Simple, how can you disprove that their isnt an invisable teapot orbiting Jupiter?

You are quick to deflect the burdon of proof on athesits, but fail to see the fallacy.

If I said, "Prove that Vishnu doesnt exist" would that make sense? No.

Wouldnt it be wise for you to say, "Ok, I hear your claim that Vishnu is real, what evidence do you have for such a claim?

I am not doing anthing logically diffrent by aiming that burdon of proof on you, the claimant in the same way that you'd be right in placing the burdon of proof on the Hindu if they made claims about Vishnu.

BTW, these are NOT ad homemins. It is a demonstration as to where your logic is flawed, nothing more.

Let me give you another example.

"I have a leprichan who makes kegs of beer for me for the Redskin games every sunday"

You, "Ok, I hear that claim, what evedence do you have for such claim"

Me, "Prove that I dont have a leprachan that does that."

Should you give up on questioning me because I made the attempt to shift the burdon on you to prove to me that I didnt have a leprichan?

Again, this is the fallacy you are commiting. Muslims and Jews do this too. It is nothing personal at all. I am merely demonstrating that the burdon falls on the claimant, not the questioner.

There is no good reason to believe that a "spirit" got a girl pregnant merely because you claim it, anymore than it would be valid by proxy of merely believing that I'd get 72 virgins, merely because I claim it. Any more than it would be wise for you to believe in my beer buddy, merely because I claim it.

 This a criticism of use of logic, do not equate it to a personal attack on you. I dont know you. Outside your religious claims I am quite sure that there are other issues where we might agree. But your religion isnt simply going to get a pass because my hard criticism makes you uncomforable. 

If humans never went outside their comfort zone we'd never learn. So insted of assuming these examples are personal attacks, try looking at the parallels in the examples given.

I apply the same burdon to all theistic claims, be they your religion, or sect just as I do any other. 

When has it become necessary to disprove that which cannot be proven?

huh? double standard?

I don't think you know what 'freethinking' means. Your question about double standards is ridiculous.

Of course Xtians can "freethink" all they want. In fact, I always encourage "thinking" especially to xtians when it comes up.

But being a Xtian is totally opposite of what free thinking is. If you are a Xtian, you are not "free thinking" nor could you call yourself a free thinker.

And if one is a "free thinker" then one cannot be xtian. They are totally opposite ways of making conclusions and finding explainations.

I suggest you read up on "free thinking" before accussing us of "double standards". You will see how ridiculous your question is. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The reason theres a difference is we are not the one making the extraordinary claim.  We don't have a belief.  You have a belief in something, but you can't prove or show any evidence of it (as far as tangible, lets avoid pointing to the creation concept at this point).  And I don't see any atheists preaching Dawkins in the way that Christians preach the bible.  We encourage everyone to read and learn everything they can.  Read Dawkins and the Bible (or if your afraid of bias, read the Bible first, either way).  There are people here who seem to think that we want to restrict things and thats not the case.   

So the Atheist does what He or She wants, and the Theist does what they are told? Again, where is the freewill, the freethinking, the right and ability to choose and live with that choice? 

Your non-belief is none of my business, why is my belief yours?

You use the words

Impose your will? Remove the teapotists right to think and choose? A double standard? Who is allowed to make choices out of freewill and freethinking, and who is not? Obviously not the teapotists, those poor souls are to be crushed under the heel of oppression of those that want to remove their right to think freely, and choose, and live with their choice!

I find it ironic that you asked in the forum post if we can answer without the ad hominem, while you have written a blog that says this about Kelly and I...

Was thinking about your accusation again and it occured to me that it is you who has the double standard.

Why don't you let me free think all I want?  Why don't you stop imposing your beliefs on me.

How come you're allowed to believe in god and i'm not allowed to not believe in (your) god?

How come you come in here and accuse us of having 'double standards' when it is you who has them.

I'm not holding you back from free thinking nor am i holding you back from faith so where is the double standard?

However, you keep trying to hold back my thoughts on god, on religion, etc... with accusations and false arguements.

Why do xtians do that?  You're the one coming here to stop the freethinking.... Should I go over to your site and stop xtians from having faith?

