Bible

The bible is only evidence that the bible exists.

there's no evidence to disprove. also, the bible cited Jesus Christ and we found physical proof of his existence.

Because its an unfalsifiable hypothesis, you cannot disprove them and you don't need to either. The disbelievers do not bear the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on people who claim to know what resides in reality. It falls in the category of any other unfalsifiable hypothesis like dragons and fairies. Even if there's proof of Jesus its not proof that he was the son of god or any other supernatural claims. But you're not willing to budge because you've heard all of this before and you refuse it even though its irrefutable.

people who claim He doesn't exist have the same burden of proof, except they shift the focus and burden to the believers. the problem for the nonbelievers is that Judaism and the Hebrews as well as Christianity and Islam have been around longer than the doubts have. these religions refer to (particularly Christianity) actual interactions with Him. in addition, we have physical proof of His existence. these acts were recorded in the books of the bible because they were worth recording for teaching future generations. the stories have been recited for millennia. only within the last century or so have more people started to not believe in God or Jesus Christ. this stems from our furthered scientific understanding of our world. the problem is that the more we learn, the more we [i]think[/i] we know, no matter how little we actually [i]do[/i] know.

Anti-theism bears a burden of proof because it claims that no gods exist. Atheism does not claim this. Atheism is the position that theism has not met it's burden of proof so we do not believe the claims. You don't need to prove that you don't believe in something.

that's just a cop-out. anti-theists and atheists both said prove it. for a while, the only proof was the Christian bible/Qur'an/Tanakh. then one day, physical proof was found. the theists said, here's your proof. you said He doesn't exist, well He did. now the anti-theists/atheists say, that's not proof enough. now prove His acts to be true. the problem is that unless he comes back from the dead, this can't be done. so anti-theists/atheists have created a cycle where there will never be enough proof. miracles and karma, which to believers is God at work, is discounted as happenstance by anti-theists/atheists. no matter how many miracles, no matter where or when Christ's face appears (i'll admit some of those images seem crazy), anti-theists/atheists will never be satisfied with any proof provided short of Christ himself coming before them. there was a neat story told about a local doctor where i live. this doctor was an atheist like yourself. he believed he knew it all. well, one day he was in an accident and wound up in a coma. in this coma, he saw a beautiful woman riding an eagle. he'd never seen this woman before in his life. as he rode with her , he spontaneously recognized her. when he awoke from his coma, he said this woman who came to him in his dream was his sister. upon further investigation, he found out that he had a sister that was separated from him not long after his birth, yet he knew what she looked like as an adult. in the end he met her, happy ending, etc. this moment in his life turned him from atheism to Christianity, but unless this happens to every atheis/anti-theist, then there will never be enough proof.

If you fail to recognize the difference between those two distinct positions then we can no longer move forward. Anti-theism and atheism are not the same its a fact.

but the way they handle theism is. they both request proof of existence, but have no proof of non-existence themselves. you said you needed proof, you are given millenia of recited tales and physical recordings. you say it's not enough and dismiss it. whether you are anti-theist or atheist (and i don't know if you're even sure which you are by your response to religion as an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" was it?), there is never going to be enough proof to satisfy you.

I don't want you to feel like I'm smart or an asshole. From my point of view I had to inform myself. Watch this real quick.

so what is your point? all i saw was an atheist (i only watched first 2 mins; tl-dw) beating up an uneducated Christian. i saw nothing else. it's from a morning infomercial-styled shows who screen callers and only picks the ones they want to use to prove a point. beside, this deviates from [i]our[/i] conversation and does nothing to further your point. it's just a video of an educated person talking down to an uneducated person. i would also go as far as to say based on the atheists' defensive posturing and aggressive conversation tactics (he interrupted the caller and played to his audience by quickly and aggressively funneling his open-ended questions down to "yes or no"), that they may border more on anti-theism than atheism. so the question becomes, do you know which one you really are?

Anti-theism.

so now that we have figured out your religious alignment, we could continue our dialogue. i do belive, however, that it would be in vain. i am glad to have helped you learn something about yourself today though. God bless.

You can't leave, your book tells you that you have to convert me or kill me. Sun fun DUNN!