Who has the burden of proof?

[Skwim]

I know what it is called. Giving it a name doesn't explain it however. "Why do they have faith" is the exact same question.

In a single word, need.

People need to trust that there's a supreme being who will guide and give them comfort. Just as we as drivers need to trust (have faith) that the other car coming up to an uncontrolled intersection after we do will acknowledge the rules of courteous driving and allow us to cross the intersection before they do, and not slam into the side of our car. Without such faith life would be quite difficult, if not nerve wracking.

 

[adi2d]

In a single word, need.

People need to trust that there's a supreme being who will guide and give them comfort. Just as we as drivers need to trust (have faith) that the other car coming up to an uncontrolled intersection after we do will acknowledge the rules of courteous driving and allow us to cross the intersection before they do, and not slam into the side of our car. Without such faith life would be quite difficult, if not nerve wracking.

Not sure where you get your "rules for courteous driving" but the law of the road is that an unmarked intersection should be treated as a 4 way stop. No faith required

 

[Skwim]

Not sure where you get your "rules for courteous driving" but the law of the road is that an unmarked intersection should be treated as a 4 way stop.

So you stop at every uncontrolled intersection? Sorry, but I don't believe it. And there's no such law. Moreover, a four-way stop requires everyone coming from any direction to stop, even if there's no other traffic in the vicinity. I will also add that at uncontrolled intersections in the USA, if two cars arrive at approximately the same time, the driver to the left of the the other is suppose to yield to the driver on their right.

 

[McBell]

So you stop at every uncontrolled intersection? Sorry, but I don't believe it. And there's no such law. Moreover, a four-way stop requires everyone coming from any direction to stop, even if there's no other traffic in the vicinity. I will also add that at uncontrolled intersections in the USA, if two cars arrive at approximately the same time, the driver to the left of the the other is suppose to yield to the driver on their right.

What do you mean by "uncontrolled intersection"?

First thing that came to my mind was a traffic light that was out.
If so, then adi2d is correct.
At least here in the USA.


I do not know of any intersections that are "uncontrolled"...

 

[Skwim]

What do you mean by "uncontrolled intersection"?

First thing that came to my mind was a traffic light that was out.
If so, then adi2d is correct.
At least here in the USA.

Uncontrolled intersections lack anything, usually a fixed sign of some sort, telling a driver what they have to do: stop, go, yield, turn right, etc. Intersections where traffic lights are out are to be treated as four-way stops, just as if each corner had a stop sign perched on a metal pole.

I do not know of any intersections that are "uncontrolled"...

See HERE

 

[McBell]

Uncontrolled intersections lack anything, usually a fixed sign of some sort, telling a driver what they have to do: stop, go, yield, turn right, etc. Intersections where traffic lights are out are to be treated as four-way stops, just as if each corner had a stop sign perched on a metal pole.

Where might I find one?

one of these alleged "uncontrolled intersection"

 

[Skwim]

Where might I find one?

one of these alleged "uncontrolled intersection"

[youtube]qwhEzxJGsEQ[/youtube]

 

[adi2d]

So you stop at every uncontrolled intersection? Sorry, but I don't believe it. And there's no such law. Moreover, a four-way stop requires everyone coming from any direction to stop, even if there's no other traffic in the vicinity. I will also add that at uncontrolled intersections in the USA, if two cars arrive at approximately the same time, the driver to the left of the the other is suppose to yield to the driver on their right.

You are the one that said there was another car coming. I would stop if there was another car coming. Are you sure you would fly through an intersection if you were on the right?

 

[Skwim]

You are the one that said there was another car coming.

Yup. "after we do."

I would stop if there was another car coming. Are you sure you would fly through an intersection if you were on the right?

Ah, ah, ah, not nice to exaggerate: "you would fly through an intersection." :slap:

Moreover, you said "the law of the road is that an unmarked intersection should be treated as a 4 way stop." When there is no such law.