I won't, because even though I disagree with you, I still respect your thoughts and want to hear them.

You don't respect free thinking. 

Somebody can choose to live with any belief they want. I can challenge their reasoning for holding that belief and do my damndest to dissuade them for holding to irrational beliefs as I see them as detrimental to society.

What you are doing here is creating some strawman scenario where people's beliefs affect only those that hold them. The fact is we live in a society comprised of many people with many different beliefs. No one's beliefs exist in a vacuum. The beliefs held by the members of a society dictate the type of society in which we live.

If you wish to isolate your beliefs and leave to each his own that is your business, but then I hardly see your motive for posting here. If you are like me and wish to see a society that you believe would be a better place in which for humans to live their lives, then open dialogue and trying to educate people as to your position is a necessity.

Silliness. You can clearly see the context in which the word forced is used. No ones freewill to think and choose is being removed by having their beliefs, irrational or otherwise, confronted. Funny how you seem so opposed to people confronting other's beliefs but here tyou are confronting people's beliefs that they should confront other's beliefs. You have to admit, its rather hypocritical. You are crushing my right to freely choose to confront other's beliefs under the heel of opression. Can you see how absurd your complaints are?

Daily Way: Hey, believe what you want. Go on, knock yourself out. As long as you're not breaking any laws or seeking to have your theories taught in a science classroom or trying to integrate them into government then feel free.

And speaking of freedom of faith, you mentioned you have nine children. I presume since you believe so ardently in freedom of speech and faith that you are allowing them to make up their own minds about whether or not God exists without any 'coaching'

Because otherwise your argument is just a tad hypocritical.

What type of evidence would be required? Is there anything satisfactory?

Non-cognitivism states that the concept of God is nonsensical. This seems to imply that evidence for god cannot exist.

The whole thing is an argument to ignorance.

Just because I cannot DISPROVE the existance of a deity does NOT make the case for said deity stronger.

There's a dragon in my garage. 

We have no business telling those Jihadists to stop blowing things up because after all, it is what they want to believe.

Boy I'd love to believe you. But the last president America had who denied the divinity of Jesus was Thomas Jefferson.

And I am quite sure you'd be agreable to putting this quote from him along side the pledge on every classroom wall.

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear". Thomas Jefferson

Please prove me wrong. Please tell me you value a neutral goverment as you so claim in this post. Please tell me that all the private mass media such as billboards, 360,000 churchs, newspapers, tv stations, bumperstickers, radio stations, phone book adds, your website, the internet. ect ect ect.....

Please tell me that is enough for you. It is for many Christians who'd agree with me that "God" in the pledge and on our currancy DOES violate the first amendment and DOES promote the favortism of Christianity over other religions.

I love to be proven wrong. I'd love to think that a Christian is willing to vote for an atheist to our highest offices. I'd love to think that "No Religious Test" which is in the constitution would be and should be upheld by all people calling themselves United States Citizens.

I'd love to see the day when all Americans are willing to vote on common ground issues rather than divisive party labels or religious labels. I'd like to see an Asian American born in America sit on the Supreme Court or be ellected Vice President.

I'd love to truely believe that you mean that goverment should stay out of your religion. I suspect however what you really mean is that people that dont call themselves "Christian" should accept second class status and never hope to run for any high office, even if they are decent people who are born in this country.

I do suspect that you think the only people capable of owning the deed to our constituion must swear alleagance to Jesus, be they liberal or conservitive and that anyone outside that label should take their seat at the back of the political bus and never raise their voices.

Again, I do hope I am wrong. I do hope you dont think that every atheist at this site, even if you dont like me, should be tossed aside from any political consideration even if they have economic or social common ground with you outside the issue of weither or not a deity exists.

I do hope I am wrong. And to the non-Christian citizens in America reading this post, especially the ones born in this country, be you Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist or others, pay close attention to his response. I do hope I am wrong though.

I do hope he values individuality and can seek common ground outside the issue of weither or not a deity exists. Even if he wont vote for me, (not assuming because I have not heard his response yet) but even if, WOULD HE PUT A THEIST OF ANOTHER LABEL ON OUR SUPREME COURT? WOULD HE DO WHAT THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS IN "NO RELIGIOUS TEST"

Pay close attention to his answer if you do not hold the label Christian but hold the label citizen.

I cant repeat this enough. I do hope I am wrong. Especially on the issue of OUR GOVERNMENT. I wont take a back seat to anyone simply because they claim I should, and neither should any decent citizen of any religious label who is born in this country.

PAY ATTENTION TO HIS ANSWER! This effects not only atheists, but anyone outside his label. I do hope I am wrong. 

I find it ironic that you would copy and paste verbatim material that is clearly under the assumption of copyright on a website that says

Copyright ©2007

Guy R. Vestal

All Rights Reserved

Without permission from the author. But since someone has done it once here already, and I did not present it as an infringement, and because your rules do not state that copyright infringement is wrong, I had no recourse to present my claim to. So I must simply let it pass seeing as I will answer it here.

Again, like the other fellow, you did not quote my criticism of Ray and Kirk! Selective copyright infringement aye? 

And if you look back through my posts, I had admitted I was wrong, and had shown "bad fruits" becuase of my "opinion" of the debate as a whole. Which had the Lord lead me here to see the people I had judged, only to find them as normal and everyday as the Christian rank & file. (Read through my posts, you will see my admission.) In case you are interested, I have a draft set to post on my findings after the Lord leading me here, showing what I had learned by sitting at meat as my Lord had done. And I believe it will be rather scathing to the Christian community as a whole because our own intolerance. If you like, I can post a link to it in the venue of your choosing so that you can see what I have gleaned from my time here.

You clearly have no idea about copyright laws.

Anyone can quote you, and that's what 'copying and pasting' is.

Idle, uninformed threats will get you nowhere. 

Then why are you here? 

LOL, PWNED!! 

I find it ironic that you quote copyright law with no fucking clue as to how copyright law works.  I on the other hand have a fairly good idea how abusing copyright law works, see my lawsuit vs. Uri Geller.

Yes I would like to see that link when it's done.  Also I'd love to see revisions to your original piece should the lord choose to bless you in such a manner as to steer you down that path of harmony and bliss. 

"One man, one vote" is a lie. I live in Indiana, which because of it's conservative "family values" and low IQ, will always vote Republican. My vote does not count.

If "One man, one vote," were true, Al Gore would be the President of the United States of American, because in that election 500,000+ votes meant nothing.

But I digress. The "dragon in my garage" arguement is the same as the arguement for a God, and we will argue until we're both blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, Rook's research is evidence that Jesus didn't exist, which is more evidence than the existance of God. Quantity and quality of evidence in God is overwhelmingly in favor of a religious deluision. Even if a Jesus did exist, there is also evidence that he was trained as a Buddhist, left Israel after being crucified (and not dying), and went to Kashmir. If either of these is true, Christianity is dead.

It's really a moot point. You are an atheist to Zeus, Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and a Dragon in My Garage. Why are you able to see the absurdity of all these dieties, but not your own?

Is it your fear of death or an ingrained religion since birth that makes you believe so strongly? Be honest with yourself.

You want to know why you're a Christian? You were either born it, or you were indoctrinated by an outside Christian force. If you want to get technical, you're only a Christian because Constantine I of Rome converted and demanded that the Roman Empire become Christian.

It has nothing to do with you hearing the voice of God. I've heard it too. It was a delusion, it was my brain placing a supernatural meaning on a natural occurance. I used to talk to God every night, but throught basic observations of the world, anthropology, history, and evolution I was able to come to the simple rational conclusion that there is no God.

Study the history of humanity, specifically the history of religion. Christianity is an infant religion when compared to the ancient animalistic and polytheistic religions of the past. Then study the evolution of man, and understand that we created religion to understand natural occurances of which we had no explaination for at the time. Religion covers the gaps that science can not.

Eventually it will run out of gaps.

Thanks, and sorry for the long post or any insult you may infer from it. I write this in the interest of simply explaining to you rational reasons why your faith is wrong, the evidence that there is no God, and trying to show you that there is indeed logical evidence that there is no God, just human imagination.

And I'll bet you think that YOUR name is in that book, huh?

How egotistical. 

Where have I done that? You have a link to a post where I specifically did that?

