Atheist vs Theist - THE BURDEN OF PROOF EXPLAINED! (UKA)

THE BURDEN OF PROOF EXPLAINED! (UKA)

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• HE
• BURDEN
• OF
• PROOF
• FOR
• GEGINNERS
• (UKA)
• I'm
• here
• UKA
• BACK
• and
• PWNS
• five
• thirty
• fivethirty
• the
• Atheist
• Kila
• elliot
• argument
• debunked
• Richard
• Dawkins
• on
• Stephen
• Colbert
• Fry
• theUKatheist
• Lawrence
• Krauss
• Universe
• From
• Nothing
• The
• Bill
• O'really
• Song
• by
• nicepeter
• nice
• peter
• epic
• bill
• o'reillye
• liberal
• republican
• ible
• creationism
• Experience
• UKatheist
• uk
• theukathesit
• God
• Religion
• Christianity
• yt:stretch=16:9
• Alan
• Darwin

[UKALogic]

@Hippieboy1547 the oh so popular banana argument. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when seeing that. Laugh at the stupidity or cry at the fact that people in this day and age can really be that stupid.

[Christheatheist1]

The Bible. I am constantly surprised at how many times I get this circular argument. "God is real because it says so in the Bible." "The bible is the inspired word of God because it says so in the Bible!" LOL!

[JEL625]

hmmm the dumbest proof....

"evolution is a lie because there were no animals on earth wen it happened"

yes this guy was serious

[yourtreat2]

@KALogic I've not only Favoritted this Vid, but I reference it in one of my Playlists. As I mention to you in my Comment below, this is an important precept of Logic that is often forgotten by Atheists who decide to debate a Theist. It is THE ONE AND ONLY essential issue that provides the logical argument that should be well understood by Theists and Atheists, as well. Thanks for creating and posting this Vid...

[yourtreat2]

@KALogic This is the essence of the essential argument based on the precepts of Logic that form the basis for our accepting Atheism as the logical response to Theism and all superstitious beliefs.

Thanks for posting this Vid.

All too often Atheists get side-tracked by accepting an argument of a Theist that puts the Burden of Proof upon the Atheist, rather than the Theist. For that reason, it is important to remind Atheists of the precepts of Logic articulated (so well) within this Vid.Thanks.

[am101171]

The worst should be "because X says" where X is whom ever person, generally holding some authority or recognition, as it shows no knowledge, or effort to obtain it, nor any personal understanding of any kind, but an attitude of copying mindlessly, while nullifying their own reasoning and decision capacities. But this does not happen only among theist.

[am101171]

Also some Atheist are in reality Anti Theist( for their own respectable reasons) and that is also a claim, which is that theism is bad and dangerous. Aside from this points, you can prove a negative by evidence of absence, proof of impossibility, proof of unfalsifiable argument. This last I would argue as if I had to define God I would do it as an unfalsifiable concept, but then I would keep it to myself.

[am101171]

Hi UKALogic, Interesting post, I think Atheism is not as you say a rejection of a claim, is more like no claim in its purest form, and when you are not making a claim you wouldn't have to prove anything. But when you try to prove to a theist that God does not exist (as Reiltzik says) you are making a claim, at least one, and that is that there is no evidence of the existence of God, which may be true or not, but it is still is a claim.

[danieldvs100]

worst excus?

"DNA has to have a mind behind it, it can react on its on, needs a higher power".

[WhyWorshipEvilGod]

@DaToNyOyO that would be Josephus. His writings do mention Jesus, but those are considered forgerys.

[tuggleprentiss]

@AguilaTX2011-- While some historians have criticized the first account in Book 18 as being too glowing an account of Jesus and thus suspect, no historian has said anything like that about the casual mention of Jesus in Book 20. No historian that I am aware of has ever asserted the second mention was a later addition.

[AguilaTX2011]

@tuggleprentiss : Historians have dismissed those as later aditional info to the original text. still...christians 0... truth 1

[Reltzik]

I'll have to disagree -- moderately -- with this video. The burden of proof naturally falls upon the person attempting persuasion. If an atheist attempts to persuade a theist, the atheist needs to offer evidence, or else the persuasion fails. The same vice verse. Private believers don't need our stamp of approval for their beliefs.

Most absurd: Sand castles don't spontaneously pop into existence, ergo evolution is a lie. Nevermind that they don't reproduce and thus evolution nixes them.