 

[raw_thought]

Suppose you are in a university debate.
1. If you are asked to prove theism, you will be expected to attempt proving that God exists. Is proving that it is very possible that God exists the same as proving theism? I don’t think so!
2. If you are asked to prove atheism, you will be expected to attempt proving that God does not exist. Is proving that it is very possible that God does not exist the same as proving atheism? Of course not!
3. If you are asked to prove agnosticism, you will be expected to attempt proving that God’s existence and/or non-existence is impossible to prove. *
I really do not understand why the above is so hard to understand or why anyone would disagree with something so obvious.
* This whole debate began when I made the obvious point that uncertainty about God’s existence and/or non-existence is the only rational option. Unfortunately, the obviousness of my position frustrated my opponents to the point that they attempted to confuse the issue with superfluous semantics and desperate ad hominums.
As I said previously, I can accept that when some have doubts about theism (but favor theism) they call themselves theists. Everyday speech is not as precise as academic language.
A person that has doubts (the definition of agnostic) but favors theism is an agnostic that favors theism. Suppose I am an independent that favors the Republican Party. I vote Republican 70% of the time. Am I a Republican? No, I’m still an independent!

 

[raw_thought]

As for the convoluted argument that atheism is the disbelief in God and therefore it is not the belief that there is no God, but rather the lack of belief in God,
“the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”
FROM Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
If one continues with the absurd definition of atheist as one that does not believe in God, but does not believe that God doesn’t exist, one’s definition logically implies that an atheist does not believe in God and does not not believe in God, which is the definition of agnostic! As I said, previously it is absurd to say that atheist and agnostic are 2 words for the same concept!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As for the convoluted argument that atheism is the disbelief in God and therefore it is not the belief that there is no God, but rather the lack of belief in God,
“the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”
FROM Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
If one continues with the absurd definition of atheist as one that does not believe in God, but does not believe that God doesn’t exist, one’s definition logically implies that an atheist does not believe in God and does not not believe in God, which is the definition of agnostic! As I said, previously it is absurd to say that atheist and agnostic are 2 words for the same concept!

They're not the same concept, but the categories overlap. They're not mutually exclusive terms. There are theist agnostics and atheist agnostics.

Also, your definition of "agnostic" is incorrect. Agnosticism isn't some halfway point between theism and atheism; it's the positive belief that the existence of God is unknowable.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

They're not the same concept, but the categories overlap. They're not mutually exclusive terms. There are theist agnostics and atheist agnostics.

Also, your definition of "agnostic" is incorrect. Agnosticism isn't some halfway point between theism and atheism; it's the positive belief that the existence of God is unknowable.

It's ok..
..He's not going to read and understand..
..Every recent post we've made to him has been posted at least twice before..

It's time to simply... pull his plug, and remember the good times..
*sniffle*

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Suppose you are in a university debate.
1. If you are asked to prove theism, you will be expected to attempt proving that God exists. Is proving that it is very possible that God exists the same as proving theism? I don’t think so!
2. If you are asked to prove atheism, you will be expected to attempt proving that God does not exist. Is proving that it is very possible that God does not exist the same as proving atheism? Of course not!
3. If you are asked to prove agnosticism, you will be expected to attempt proving that God’s existence and/or non-existence is impossible to prove. *
I really do not understand why the above is so hard to understand or why anyone would disagree with something so obvious.

Firstly, there is a grammatical problem here. Theism and atheism are not, in and of themselves, claims, so you cannot "prove" them. They are specific reactions with regards to a specific claim. You cannot "prove" them any more than you can "prove" democracy, or "prove" baking, or "prove" stamp collecting. So the statements "prove atheism" and "prove theism" make no sense. What DOES make sense is asking people to prove specific positions with regards to a God claim, i.e: "Prove there is a God" vs "Prove there isn't a God", but neither request entirely encapsulates the whole of theist or atheistic views. Atheists don't necessarily have to claim that God doesn't exist, and while theists do make a claim that God exists that claim isn't necessarily dependent on a proof or set of proofs. Asking someone to "Prove that there isn't a God" is therefore not comparable to asking someone to "Prove atheism", because being an atheist DOES NOT MEAN believing that there is no God - it means not accepting the claim that there IS a God.

Secondly, you are confusing common misconceptions about these words and their meanings - WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED BY GIVING MULTIPLE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS TO YOU - for the actual definitions. If someone believes that "proving atheism" is a concept which makes sense, or that atheism requires a belief that there is no God, it is not the fault of the word atheist, or the fault of atheists. It is only because of the ignorance of the person making that misconception. That is what your ENTIRE argument hinges on. You do not understand the words you are using, and you are attempting - at great length - to assert that your misunderstandings about these words are actually more accurate than our in depth, dictionary-defined terminology. What you are attempting to do is as ridiculous as telling us that the sky is green, because you were under the misapprehension that the sky was green and never bothered to look up to see for yourself, and yet you feel confident enough in spite of your ignorance to lecture us on the proper use of these words. It's completely ludicrous.

