Roz Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Please watch that clip, christians. Matt's nailed it. The burden of proof is on you, because like our modern courts, you are the one presenting the claim. Just because a defendant is found 'not guilty' does not mean we now know he is innocent. He could very well have committed the crime. However, the prosecution did not present their case well enough to convince a jury that the defendant was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. You are the one presenting your case for your god, just like the muslims are presenting their case for theirs. The theists are the prosecution. You must present your case beyond any reasonable doubt about your god, because atheism is the 'not guilty' vote. Atheism is the rejection of your claim, and so if you cannot present sufficient evidence for your god claim, then the reasonable thing to do is to reject it. But you already knew that, don't you? You know it because you hand down the atheist/not guilty vote with regards to other religions. The Mithraists could've been right all along, but since you probably haven't heard of them you take our atheist position in regards to their god claim. Also, to recap, proving that one god exists does not in any way take away people's free will to choose whether or not to follow said god. If anything, it presents a clearer choice for the jury. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries256 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I love Matt Dillahunty, always knocks them out of the park Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 It is my understanding that atheists do not believe God exists. They have reasons why they do not accept the possibility of God. They are not saying they have proof God does not exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted August 4, 2014 Author Share Posted August 4, 2014 It is my understanding that atheists do not believe God exists. They have reasons why they do not accept the possibility of God. They are not saying they have proof God does not exists. It's the rejection of all theistic claims made thus far. I don't know what exactly happened back then, but all the theistic claims made thus far have not met their burden of proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts