Why do Atheists complain about what Christians believe, when they have no proof for what they believe either?

Why do Atheists complain about what Christians believe, when they have no proof for what they believe either?

Other urls found in this thread:

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

You dont need proof to say something isnt real. It is the other person's job to defend and prove the person wrong.

>doesnt understand the atheist position
>would not accept the definition of atheism that atheists use because he could not argue against it
>shifting the burden of proof
>strawman
>poor bait
sage

Christians and the like knock on my fucking door trying to push their shit tier fairytale as if it happened

what do atheists believe?

We don't know if it's a fairytale, that's why people argue about it

we dont know if scientology is true or not, so why dont you argue for it? i'll tell you, because you have 0 reasons to believe its true, just like with any religion or god, you dont have a good reason to believe any of that nonsense.

>tfw everything you "believe" is completely revised every few decades bc it's so wrong
>muh fairytales

you can´t prove a negative, to do so you need proof of a positive

xenu is that you ?

You don't know if a book written hundreds of years ago that had stories of the like of Noah is fiction?

Well I think outspoken Christians complain just as much about atheists as vice versa. No one has "proof" (in the objective sense) of anything. We can only perceive the world through the filters of our senses and do the best we can with the data we obtain.

The reason people criticize the beliefs of others is that beliefs effect actions, and actions affect people.

But perhaps most disturbing to the atheists I have spoken with and to me as well is the great hypocrisy and dogmaticism one tends to observe in fundamentalists of all religions. They claim to serve Jesus, but their actions and attitudes are entirely out of line with his teachings. It seems that they would like to lord over others with their religious systems and remain secure in their ideology, while subduing those who go beyond. Perhaps indeed they are too afraid to openly pursue knowledge and truth by challenging the sacred. As Nietzsche said, "Fear is the mother of faith."

The reality is that preachy atheists are as dumb as the Christians they complain about and usually less moral and ethical. If they understood the limits of the sciences they wouldn't rely on it as any legitimate worldview. Many scientists themselves are theists. You can't prove an immaterial God but Atheism is certainly self-serving bullshit that has no real application to anyone

I criticise it because they insist on being a main part of not only politics but many things in society so it affects me. It's even printed on our damn money

ITT : People think burden of proof is some essential law of rationality and not just a useful tool.

In accordance with inductive reasoning, agnostic atheists are in a position to show that the chance of God existing and not existing are equiprobable positions.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
its a logical fallacy that you just made aswell and if you have an argument with a logical fallacy in the premises the conclusion can NOT be considered true.

the agnostic atheist positions is "i dont believe in a god but im not 100% certain that there is no god, i mean how could i be with 0 evidence".

Flying spaghetti monster cramping your style? Oh, I mean the omniscient, benevolent and all powerful divinity that nearly everyone since the dawn of mankind has believed in and been guided by up to this present, most perfect generation. Yeah, sorry about that

Burden of proof is a guideline for argumentation, but it is hardly a essential truth of the universe. If someone makes a claim, you can disprove it. Or if someone makes a claim without evidence, it might be true.

Yes, but they are claiming that we do not know whether or not there is a God, and that must mean that there is from the perspective of a human being, there are equal chances of there being a God or not.

...

>Or if someone makes a claim without evidence, it might be true.
but you have 0 reasons to believe the claim

>Yes, but they are claiming that we do not know whether or not there is a God, and that must mean that there is from the perspective of a human being, there are equal chances of there being a God or not.
thats some next level mental gymnastics there, the agnostic atheist position makes exactly 0 claims, so it can NOT have the burden of proof.

If you ask them how great of a chance they think god has of existing they say, i dont know, which is the only honest answer, we do not know if there is a god or not and we dont even know if a god is possible let alone how likely one is.

Christianity has not been around since the dawn of mankind as the book would have you believe. Fuck all religion and definitely the virus that is Christianity

>As Nietzsche said, "Fear is the mother of faith."
No he didn't.

Fear is the mother of morality

> "I don't know" implies equal probability

What? I don't know if I would win the lottery tomorrow if I bought a ticket, but that doesn't mean I have an equal chance of winning and losing.

Furthermore, how can we apply "chances" to the discussion of the true nature of the universe? We can't measure it, and what is already is. You are just assigning an arbitrary measure on the degree of our own ignorance.

I don't think you can even apply probability to this question. It's like saying, "Aliens probably exist," or the contrary. Can we do a simulation and create many universes similar to ours to see how often life forms? No. So they either exist or they don't. Any assignment of probability to an untestable question is just a measure of our own conscious uncertainty.

My bad, user. I guess I unconsciously must have jumped "morality" > "moral systems" > "faith"

>0 evidence
The thing about that is there is plenty of evidence, just almost none that conforms to empirical science of the present day. Electricity as an understood force did not exist til a few hundred years ago when experimenters and the tools they developed came to understand it.

I leave one thing for an honest atheists (there are some, not many) to consider. Christ, as it's well known preached to the Jews- for their religious salvation. From what, pragmatically speaking? Judaism and Jews themselves were completely transformed in 70AD with the absolute destruction of the Temple by the Romans, within a generation of his sermons even though Jews have been around for thousands of years. And of course, the Roman's themselves where completely overtaken by Christianity within a few hundred years later, in fact its the only Roman institution that exists to this day. These are historical facts that don't prove anything empirically but you have to be willfully blind not to see the truth

I've never seen a religious person win an arguement about their religion

Doesn't mean what they wrote was true

this. all these athiests are probably going to hell, regardless, because of their lack of virtues

We dont have a good reason to believe the bible either, we dont know if this Jesus character ever existed and we certainly cant verify what he said or what he might by it.

Religion is the ultimate con-job, the perfect fairy tail, it cant be proven wrong, people are afraid to doubt it, it can be used to control masses, it promises the best conceivable reward while threatening us with the biggest conceivable punishment and the bible is full or errors and immoral shit like slavery being ok. these are logical facts that dont prove anything empirically but you have to be willfully blind not to see the truth.
i'll wait for empirical evidence before i jump the gun and convince myself to believe something i have 0 reason for, tho i doubt i would even be able to do that since i cant choose what i believe.

Lol and the truth would be? That Jesus is God since his religion got popular?

You know Islam got popular even more quickly, so I suppose that Mohammed is the true prophet then?

We can't prove fucking Aesop's didn't actually happen either, but you don't see people pushing to write laws about protecting children from being eaten by wolves dressed like their grandmothers, now do we?

>this guy doesn't know Russell's Teapot
Yeah, ok.

I'm pretty sure we know that there was a man named Jesus.
It's just whether or not he performed the miracles and said what is attributed to him.

There are people named Jesus right now too, there are also people named Mohammed.
but its nice you chose to go with that moot point and ignore everything else.

I accept that Jesus was such a bro they made a religion out of him. He's a cuck baby, it's cool.

10/10

They don't. They complain about the constant evanelism and insistance on forcing the bullshit into schools. If you'd believe but not try to write laws in accordance with your beliefs, most of us wouldn't care.

>hurr DURR names are the only thing to denote a person
There was a man in that area named Jesus at that time period. The only question regarding him is whether or not the stories written about him more than a decade after his death by people who allegedly knew him are accurate.

So science's self correcting nature is bad? Are you suggesting we'd be better off dying at 30 afraid of our own shadows?

of course there was a dude names Jesus ffs, but it could all be made up, what if the people who allegedly knew him are also made up?
They might not be, but we have no reason to believe that any of it is true, you cant even prove that the bible wasnt written only 1000 years ago instead of 2000 years ago.

If he was I bet he was what we'd call a magician now. Tricks that the people of the time couldn't explain

>Having such an infantile understanding of truth and reality
>arguing about metaphysics on a Cantonese medicine forum
Jonah and the whale happened and is still happens to this day.

and mohammel flew to heaven on a winged horse.

>what if the people who allegedly knew him are also made up?
...are you implying the book was written by fictional characters or in first person by a third party, because as far as I'm aware, narratives of that scale with that specific point of view didn't really pick up until later.
>we have no reason to believe that any of it is true, you cant even prove that the bible wasnt written only 1000 years ago instead of 2000 years ago.
You haven't heard of carbon dating or the Dead Sea Scrolls, have you?

because, simply put, burden of proof is on the one claiming X exists, where X in this case is god.

atheism is a lack of belief in theism
there is nothing to prove

>looked at picture
>looked at post

nah man im out

>...are you implying the book was written by fictional characters
is this really a question you need to ask?
Tell me then, who wrote the genesis?

carbon dating yes, dead seascrolls heard the name but thats it, sounds like more fairy tails tbqh.

Can you see the air or Bactria or my fart?

>Tell me then, who wrote the genesis?
Jews did, a couple thousand years before Christianity existed.

>carbon dating yes, dead seascrolls heard the name but thats it, sounds like more fairy tails tbqh.
"You can't prove what time something was written!"
"Yes we can. Here."
"WELL THAT'S STILL JUST FAIRY TALES!"
Shift the fucking goalposts harder, why don't you.

i said it sounds like fairy tales based on the name, so nice strawman there, i dont have the first idea what they actually are and because i have never heard of them i dont think they are that important, only seen the words together in a couple posts in Sup Forums from guys who make walls of texts, post fedora memes and link to sudoscience sites where a single scientist had turned to christianity and tells his story.

Prove to me that Farther Christmas does not exist. I have years of material evidence that he has some validity!

no, however you can feel the air rushing past you on a windy day, you can observe bacteria under the microscope (as well as feel the effects of them when you're ill), you can smell and feel farts. those are things that have been easily proven to exist- they're perceptible to an extent.

to prove god, you'd have to prove some form of divinity, you'd have to prove that those were caused by divine intervention, which is something nobody has successfully proved despite many many attempts.