CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:19
Arguments:27
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 the burden of proof is on the atheist (14)

Debate Creator

Jesusluvsu(16) pic



the burden of proof is on the atheist

if there is no god how do you postulate is the source of the universe? things cannot just poof out of nothingand atheists are the ones denying a creator when literally nothingg is what they are saying created material universe.
Add New Argument
3 points

the burden of proof is on the atheist

Ahahahaha! People really do write some remarkably stupid things on this website.

if there is no god how do you postulate is the source of the universe?

If there is a God then prove it. If the universe had a source then prove it. If the universe needed to have a source then prove it.

things cannot just poof out of nothing

Firstly, "poof out of nothing" is entirely your own claim and hence a straw man argument. Secondly, YES THEY CAN! It happens all the goddamned time, in fact. Quantum particles just literally pop into existence out of nothing.Thirdly, how can you even make a statement like "things cannot just poof out of nothing" without having the faintest idea how things worked before the present universe existed?

No. The fact is that you're a goddamned idiot. You are almost certainly yet another Brontoraptor alt account judging from your well-used straw man argument about things "poofing out of nothing". This is a fallacy you use repeatedly, despite being told hundreds of times that the universe might well have always existed in some form, even before the big bang.

You are a disturbed, twisted, and extremely horrid individual who has literally hijacked this website for the purpose of spamming corporate neo-fascist propaganda.

2 points

I know this is your first time so I'll go easy on you (unless you're another Brontoraptor alt account).

The burden of proof is literally on everyone. Most people who believe in God admit that it's a faith based belief, but even for those who appeal to evidence beliefs are worth nothing without thorough reasoning behind what you believe. The bottom line is neither atheists nor theists know they are right, and thus their assertions are fallacious and stupid, and instead of a belief you simply choose to adopt these things should be handled as theories which are to be impersonally tested and discarded if they are made obsolete.

Also there are many ways you can be an atheist without thinking the universe came from "nothing".

Jesusluvsu(16) Disputed
1 point

you can't know everything though how do you get through life without some beliefs that you have faith in?

Factocracy(270) Clarified
2 points

you can't know everything though how do you get through life without some beliefs that you have faith in?

You simply accept what you don't know and look at it in terms of how likely it is to be true rather than picking and choosing what to have faith in.

1 point

We (and "we" doesn't just mean atheists), have learned a LOT since this "God" emerged from the minds of Christians. We've learned the Earth is not flat, (most of us anyway ;-), we've learned why we don't fall off the bottom of this sphere (or what we "perceive" as the "bottom"). We've learned how this planet revolves around the Sun … not vice versa, as the Christian Church once taught … DEMANDED! We've sent space probes across the universe and beyond, apparently. And what lies "beyond"? We don't know, but, we WILL learn, if we don't blow ourselves up arguing over which "god" is the REAL "god", OR turn this planet into an unlivable orb in our greedy quest to get rich. Something "one third" of this "god" seemed to be against!

Saying the "burden of proof" is on any one entity is an argument with neither side can answer, but, one side is based on evidence, both physical and theoretical, the other is based on a belief and whatever ancient artifacts (including a man made book cobbled together largely by an Emperor with a fanatical belief). Who knows what information came from where, or what he decided was "fact", what he decided (and destroyed) that he didn't think "fit". Not much "proof" there. Now, if the actual entity with all this power … certainly the power to show up if it wanted to, to PROVE its existence, THAT would remove the "burden of proof" from EVERYONE! Then we'd ALL be believers. If there IS a "burden of proof", it's on this all powerful "God"! There have been so many charlatans over the centuries teaching about many different "gods" with many different "rules", WE can't really be expected to believe a particular "god" is the one and only. Apparently, this entity doesn't really give a sh*t since it leaves us to choose just which charlatan to believe, which "book of rules". Christian? Jew? Islam? Other?

If something as complex as this "GOD" can exist without a "creator", why can't something as complex as this (and others) universe exist without a creator?? Back to you with the "burden".

God, save us from your believers.

outlaw60(14500) Disputed
1 point

CONFUSED AL do you feel very good about your MOMMY and DADDY being APES ??????

And are you proud that you are a descendant of the APE POPULATION ????????

AlofRI(2679) Clarified
1 point

O.K, I evolved. You were "created" … like Frankenstein or Sarah Palin.

Never pick a fight with an old man, if he's to old to fight, he'll just kill you. ;-)

outlaw60(14500) Disputed
0 points

CONFUSED AL i think you got problems on religion and i am not surprised by any of it !!!!