I have been sitting here answering questions and opinions to each post, (Boy it gets tiring, there must be alot of posts!)

There is nothing for me to impose, mine is not to save, I cannot save you, only God can, I have no way of influencing His desicion whether or not to shew Grace upon you. 

Read up on "John Calvin", and you will see that it is out of my hands!

Damn it. I allow myself and blame myself for wishfull thinking. The first post I read from you sounded promising. But as I suspected and wish I was wrong about, you clam up when things get heated.

You came here because you wanted to convince us that your deity existed. You are now getting frustrated because we dont say, "Oh isnt that nice" Kumbia my lord.

Fine. I personally still want you to stay, but if you are not going to engauge in providing evidence for your claims I'd advise you to stay away from threads dealing with the issue of any deity's existance. On this forum if you bring it up, we ARE going to ask questions. HARD QUESTIONS, TOUGH QUESTIONS!

If you dont want to tackle that I actually understand. I myself avoid certain threads too. But what I dont or wont do is go to another board and stick a broomhandle in a hornet's nest and expect the hornets to say, "Hey lets just submit".

You are welcome to stay(I cant speek for the owner or mods here, since I am neither) But do value those who stick around and dont run scared. But just as I'd expect certain behaivor if I went to a  a Christian website, you should not act suprised by our questions here. What did you expect?

So, since you say " I dont need to"

It is settled. You wont be convinced.Ok, but dont expect us to buy any claims you make after a statement like that. If a Muslim claimed that Allah existed and then said, "I dont need to prove it" would you be stupid enough to say, "Ok, since you claim it I'll buy it" I hope you are smarter than that.

It is not about "live and let live" DUH! We get that. It is about evidence, and we cant go any further after you make a claim and then say, "I dont have to prove a thing"

I agree, you dont, but we are under no obligation to convert especialy if that is all you have as an arugument, " I dont have to prove a thing". 

I wish I was wrong but if you run you are proving our point that you came here to "teach us" because you wanted to "save us". If that is not what you ment, prove us wrong and provide evidence.

Otherwise you have 3 options.

1. Stay and make a case for your deity

2. Stay and disscuss non religious issues.

3. Leave.

What we dont take kindly to is being expected to passively submit just because you say so. We dont do that for Wiccans, pantheists or Muslims and you are no different.

If you make a claim, provide evidence for that claim. If you cant, we wont hate you, we simply wont buy the claim. 

No, you still do not respect free thinking.  I already tried to tell you what the mandate of free thinking is.  You don't respect the fact that we use scientific evidence to come to a conclusion because of the continual denial of scientfic fact.

I can respect your faith.  I understand it originates from the bible and I do not deny that. I respect that you use it to make conclusions.  I do not deny the existance of the bible or what is written in it.

Why do xtians deny scientific evidence?  If you truely respected free thinking, you cannot deny the existance of scientific evidence. 

If you truly respected free thinking then you wouldn't try to define what it is when you are ignorant of it.

I do not know much about xtianity, I do not define it and I do not go around preaching against it.   I admit my ignorance of it because I am a freethinker and as a freethinker, I cannot deny scientific evidence.

 Stop forcing me to post.  I actully prefer lurking, but it really upsets me when xtians come here pretending they know everything and imposing their ignorance, getting all self-righteous.

Still can't see this double standard you're talking about.  And still don't see where I said that xtianity is bad.  I don't think I even implied that. !

I don't like it when xtians twist the facts just as much as you don't like it when the bible is twisted. 

So you came here to tell us we're going to hell and you sincerely believe (you can't know) you're not?

Tend to your own knitting and I'll tend to mine, OK? 

This is something that I have never understood from the Calvinist view.  If one has to be elected to get into Heaven, then why bother believing in the first place.  Your either going in or not, why waste your time worshipping.  And if the answer is "Well only those that believe are getting into heaven cause they were basically made to believe" then from what I can tell that completely throws free will out the window again.  And again, if their is no evidence to convince me and I choose not to follow and im sent to go live with Satan, God must suck that he makes people he knows that are going to go to Hell.  As I and others have stated before, hell sounds better than worshipping a deity that does that to people on purpose.