Who has the burden of proof?

[Bunyip]

So we are still beating the bush?....
prove there is?....prove there isn't?

Sorry, but the burden of proof is upon the party claiming that there is.

 

[McBell]

Sorry, but the burden of proof is upon the party claiming that there is.

Seems to me that those who claim god exists have met the burden of proof.
for themselves.

Same goes for those who claim there is no god.

 

[Bunyip]

Seems to me that those who claim god exists have met the burden of proof.
for themselves.

Same goes for those who claim there is no god.

I don't think you have a burden of proof to yourself. Sure, people can believe whatever pleases them.

As to claiming that there is no god - you got that backwards, theists claim that there is a god - atheists doubt that claim.

 

[McBell]

I don't think you have a burden of proof to yourself. Sure, people can believe whatever pleases them.

why not?

Just because some peoples standard for "proof" is lower than others, does not mean they do not employ a burden of proof.

As to claiming that there is no god - you got that backwards, theists claim that there is a god - atheists doubt that claim.

Except for those atheists who do in fact make the claim that there is no god...

 

[Bunyip]

why not?

Just because some peoples standard for "proof" is lower than others, does not mean they do not employ a burden of proof.

Well why not is because it is up to that individual. We all have a right to freedom of thought surely? A burden of proof only manifests when we are trying to convince somebody else.
[/quote]


Except for those atheists who do in fact make the claim that there is no god...[/QUOTE]

What would that have to do with what atheism means? How is that relevant to atheism? If some atheists claim that bigfoot is real, that has nothing to do with atheism.

 

[McBell]

What would that have to do with what atheism means? How is that relevant to atheism? If some atheists claim that bigfoot is real, that has nothing to do with atheism.

Atheism has more than one meaning.
One of those meanings is the belief that god does not exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Atheism has more than one meaning.
One of those meanings is that god does not exist.

Sure, but to take that statement 'god does not exist' and pretend that it really is a claim of absolute knowledge regarding the universal non-existence of any conception of god known or unknown is just a bit silly huh?

It is just a bit of semantic tomfoolery taking a poorly worded claim and then pretending it is a claim of knowledge.

However you word it, atheism still makes no claim of knowledge.

 

[McBell]

Sure, but to take that statement 'god does not exist' and pretend that it really is a claim of absolute knowledge regarding the universal non-existence of any conception of god known or unknown is just a bit silly huh?

It is just a bit of semantic tomfoolery taking a poorly worded claim and then pretending it is a claim of knowledge.

However you word it, atheism still makes no claim of knowledge.

So do theists get the same pass you give atheists?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am glad that most agree with the substance of my argument, that admitting uncertainty is the only rational option. They even go to the extreme of saying that it is so obviously the most rational option that almost everyone is agnostic ( the definition of agnostic is having doubts), that even theists are agnostics!

How many more times must we explain it to you? Just because you believe something doesn't mean you claim certainty.

Unfortunately, the debate has become mere semantics. * It began when I said that the only rational option is uncertainty. I call that (correctly) agnosticism. Some may disagree, but I will stick with the dictionary definition.
Yes, one can be an agnostic that favors theism, an agnostic theist. However, to claim that agnostic theist= theist is improper English.

No, it isn't. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, theism pertains to belief. There's nothing improper about that, and the dictionary definitions you provided yourself confirm that.

I have heard some say that if you are 51% theist, you are a theist. I do not think that beliefs can be quantified, but I’ll provisionally accept that for the time being. That means that only someone 50-50 can be an agnostic!! WOW! That means that there must be 2 or 3 agnostics in the whole world!!!

Agnosticism isn't some magical position somehow directly in-between atheism and theism, no matter how many people misunderstand it like that. Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive - you cannot be both or neither. You either believe there is a God or you do not believe there is a God, just as you either collect stamps or you do not collect stamps, or you either own a giraffe or your do not own a giraffe. There is no middle-ground possible. Agnosticism does not exist between the two, because NOTHING can exist between the two. Agnosticism is a separate, although related, position with regards to KNOWLEDGE as a-posed to BELIEF. They are two separate things, and knowledge and belief are neither the same thing nor mutually exclusive.

And yes there are theists (those that have no doubt that God exists). It’s called faith.

That's not the definition of a theist. A theist is someone who BELIEVES God exists, but how CERTAIN they are of that proposition is irrelevant. It's about BELIEF, not KNOWLEDGE.

* Arguing about the definition of words is a simple man’s way to enter a philosophical debate. I have never been fascinated by arguments about grammar. Yes, I confess that sometimes I don’t capitalize “i”! Anyway, I can live with knowing that when some people say “theist” they are actually saying “agnostic theist”. A theist with doubts is not an agnostic?!
I think the fanaticism and emotionalism over a minor issue of grammar is because people feel insulted to be called an agnostic. In fact it is the most rational stance ( that one is not absolutely sure). Unfortunately, they think "agnostic' means being indecisive and/or non-committal ( in the negative sense) to the big questions.

This isn't just an issue of grammar. It's a problem with you not understanding the actual application of words, their definitions, and the simple fact (which is absolutely essential in this debate) that there's a difference between a claim of belief and a claim of knowledge. If you cannot distinguish between them, you have no business being in this debate, and if you still don't understand why the differentiation exists despite everyone on here repeatedly explaining it to you and telling you that you are wrong then I see no purpose in continuing to discuss anything with you.

As for the argument that atheism is the lack of belief. That is not incorrect. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.

The very dictionary definitions you yourself provided contradict you entirely:

ATHEIST
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The word "disbelieve" means "to not believe" or "to lack belief". You are factually wrong.

 

[idav]

Well no problem - atheism does not make that assumption.

WELL, lets go with an old chestnut.
Change deity of choice for Loch ness monster.
Assuming you don't believe in Nessie, is your thought that Nessie doesn't exist supportable?
What proof of non distance of Nessie is there, or is there only a lack of positive evidence ?

And are you taking all atheism here, or just gnostic atheism

I would beg to differ.

It's far more supportable than theism, at least in regards to Abrahamic monotheism.

Science has shown that a God (any God, not just abrahamic) is not necessary as a creator for the world we live in.

Logic and reason should lead you to doubt it's existence, if you actually employ a bit of critical thinking. Unfortunately, it takes a complete lack of critical thinking to accept a book as the true word of god, when it is demonstrably chock full of contradictions, half truths, and complete misinformation.

At least that's the way I see it.

I mean to say the burden is for the one claiming something exists. Atheism is a counter to a claim that god exists. By default theists made the first claim.

 

[Bunyip]

I mean to say the burden is for the one claiming something exists. Atheism is a counter to a claim that god exists. By default theists made the first claim.

Agreed.

 

[RitalinOhD]

I mean to say the burden is for the one claiming something exists. Atheism is a counter to a claim that god exists. By default theists made the first claim.

Partly true.

Atheism doesn't counter the claim God exists. It's the polar opposite of "Belief in a god.".

Lack of belief is just lack of belief. It makes no condemnation of a positive claim of knowledge.

 

[Thief]

Sorry, but the burden of proof is upon the party claiming that there is.

or the party claiming there is not....

 

[Sapiens]

or the party claiming there is not....

Now ... we've been through that and you know better.

 

[Bunyip]

or the party claiming there is not....

No. The burden of proof is on the party claiming that there is.

 

[Thief]

No. The burden of proof is on the party claiming that there is.

Nay again.....your declaration there is no God must be supported.

Got a reason not to believe?.....any excuse at all?

 

[Thief]

Now ... we've been through that and you know better.

Yeah....I do know better.

I cannot stand before heaven and plead ignorance!

 

[Bunyip]

Nay again.....your declaration there is no God must be supported.

Got a reason not to believe?.....any excuse at all?

Of course I have a reason not to believe - and it is as good a reason to reject a claim as there could possibly be.

There is no evidence to suggest that god exists.

 

[Thief]

Of course I have a reason not to believe - and it is as good a reason to reject a claim as there could possibly be.

There is no evidence to suggest that god exists.

There is no evidence to say He does not.

(try looking up and consider the laws of motion)

 

[Bunyip]

There is no evidence to say He does not.

So what? You need evidence that he does exist, not that he does not.

(try looking up and consider the laws of motion)

Look that up yourself, the 'laws of motion' only apply to classical physics. That they do not apply universally was established in your grandfather's time.