Atheists are hypocrites

Yeah, like I said, I disagree with it. The existence of a transcendent realm is a matter of faith, you have faith that it doesn’t exist, and I’ll add that you are very dogmatic about your faith.

I never claimed an external realm doesn't exist nor is that my position. You made that up so that you could claim my beliefs are just as irrational as yours.

Yes, you did.  That puerile burden of proof game you play isn’t valid, it demonstrates that you do not understand logic.  “You have the burden of proof so I’m right” isn’t a logical argument. 

I never made that argument. You’re once again, having a conversation in your head.

The burden of proof is a very basic philosophic principal rooted in skepticism. It’s not just a matter of external validation, far more importantly, it’s about internal validation. If you believe something you should have a good reason (aka evidence) for it. Without such reason, to continue to hold the belief is by definition irrational.

External validation here is simply the test of whether you actually have good reason, which is why those who aren’t interested in filtering out irrational beliefs hate talking about it.

So no, this has nothing to do with “winning” (a remarkably childish interpretation). Accepting the burden of proof as a valid principal governing acceptable thought is a prerequisite for having a rational dialog. So when you disregard it you show that you are not interested in that, at which point there is no reason to discuss anything with you.

--> @Double_R

Yeah, like I said, I disagree with it. The existence of a transcendent realm is a matter of faith, you have faith that it doesn’t exist, and I’ll add that you are very dogmatic about your faith.

I never claimed an external realm doesn't exist nor is that my position. You made that up so that you could claim my beliefs are just as irrational as yours.

If you read carefully, you will note that it says "transcendent realm", but since you are on the subject, if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist (don't bother to say you didn't say that, simple logic applies), so with that assertion you have the burden of proof, and since you cannot prove it, your beliefs are irrational.  

Yes, you did.  That puerile burden of proof game you play isn’t valid, it demonstrates that you do not understand logic.  “You have the burden of proof so I’m right” isn’t a logical argument. 

I never made that argument. You’re once again, having a conversation in your head.

The burden of proof is a very basic philosophic principal rooted in skepticism. It’s not just a matter of external validation, far more importantly, it’s about internal validation. If you believe something you should have a good reason (aka evidence) for it. Without such reason, to continue to hold the belief is by definition irrational.

External validation here is simply the test of whether you actually have good reason, which is why those who aren’t interested in filtering out irrational beliefs hate talking about it.

So no, this has nothing to do with “winning” (a remarkably childish interpretation). Accepting the burden of proof as a valid principal governing acceptable thought is a prerequisite for having a rational dialog. So when you disregard it you show that you are not interested in that, at which point there is no reason to discuss anything with you.

I'm fully aware of the articles of faith for your fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;

Faith:

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." - Eric Hoffer

if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist (don't bother to say you didn't say that, simple logic applies)

I'm fully aware of the articles of faith for your fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;

Faith:

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." - Eric Hoffer

--> @Sidewalker

if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist (don't bother to say you didn't say that, simple logic applies)

That’s not how logic works.

You’re confusing the actual with the question of what one believes regarding the actual.

An external realm either exists or it does not exist. There are no other options.

I do not need to take a position on whether it does or does not exist. I can simply say “I don’t know”, and reject either claim as irresolvable since we have no access to such a realm or any product of it if something such as it were to exist.

A simpler way to think of it; a man in Texas has been accused of beating his wife. Do you believe he did it, or do you believe he didn’t do it?

If you are anything resembling a rational person, your response to this is something to the effect of ‘neither, because I do not have the information needed to make such an assessment’

This is the same thing.

I'm fully aware of the articles of faith for your fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;

Faith:

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." - Eric Hoffer

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything a I just said.

if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist (don't bother to say you didn't say that, simple logic applies)

That’s not how logic works.

You’re confusing the actual with the question of what one believes regarding the actual.

An external realm either exists or it does not exist. There are no other options.

I do not need to take a position on whether it does or does not exist. I can simply say “I don’t know”, and reject either claim as irresolvable since we have no access to such a realm or any product of it if something such as it were to exist.

A simpler way to think of it; a man in Texas has been accused of beating his wife. Do you believe he did it, or do you believe he didn’t do it?

If you are anything resembling a rational person, your response to this is something to the effect of ‘neither, because I do not have the information needed to make such an assessment’

This is the same thing.

I'm fully aware of the articles of faith for your fundamentalist atheism. Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;

Faith:

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." - Eric Hoffer

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything a I just said.

if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist

“Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief”

LOL, if your thought process is so incoherent that you cannot connect the dots, then perhaps you should stop with the constantly declaring yourself to be more logical and rational, it’s got to be embarrassing. Let me try to dumb it down for you, try to follow along, you were blathering on and on about how anyone having faith carries a burden of proof, since it is clear that you don’t understand the definition of faith, I provided it for you.  Please try to understand that when you are discussing something with someone, you don’t just wait for your turn to talk, you read what they say and respond to it, and then they read what you said and they respond, it’s a process, there is a sequence to it.  Now carefully try to comprehend this next thing because it’s important, maybe reading very slowly will help.  Logic involves inference and grasping the interrelation or sequence of statements, if you can’t comprehend inference or how a sequence of staements are related to each other, then you just aren’t capable of being logical.  You are asserting total ignorance of the subject matter, and demonstrating that you lack even the capacity for logic, to then proclaim yourself more rational and logical is ludicrous. Now with that in mind, go back and read these conversations again, recognize the constant back and forth where I keep saying Theism is a matter of “faith” and you keep saying that faith carries a burden of proof, then try to grasp how the sentences are related to each other, then note that I provided the dictionary definition of faith; “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”, especially the last part about not being based on proof.  Now try to do that logical inference thing, and try to follow along with the sequence of statements, see if you can grasp the connections and perhaps understand logic.

basically,

"go back and read this entire conversation over again, and if you still don't agree with me, you are not intelligent"

does that sound about right ?

“Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief”,

knowledge is simply data

people obviously have knowledge of both "unjustified" and "untrue" things

if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist

'If it is not your position that a gumball machine contains an even number of gumballs, then it is your position that the gumballs machine contains an odd number of gumballs.'

This is absurd reasoning.

“Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief”,

Agreed. However, it should be pointed out, faith is not a reasonable basis for justification as there is no position that cannot be held on faith. Faith is not a pathway to knowledge. 

knowledge is simply data

people obviously have knowledge of both "unjustified" and "untrue" things

Do they? Can you give examples of 'unjustified' knowledge?

I provided the definition of faith, the argument is that, by definition, faith does not carry a burfen of proof.  

Do they? Can you give examples of 'unjustified' knowledge?

The number of gumballs is either odd or even, that is not absurd reasoning.

--> @SkepticalOne

Do they? Can you give examples of 'unjustified' knowledge?

can you perhaps provide an example of "justified & true" knowledge ?

The crucifixion is justified and true knowledge.

The number of gumballs is either odd or even, that is not absurd reasoning.

That is not what you've been advocating. You are suggesting dismissing a claim of even (based on faith alone, not evidence) is equivalent to making an alternative claim of odd. That is absurd. That is not how logic works.

As you said, any position can be held of faith, Theism and Atheism are both matters of faith. 

To say you simply lack belief is to say you simply have no knowledge, its an assertion of total ignorance of the subject matter. 

I provided the definition of faith, the argument is that, by definition, faith does not carry a burfen of proof.  

I provided the definition of faith, the argument is that, by definition, faith does not carry a burfen of proof.  

i have faith in spacealiens

and the burden of proof is on you to "prove me wrong"

three two one go

I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STORIES IN THE BIBLE

I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STORIES IN THE BIBLE

I believe the Bible has a story about a worldwide flood. Anyone can read the Bible and recognize my belief is justified - ie. knowledge.

--> @Shila

The crucifixion is justified and true knowledge.

do you also accept the visitation of the angel moroni in the book of mormon ?

is moroni "justified & true" knowledge ?

can you perhaps provide an example of "justified & true" knowledge ?

Faith, by definition, does not carry a burden of proof, and no matter how many times you repeat, it will not become valid.  

can you perhaps provide an example of "justified & true" knowledge ?

The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.

can you perhaps provide an example of "justified & true" knowledge ?

The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.

that's an example of a tautology

The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.

that's an example of a tautology

I disagree and do not follow your reasoning.