Florestella86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You're not quite getting my drift. Deists were the ones who first made a claim. And I should apologize, because I omitted the term "original"; that's very important. Atheists were never the ones making an original claim that "There is no god". If it were, it would be perfectly fine for a deist to say "prove it". It didn't happen that way. Take out the word "god" and replace it with "unicorn". I assure you, prompting someone to prove that unicorns don't exist sounds utterly silly.

angela1894 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

They didn't do that. It isn't enough to say that just because something can't be proven to exist, it therefore does not exist. You have to explicitly provide proof, and supply evidence of its NON-EXISTENCE.

angela1894 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You're wrong in saying that belief in the NON-EXISTENCE of something requires no proof. It does. There have been many instances in science where the NON-EXISTENCE of something HAD to be proven. The proof of the NON-EXISTENCE of ether, and caloric were two landmark achievements in science. Why didn't they just adopt your logic, i.e. claim the ether doesn't exist MERELY because there's no proof that it does ?

angela1894 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You said: "the burden of proof is always going to be on the party making any sort of claim"You too are making a claim. The claim being that god does not exist. That's a claim. You're playing sneaky semantic games by saying that belief in the NON-EXISTENCE of god is not a 'claim'. It is. And it requires proof. There's no proof as of yet. But you still believe it. Therefore you're not much better than religious people in the sense that you believe something you have no conclusive proof of

Florestella86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

True. It can be flipped around, though. I still maintain that the burden of proof is always going to be on the party making any sort of claim, and not on the party reacting to those claims. And atheism isn't about absolute certainty. We don't say that we know with absolute certainty that "god" doesn't exist. Our knowledge so far (knowledge being a degree of certainty) leaves us to the conclusion that god doesn't exist. It's really pretty simple.

Florestella86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Actually, it is recorded that people went to church less often during that time in American history. America right now is -sadly- more religious than it has ever been in its' entire history. "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession." -Abraham Lincoln"I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution" -George Washington

Jesusmetalhead (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

That is an extremely presumptuous and naive position to take. So in other words, ignore all the evidence that is available just so you could continue comfortably in your worldview and you are certain that miracles cannot and do not happen at all.

Florestella86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

So you're claiming that there is evidence claiming that the Bible wasn't made up by men? Really? Like what? Note: eyewitness accounts do not qualify as evidence.Seriously, I'd like to know.

Florestella86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I love how Christians tout this whole "Read the New Testament! All the bad stuff isn't there anymore!"Does that make the Old Testament invalid? Did God fuck up the first time around, and then men (humans with penises) realized how atrocious it was and tried to fix it? Some god.

Godophobe (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I can't even believe I am getting close to the whole religious debate again. Dawkins raises consciousness so that he (and all of us) can move on, honouring evolution by acknowledging the meme he has given us. Let's do it!