The above blogger wrote a little gem, called “Show me the Proof” and reminded the commentators constantly on it was his article and his questions takes preference. He was properly back by Damn the Man, Jody Beggs.

This is an effort to make him/her feel a little better, I now fulfil my promise I made to him/her.

I also have to give credit to Jody, for making these statements

“Atheism simply says prove it. We will "believe" / understand anything with evidence or verifiable proof. “

In addition, another thread…

“@SharksterII actually there is verifiable evidence for every "theory" scientist's have !

Do you have any ?

If not , just shut the F#$% up !!”

My reply…

“Proof common descent then... DNA proof paternal/maternal link... Shared attribute and charactistic is not proof of common descent, more link common design… My article on phylogentic tree showed it to be a classification system, nothing more... I saw no evidence as prescribed by Science that is was more...

Proof life started out of nonliving matter...”

Which to my surprise he backed up with evidence of something…

“@SharksterII you no making sense , calm down , breath its just your brain starting to realize your faith i based on fiction ...” Forgive the spelling, we are all human, including me…

Now Jody response made one thing clear…

Scientists have proved, when you tell people that scientists discovered something, they will believe it without doubt and “reasonable” evidence.

I asked Jody and SarcasticHeathen to define reasonable, as when the court had trouble with it

The response varied from being a troll and unable to supply evidence. How do one supply evidence that cannot be defined? Is avoiding the question evidence that they do not know…?

There is a couple of “burden of proof"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(rhetoric)

The legal burden of proof

"The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party."

So, here is my questions…

You say the religious lie and commit crime in God's name... the onus is on you that God had a hand in it…

You blame God for all natural Disasters. The onus is on you that God had a hand in it…

You blame God for doing abortions in form of miscarriages. Evidence…?

You said there is no God...again yours and to make it interesting

Read here…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt

Please proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the last statement is true. Kindly not, I am not asking to proof a negative… Because the probability that you can, will limit the possibility that God  does exist… You win, if you can show it.

Philosophic burden of proof

"The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."

Epistemic means "Knowledge or understanding"

Atheism claims knowledge based on scientific evidence.  The knowledge is the lack of evidence and Atheism has a certain position/understanding/ interpretation, hence being life stance you need to justify your position... The onus is yours...

This one below is for Jody personal, but anyone can answer if they feel up to it…

“Note: One view is the objection that there is very little or no knowledge at all—scepticism. The field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge.”

Atheism is known as scepticism and it has a theory… In the quotes above, Jody stated that a theory has evidence…Atheism aligns with Science, and many of them claim to be Scientists. Derek.Meyer comes to mind. Now with that much we can know for certain that that theory of knowledge have evidence… My chance to say “Show me the proof”

I stated in my article “the truth about atheism, that Atheism is the alternative interpretation of the original( but diverse) interpretation of the religious texts. Atheism is a life stance and needs no evidence to prove its position towards “the concept”.

I asked for evidence that the statement was incorrect. The lack of evidence in this case could show that that is was correct. Or is it?

Most anti-religionists (atheists and anti theist) argue that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, yet say the lack of faith is not a faith, nor  an absence of belief isn’t evidence of a belief…

This is evidence of this…

SarcasticHeathen - November 7, 2012 at 20:37

Report commentComments Policy

Lack of evidence, for your case, means you have no case, therefore should quiet down...

It seem the anti-religionists have double standards.

Like the explanation of the philosophical burden of proof says…

"The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."

Atheism is a certain position in life, therefor a “life stance”, now if my statement about atheism is incorrect and a life stance do need evidence, then we have ourselves a little problem here… The onus is on the atheists to proof the position is correct or admit the statement is correct…

Lack of evidence means you have no case, SarcasticHeathen, ne

Then lastly

The Scientific burden of Proof

 Many a person has made their interpretation known about the beliefs ystem, yet few declared it science. I for one never have.

I say there is a clear line between what religion and a belief in God have as objectives, and that what Science have. The issue here is the dichotomy of some people thinking that both can not survive together…

There is no proof that God has been studied in Science…

There is no Proof that Atheism is a field of Science.

Clear evidence that life stance are not scientifically orientated, but built on interpretation, belief and faith…

Most Scientists share this view that God cannot be studied and the Science and belief in God are two different things…

If Atheists belief that the study of science will eventually lead to atheism, it is fine. It is an interpretation of the evidence.

If atheist disagree that atheism has evidence, here would be a good place to post it…

Remember that Science doesn’t have the same objectives as life stances. Let us not use science to proof atheism is better, but show atheism is better based on inherent evidence…

Once we defined who has the onus of proof and by which of the above, then we can set the criteria of what the evidence must be…be it empirical, contemporary or repeative results through experimentation…even define the term “reasonable”