* This whole debate began when I made the obvious point that uncertainty about God’s existence and/or non-existence is the only rational option. Unfortunately, the obviousness of my position frustrated my opponents to the point that they attempted to confuse the issue with superfluous semantics and desperate ad hominums.

This isn't "superfluous". You have repeatedly asserted that your definitions were accurate, and that your characterization of the atheist and agnostic positions were accurate. These claims of yours are false, and have been thoroughly refuted with multiple dictionary definitions, explanations and lectures given to you that have clarified our positions and the definitions of the words you have been misunderstanding. The only person who is confusing the issue here is you. You seem incapable of understanding or admitting when you are demonstrated to be wrong, because you have a blind preconception about what you think atheism and agnosticism mean, and you absolutely refuse to understand the concept that they could possibly mean anything other than that.

As I said previously, I can accept that when some have doubts about theism (but favor theism) they call themselves theists. Everyday speech is not as precise as academic language.
A person that has doubts (the definition of agnostic) but favors theism is an agnostic that favors theism. Suppose I am an independent that favors the Republican Party. I vote Republican 70% of the time. Am I a Republican? No, I’m still an independent!

I've already explained why this ridiculous comparison to belief as a matter of percentage is ridiculous. You cannot be "70% a theist" any more than you can be "70% a football player". You either play football, or you do not play football. Perhaps you go between two positions - sometimes playing football and sometimes not, but that doesn't change the simple fact that your either ARE or you ARE NOT. You cannot be 70% a football player and 30% not a football player. And in exactly the same way, you CANNOT be "51% atheist" or "51% theist". You either believe there is a God, or you DO NOT believe there is a God. There is no middle ground.

As for the convoluted argument that atheism is the disbelief in God and therefore it is not the belief that there is no God, but rather the lack of belief in God,

It's not a convoluted argument. IT IS THE LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION.

“the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”
FROM Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I love how you dishonestly pick and choose your definitions, even from the very sources you use that disagree with you:

dis·be·lief
noun
a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real
SOURCE: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

dis·be·lief
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
SOURCE: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief

disbelief
NOUN
1. Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
SOURCE: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/disbelief

Disbelief
Noun[edit]
Unpreparedness, unwillingness, or inability to believe that something is the case.
SOURCE: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disbelief

If one continues with the absurd definition of atheist as one that does not believe in God, but does not believe that God doesn’t exist,

That's not what we've said. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God, and that definition INCLUDES people who believe that God doesn't exist - because a person who believes God doesn't exist MUST ALSO LACK A BELIEF THAT GOD DOES EXIST.

one’s definition logically implies that an atheist does not believe in God and does not not believe in God, which is the definition of agnostic! As I said, previously it is absurd to say that atheist and agnostic are 2 words for the same concept!

Nobody has said that except YOU, and the fact that you keep insinuating that any of us have said that atheism and agnosticism mean the same thing DESPITE REPEATEDLY EXPLAINING THAT THEY REFER TO DIFFERENT THINGS AND HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS is seriously causing me to start wondering if you are actually making any attempt whatsoever to read anything that anyone has explained to you. You cannot possibly be this impenetrable without trying, REALLY hard.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Immortal.. Why are some of your quotes attribute to Hay?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Immortal.. Why are some of your quotes attribute to Hay?

Corrected. Must have just been because the quote html was still on my clipboard, so I pasted it without realizing.

 

[serp777]

The dumb thing about saying that atheists have the burden of proof is that they also have the burden of proof for disproving leprechauns, santa clause, the celestial teapot, scientology, and an infinite number of other claims that are in competition with one another.

 

[Thief]

The dumb thing about saying that atheists have the burden of proof is that they also have the burden of proof for disproving leprechauns, santa clause, the celestial teapot, scientology, and an infinite number of other claims that are in competition with one another.

They also have the burden of disbelief....which they don't cope with.
If they did....they wouldn't be here non-preaching to the choir.

 

[Skwim]

They're not the same concept, but the categories overlap. They're not mutually exclusive terms. There are theist agnostics and atheist agnostics.

Also, your definition of "agnostic" is incorrect. Agnosticism isn't some halfway point between theism and atheism; it's the positive belief that the existence of God is unknowable.

For some agnostics, yes; however, for myself and others god is an unknown. Agnostics pretty much come in just these two flavors.

 

[McBell]

They also have the burden of disbelief....which they don't cope with.
If they did....they wouldn't be here non-preaching to the choir.

Wishful thinking.

Though I understand why you have to tell yourself this...