Happy Atheist Forum

I have had many a problem with the religious. One however stands out prominently among the rest. That problem is about proof. When discussing something with a theist I have found that their favorite way of dealing with my proofs is to disavow them. For example if we are talking about evolution, I can bring up mountains of evidence which they will question. Eventually they seem to get to a point that they question all evidence. Thus bringing me to the main problem at hand. If the burden of proof is on the person making the statement ( too which I think we can all agree) then by disavowing all evidence doesn't that hurt their argument worse than ours? We have evidence that is credible and can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. They have no evidence. so at worst doesn't that put them in a negative as far as believability? What do you guys think?

You'd think it would hurt their argument... and to US, it DOES hurt their argument.

But with faith, there is no logic... hence, it won't hurt their argument from their point of view.

When discussing this with my mom, a woman who graduated with a degree in music from a prestigious university, Summa Cum Laude no less, she will refute whatever proofs I provide with a "we can't know what God has in mind" or "God does what he does for his own reasons."  She DOES believe that God set the Big Bang in motion and that he "guides" evolution because, in her own words, she saw too much evidence in the science classes she took for it to be false.  She believes the bible is a guideline... an interpretation of what someone was inspired to write... and it cannot be taken literally.  She's a strange Christian... and to an extent, I'm proud of her.

But the fact is the faithful will always provide innumerable interpretations for god's word and when provided with enough proof, will fall back on "we can't possibly know god's plan."  The ultimate cop-out.

Quote from: "DragonofHeaven"I have had many a problem with the religious. One however stands out prominently among the rest. That problem is about proof. When discussing something with a theist I have found that their favorite way of dealing with my proofs is to disavow them. For example if we are talking about evolution, I can bring up mountains of evidence which they will question. Eventually they seem to get to a point that they question all evidence. Thus bringing me to the main problem at hand. If the burden of proof is on the person making the statement (too which I think we can all agree) then by disavowing all evidence doesn't that hurt their argument worse than ours? We have evidence that is credible and can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. They have no evidence. so at worst doesn't that put them in a negative as far as believability? What do you guys think?

Dawkins has a beautiful video online about this: the unequal necessity of evidence. They require virtually no evidence for their claim and they require an impossible burden of proof for you. Why? They're idiots. I'll use Dawkins' argument:
Let us say that we come upon a scene in the woods. There is a deer corpse with flesh missing and wolf bite marks all over it. There are fresh wolf tracks all around the deer and leading away. You follow the tracks and find the wolves, and study the contents of their stomachs and find freshly eaten deer meat. Wolves in the area are known for eating deer and have been long documented with multiple methods doing so.

Using the burden that Creationists use, there's no way that it can be reasonable assumed that the wolves ate the deer. Any rational human being can connect the dots in a matter of seconds. An infant could figure it out. Why not a Creationist? They're idiots. By idiot I mean one who can in their mind suspend the laws of reason and reality because they were told something ridiculous when they were children. They've never grown up.

There are marginal theists, and there are extreme theists. Do not try to argue with extreme theists. They are not playing the same game you are. Engage them in chess, and they'll pull your pieces off the board at random. If they get all your pieces, they declare victory.

Face it: some people believe in their religion more than they believe in reality. This is why evidence means nothing to them.

Hey WillRavle can you post a link to Dawkin's video of that argument? I would dearly love to see it.

Quote from: "DragonofHeaven"Hey WillRavle can you post a link to Dawkin's video of that argument? I would dearly love to see it.

I've done some searching and it turns out that I gave credit to the wrong atheist. The argument was made by youtuber "FightingAtheist", not brilliant biologist Richard Dawkins.

It's fantastic and I highly recommend watching the whole video.

Quote from: "DragonofHeaven"I have had many a problem with the religious. One however stands out prominently among the rest. That problem is about proof. When discussing something with a theist I have found that their favorite way of dealing with my proofs is to disavow them. For example if we are talking about evolution, I can bring up mountains of evidence which they will question. Eventually they seem to get to a point that they question all evidence. Thus bringing me to the main problem at hand. If the burden of proof is on the person making the statement ( too which I think we can all agree) then by disavowing all evidence doesn't that hurt their argument worse than ours? We have evidence that is credible and can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. They have no evidence. so at worst doesn't that put them in a negative as far as believability? What do you guys think?

  To you for dealing with these people.I for one have lost all patience with them and refuse to talk to anyone who is bullheaded about religion and burden of proof.Yes if you make a statement you must be able to back it up with some evidence.But to many people don't think that way.If religion and evolution where in a court room they would both have to have a decent amount of proof that their side is right.And the victor would be the one with the best evidence.It's like someone saying it is this way because I say so,and not having any other reason then that.

I read somewhere that it's not the atheist's job to prove the theist wrong; it's the theist's job to prove that they (theist) are right (or the atheist is wrong I guess).
It made sense to me. But unfortunately, you can argue with a theist that the sky is blue. You can show them the science of why it is blue (or appears to be). You can take them outside and show them it is blue (unless you live here in Bako, in which it will be grey). But if they have faith that it is green, your endeavors are in vain. (That's how a friend described how I was before I became an atheist)

Quote from: "rlrose328"She DOES believe that God set the Big Bang in motion and that he "guides" evolution because, in her own words, she saw too much evidence in the science classes she took for it to be false.

I have a Christian friend that believes that. Interesting stuff... they think science is wrong with evolution and whatnot, and that we can't comprehend God's "mysterious ways", but yet, science can discover His "method"? Very few believe that so I guess I'll give them some slack.

Quote from: "susangail"I read somewhere that it's not the atheist's job to prove the theist wrong; it's the theist's job to prove that they (theist) are right

This is true. It is totally, completely evident there is no God or gods. That's why theists go so overboard, and why they're so organized. They have an entire agenda, where we atheists are just living in the obvious.

You might be interested in reading this : Scopes Monkey Trail  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm