Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

Rubbish. Most atheists, like me, do not say "there is no God." Instead, we are much more likely to say, "I can see no reason whatever to believe in the existence of a God, so I don't believe it." And that's all. There is no burden of proof involved in stating a lack of belief arising from a lack of reason to believe.

Granted, but when an argument is presented, you are expect to ether

1 refute the argument

2 justify your atheism given that argument (perhaps by presented a better argument in favor of atheism)

3 admit your ignorance, claim that “you don’t know” and become an agnostic

4 accept the argument and become a theist
(or latest move a step towards theism)

 

[blü 2]

Wrong. I can lay claim to having witnessed cosmic consciousness as well as spiritual unity. Your comment is nothing more than atheistic ignorance.

We're talking about objective reality here. Objective reality is the world external to the self ─ 'nature', if you like. We know about it through our senses.

If you've witnessed cosmic consciousness in objective reality, first, what is your definition of "cosmic consciousness"? What are we actually talking about, looking for?

If you say it has objective existence, is found in nature, then what is your objective demonstration of its existence?
A video? An unambiguous instrument reading?

 

[We Never Know]

I'm not sure that is correct, since a belief is the private affirmation of a claim that something is true, when you assert that belief you are in effect claiming something is true.

If I don't like bananas and claim they taste crappy..it has nothing to do with belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Granted, but when an argument is presented, you are expect to ether

1 refute the argument

2 justify your atheism given that argument (perhaps by presented a better argument in favor of atheism)

3 admit your ignorance, claim that “you don’t know” and become an agnostic

4 accept the argument and become a theist
(or latest move a step towards theism)

I've never been presented with an argument for the existence of a deity that was even remotely convincing. You could tell me you believe in Bigfoot because your grandmother told you, and there's a grainy picture that could be a guy in a fur suit, and I would not go to any effort at all to refute that argument, while I would continue to accept that Bigfoot ain't around.

In the same way, the most usual arguments for the existence of God is that somebody wrote some stuff, and some other people believed it. There's nothing remotely compelling about that which makes me feel as if I need to refute it out-of-hand.

 

[leroy]

I've never been presented with an argument for the existence of a deity that was even remotely convincing. You could tell me you believe in Bigfoot because your grandmother told you, and there's a grainy picture that could be a guy in a fur suit, and I would not go to any effort at all to refute that argument, while I would continue to accept that Bigfoot ain't around.

In the same way, the most usual arguments for the existence of God is that somebody wrote some stuff, and some other people believed it. There's nothing remotely compelling about that which makes me feel as if I need to refute it out-of-hand.

Yes If my grandmother tells me that she had an unambiguous experience where she saw an “ape-man” with her own eyes, i would believe in big foot or at least I would move a step towards beliving in it-

Or else, I would have to provide good reasons to think why my grandma was likely mistaken or lying.

 

[questfortruth]

Most atheists, like me, do not say "there is no God." Instead, we are much more likely to say, "I can see no reason whatever to believe in the existence of a God, so I don't believe it."

TRANSLATION:
"Evangelicalhumanist's personal unscientific opinion is what there is no God." Why unscientific? Because there is no hypothesis of God's non-existence in Science yet.

 

[Sheldon]

In the case of God, there are many things that have no explanation , that that could be explained if God exists. … (the fine tuning of the universe would be an example)

That's pure assumption, and the universe isn't fine tuned, that's just a subjective expression. Invoking unevidenced and inexplicable magic has no explanatory powers at all.

 

[Sheldon]

There is nothing in the universe that lacks an explanation and that would be explained if stegosauruses exist today.

In the case of God, there are many things that have no explanation , that that could be explained if God exists. … (the fine tuning of the universe would be an example)

If we ever find say a fresh stegosaurus bone, it would be reasonable to conclude that stegosauruses are still alive………………. No body would say “ohhh that’s a stegosaurus of the gaps argumnet” just because we don’t know how the fresh bones got there that doesn’t mean that there are living stegosaurus today. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, maybe there is an unknown natural mechanism that makes the bones look young , when in reality they are millions of years old.

My point (and relevant to the OP) is that even though the burden proof is on the guy who claims that there are living stegosaurus today , once the evidence is presented, (fresh bones for example) the skeptic is expected to interact with the evidence and refute it. …………….. it would be silly to say “no no no , first you have to disprove all possible explanations, (including all unknown natural mechanisms) and only then you can propose your “stegosaurus theory”

In other words the skeptic is expected to refute say the” FT argument for the existence of God”, ether by disproving one of the premises, or by showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow , or by providing a better alternative.

We have sufficient objective evidence that an extant stegosaurus is possible, we have no such objective evidence that any deity is possible.

 

[Sheldon]

TRANSLATION:
"Evangelicalhumanist's personal unscientific opinion is what there is no God." Why unscientific? Because there is no hypothesis of God's non-existence in Science yet.

What does the evidence for non-existence look like exactly?

 

[questfortruth]

What does the evidence for non-existence look like exactly?

Hence, it is unscientific to say: "I am atheist."

 

[Sheldon]

Granted, but when an argument is presented, you are expect to ether

1 refute the argument

2 justify your atheism given that argument (perhaps by presented a better argument in favor of atheism)

3 admit your ignorance, claim that “you don’t know” and become an agnostic

4 accept the argument and become a theist
(or latest move a step towards theism)

I don't believe you can argue anything into existence of course, but I have never seen any rational argument for any deity. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, and a lack of belief is epistemologically justified by a claim not being supported by sufficient objective evidence, and I have never seen any objective evidence for any deity.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
What does the evidence for non-existence look like exactly?

Hence, it is unscientific to say: "I am atheist."

I never said you were an atheist, in fact I never made any claim, I asked a question that was apropos to your assertion, and you seem to have entirely ignored it, care to try again?

 

[questfortruth]

Invoking unevidenced and inexplicable magic

The Christian God is not a magician. He makes wonders, not damn magic.

 

[Sheldon]

The Christian God is not a magician. He makes wonders, not damn magic.

Oh so you can give a detailed and evidenced explanation of how this deity "makes wonders"? Please do enthral us with your acumen then, I am max attentive to be sure...

 

[questfortruth]

Oh so you can give a detailed and evidenced account of how this deity "makes wonders"? Please do enthral us with your acumen then, I am max attentive to be sure...

Despite all scientific development, the Mystery will never be resolved. Mystery of Nature will remain forever.
Hence, there can be wonderful God, who makes wonders.

 

[Sheldon]

The Christian God is not a magician. He makes wonders, not damn magic.

Oh so you can give a detailed and evidenced explanation of how this deity "makes wonders"? Please do enthral us with your acumen then, I am max attentive to be sure...

the Mystery will never be resolved. Mystery of Nature will remain forever. Hence, there can be wonderful God, who makes wonders.

So that's a no then. So these wonders are performed by using mysterious forces then, is that right? So magic then, by definition.

 

[questfortruth]

So these wonders are performed by using mysterious forces then, is that right? So magic then, by definition.

Do not insult the God, do not accuse Him of sin. He is not magician, He is not a witch.

Look the correct use of words:

Police executes criminals, but criminals murder people.

Army executes enemies, but enemies murder people.

God makes wonders, but satan makes magic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the case of God, there are many things that have no explanation , that that could be explained if God exists. … (the fine tuning of the universe would be an example)

The fact that you couldn't back up this tired claim of yours in any of the many times you trotted it out inclines me not to give it any weight at all.

 

[leroy]

We have sufficient objective evidence that an extant stegosaurus is possible, E]

Really and what is that evidence?

we have no such objective evidence that any deity is possible.

Who knows ? Specially because you are unable (or unwilling) to explain what you mean by objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Do not insult the God, do not accuse Him of sin. He is not magician, He is not a witch.

1. I never mentioned sin or witches, so those are straw men fallacies.
2. You just said the wonders you think he performs, are and will remain a mystery.

Look the correct use of words:

Magic
noun

1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Dear oh dear...