Why do you Atheist guys make fun of religion then ducks a debate?

[GGG Gloveking]

Yeah I do.

Sounds a little hypocritical to me. Formulate an idea, then come talk to me

[Hype job]

Sounds a little hypocritical to me. Formulate an idea, then come talk to me

Why should I have to?

It's beyond the scope of even the brightest minds in history to fathom, "I dunno" should suffice. I'm not claiming shyt.

You claim God did it, offer the sufficient proof.

[GGG Gloveking]

Why should I have to?

It's beyond the scope of even the brightest minds in history to fathom, "I dunno" should suffice. I'm not claiming shyt.

You claim God did it, offer the sufficient proof.

No need. "I dunno" suffices for you

[JJRod]

Why should I have to?

It's beyond the scope of even the brightest minds in history to fathom, "I dunno" should suffice. I'm not claiming shyt.

You claim God did it, offer the sufficient proof.

They won't. They don't understand the onus is on the person making the claim. Even that seems to be beyond their understanding.

[GGG Gloveking]

They won't. They don't understand the onus is on the person making the claim. Even that seems to be beyond their understanding.

For one thing, believers readily admit that their belief is a matter of faith in the unseen. Atheists contend believers faith is fairy tales, and laud science and theory as superior to faith. Yet when asked to apply your own scientific process to your superior theorem, the response is, "Oh no, you have to prove God exists."

For another thing, atheism should be held to the onus of proof. It has been conventional wisdom for thousands of years that there has been God. This conventional wisdom is being challenged, and the challengers should be prove their theory

[-Kev-]

I'm agnostic but I actually don't like arguing about this stuff, I do it to troll but i'm not serious in the insults I throw. I've had good convos with believers that stay civil from beginning to end. It's fun to troll in boxingscene though. My actual take on it is: Idk and idc, about the subject of god. I can't disprove it, you can't prove there's a god. You can believe in whatever you want, even the flying spaghetti monster.

[Straight Up]

uuuuuhm duh? they are atheist they don't believe in that bullshit so what is there to debate about?

[Straight Up]

I'm agnostic but I actually don't like arguing about this stuff, I do it to troll but i'm not serious in the insults I throw. I've had good convos with believers that stay civil from beginning to end. It's fun to troll in boxingscene though. My actual take on it is: Idk and idc, about the subject of god. I can't disprove it, you can't prove there's a god. You can believe in whatever you want, even the flying spaghetti monster.

this! even the jiu jitsu guys think the world is flat.

[JJRod]

For one thing, believers readily admit that their belief is a matter of faith in the unseen. Atheists contend believers faith is fairy tales, and laud science and theory as superior to faith. Yet when asked to apply your own scientific process to your superior theorem, the response is, "Oh no, you have to prove God exists."

For another thing, atheism should be held to the onus of proof. It has been conventional wisdom for thousands of years that there has been God. This conventional wisdom is being challenged, and the challengers should be prove their theory

Atheism should be held to the onus of proof?
Why? We're not claiming anything exist.
Even without the "lauding" of the science (which im sorry but its clear you dont really understand) we can say that there is no God because there is no proof. So again the onus is on YOU, the person making the claim to provide proof.

And by the way conventional wisdom doesn't mean anything. For years conventional wisdom was that the earth was the center of the universe and the stars and sun revolved around the earth. You don't still believe that do you?

[GGG Gloveking]

Atheism should be held to the onus of proof?
Why? We're not claiming anything exist.
Even without the "lauding" of the science (which im sorry but its clear you dont really understand) we can say that there is no God because there is no proof. So again the onus is on YOU, the person making the claim to provide proof.

And by the way conventional wisdom doesn't mean anything. For years conventional wisdom was that the earth was the center of the universe and the stars and sun revolved around the earth. You don't still believe that do you?

Exactly. Conventional wisdom held that the earth was the center of the universe until science proved otherwise. Here again, we have conventional wisdom and science hasn't seemed to prove otherwise yet