Atheist believe they don't have any obligation in this discussion to bring forward any proof. How often do you see a atheist say "You say there is a God or Gods, prove they exists". Well, what are the obligations if a atheist comes forward to a theist or deist and says, "There is no God" and we ask "Well what is your premise or what are you bringing to convince me your position is correct?" The burden of proof shifts to the person making the claim, atheists often wish this was not the case, that they can say "Well, the problem of Evil is what provides evidence that Gods dont exist" or "Since I was born, who gave birth to the gods?" Instead of bringing forward any meaningful dialogue, we get stuck in a useless dialogue where the person making the claim appears to wrongly think they don't have the responsibility to convince us with evidence and proof their argument is strongest "Atheism makes the most sense because theists can't answer my ojections" Well, what did the Atheist actually say to the theist that was so compelling tous, we decided to join their side? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense or we really should dimiss anything we are not observing or taking place, I see the clips and pastes by people who never went to college, pastes by people who insult themselves by making insane statements. I remember when a few users on JWN were posting that 90% of JWs were mentally ill and mooch off the Government and all the people they find are sick in the head not doing anything productive for society. Can you find where the writers just attacked the majority of JWN while members of JWN were enjoying this post not realizing by default, they 9 out of 10 are insane or mentally ill, milking the government or sponges off government aid.
I was reading the notes of a debate where Dr. Richard Dawkins is speaking about all the scientist pre-1800 (Isaac Newton (greatest scientist ever) Leibeniz, Pascal, Pasteur, and Newtonian Calculous, Pasteur's (destroyed spontaneous generation, his experiment proved that life could not come out of nothing, read his experiment and how the scientific community thought Pasteur was stupid not to accept the prevailing and accepted idea that "life emerges from nothing or non-existence", what do you think Pasteur would say to a person who said "I don't belive origin of life came from anything, just emerged from a nothingness and beyond random chance odds?
The debate continues with Dawkins saying that all the scientist made the mistake of thinking that "Since everything around us gives off the impression it was created, we must ignore that false thinking." Scientist were tricked by how incredibly structured Life is on earth, they allowed themselves to be fooled by their person presuppositions and falsely gave credit to a Designer because everything to the scientist prior to the "Enlightenment Period", made sense aftertheir discoveries to say, "oh, that's how the God or gods did this" instead it's "Oh, that's how Natural Selection and Blind Mechanics opperate.
Dawkins continues and say's "We are too easily fooled by things like DNA or Junk DNA with faulty comparisons." His faulty comparions idea is driven by a concept that humans are not prone to examine something really incredibly complex and say "Oh, this must have just happened and all the DNA encoding was not really encoded, Blind and Unguided forces through multipule trials and errors in Evolutions Labraotory, would keep the good products and destroy the bad ones (Blind Chance and Natural Selection".
It still is not proven we emerged from a pre-biotic soup, I watched him beg the question and say "life came from aliens or outerspace" another scientist arguing said "Something non-temporal and beyond this dimension and without a corporal form might have started life but it was not God or gods." These are the arguments we are to find enlightening?