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ religion/news/2019/02/05/465814/reclaiming-religious-freedom/

Last month, the most religiously diverse U.S. Congress in our nation’s history was sworn into office. For proponents of religious liberty, this was an incredible opportunity to celebrate this fundamental American right. At the same time, however, the current political context raises crucial challenges to religious liberty that this Congress must urgently address. Even as more religious minorities are elected to our nation’s highest offices, protections for those groups are widely being stripped away. And in recent years, many self-proclaimed religious liberty advocates have instead done much to abuse this right by privileging the religious beliefs of a select few over the freedom of all people. Their efforts have eroded the separation of church and state in order to discriminate against specific vulnerable communities. The right to religious liberty should protect these communities and all people from discrimination—not cause them harm.

AlofRI(2679) Clarified
1 point

It might REALLY help if you tried writing more on your own instead of copy and pasting others words, like above. Practice, practice ;-)

But, NO, I don't have any "problems on religion". It's absolutely NOT my problem, no problem at all …. unless they start another war.

1 point

Gotta agree with Factocracy. The burden of proof is on everyone. Faith in God is by definition a strong belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. No one simply KNOWS everything with 100 percent certainty. We know what we believe, we know what is scientific fact until something comes along that challenges that belief, but there isn't a single person that can truly say there is or is not a God and demanding proof for or against is a waste of time and a fools errand. Faith is not based on proof for all, but proof can be used to have faith for one or some.

Jody(1224) Clarified
2 points

Faith in God is by definition a strong belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than pro

Do you think faith is a reasonable path to find truths?

Are there any other positions you hold merely on faith?

Have you faith that the thousands of other gods also exist , and if not how did you rule them out, was it through reason or faith?

Scientific facts are based on solid evidence and are never faith based, scientists also will accept any counters to claims if they hold up to rigorous testing and surely this is the most rational path to take , this path can never be taken with supernatural claims as they have to taken on faith and nothing else

Mint_tea(3969) Clarified
1 point

Do you think faith is a reasonable path to find truths?

That's a good question. Yes I do. I think if you want to start a path to 'truths' you must first have faith. However it is important to recognize when faith blinds you to truth.

Are there any other positions you hold merely on faith?

Yes. Spiritual faith for loved ones who have died.

Have you faith that the thousands of other gods also exist , and if not how did you rule them out, was it through reason or faith?

I believe that people have faith in other Gods. I believe in Spirituality, energy, and I love researching other ideas on it all. I believe there is the possibility that there is more than the Christian God, that possibly other gods exist, but do I know for sure? No. As I said, I don't believe it's possible to know for sure until you're dead. I'm still malleable on my faith but the core holds with personal experiences and faith combined. I do believe in God, but I also believe there's more to it.

Scientific facts are based on solid evidence and are never faith based, scientists also will accept any counters to claims if they hold up to rigorous testing and surely this is the most rational path to take , this path can never be taken with supernatural claims as they have to taken on faith and nothing else

Scientific fact is indeed a rational path to take but many Scientists are divided on important theories and idea's even with rigorous testing.

For me, faith and science are like math and art. Both are equally important to stimulate the mind. Closing oneself the the possibility of anything just closes the mind to new ideas.

Hope that makes sense for you, I'd be happy to try to explain something better if you need.

outlaw60(14500) Disputed
1 point

You Jewel are you going to tie your rant into the Religion of Islam ???????????

1 point

This is a straw man. It's what you say scientists are saying, but it isn't actually what scientists are saying. We have laws of physics that apply to this universe as it is, but in several instances they break down: extremely high gravity and density being one instance, another being the "pre-universe", where spacetime did not exist as we know it.

That isn't to say that something came from nothing. Just that our current universe's origins are, at present, mathematically abstract. How do you study a "universe" with no spacetime by applying the physical laws of spacetime upon it?

The beginning of the universe poses this question: what was the universe like before space and time were dimensions within it?

1 point

if there is no god how do you postulate is the source of the universe?

The intellectually honest answer is we don’t know , you instead easily side step this by inserting a god into the equation , where did god come from a proof will help greatly?

things cannot just poof out of nothing and

You’re asserting that can you prove it?

atheists are the ones denying a creator

I personally have denied or accepted nothing I’m saying you are the one making the affirmative claim as in “ their is a god “ the burden of proof is with you

when literally nothingg is what they are saying created material universe.

Who said that? How do you know and assume what all atheists say and think?