Stubbing you toe on the Obvious and denying Its existence.

Sorry, your argument has again been turned against you simply by inserting "creationist".
That must mean it's a pretty vague argument.
Try again, joe😁

@Pikachu Not really. I looked at the evidence you provide and it is very non conclusive. It has multiple interpretations. Common DNA can be common ancestor or common Creator. There is no way to 'prove' it one way or the other. The same goes with the fossil record. You are not basing your belief on fact. You are basing it on faith. I do the same. I just don't have faith enough to be an evolutionist/materialist. Material doesn't just spring into being and form life without cause and there is no cause in materialism.

@hippyjoe1955 You are saying that @newjaninev2 doesn't know science??? She is dripping of it. What do you think science is?

What exactly do you think is indisputable proof of God that has no other possible explanation?

@zork0000 Obviously not. She is way too close to the trees to see the forest. She is fully invested in her pet theory which makes her and advocate not a scientist.

That makes her a scientist. You need to get into details to prove things, not just a feeling like you.

And you still avoid answering questions put to you.

@zork0000 no advocacy sciece is politics not sciece.

@hippyjoe1955

[quote]. It has multiple interpretations.[/quote]

So you say. And yet whenever you are challenged to supply a superior interpretation of that data, one which remains consistent and predictive the way evolution does, you refuse.
Always.
Every time.

But if you're thoughtful and exercise a little self-awareness, you might just just begin to understand the other side.
You don't find the evidence for evolution to be convincing. You think there are other, better (unspecified) interpretations for the evidence.
Well joe, welcome to the atheist position to your personal concept of god.
An atheist does not have to be an idiot to find your evidence uncompelling unless you think that you and yours should be considered idiots for not finding the evidence for evolution compelling.

Can you acknowledge that for me, joe?
Are you physically capable of admitting that atheists might just be people who don't share you worldview instead of idiots?

@hippyjoe1955 With proper spelling and punctuation, I might have some inkling of what you are trying to say.

So-called idiots are writing clear and concise responses and questions to you and this is the best you have?

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]I don't hate anyone.[/quote]

Hoo boy, now that's a lie.

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]It has multiple interpretations[/quote]

The evidence doesn't require an interpretation.

The evidence requires an explanation