Why does the believer in God's existence have the burden of proof?

[SkepticThinker]

We are talking about the definition of agnosticism, and you don't understand it so you keep switching the conversation to atheism, something who's definition you seem to understand, Agnostics by definition have neither an established belief in God, or an established belief that there is no God, that's what an agnostic is. Perhaps you should do a little reading on agnosticism before you comment any further.

I don't really care if you agree or not with the label I place on myself simply because you don't seem to understand it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's exactly what I meant, an agnostic on the other hand has no disbelief in the existence of God (skepticism yes), and atheist does.

An atheist simply lacks a belief in god.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're not worth debating with, you've redefined agnosticism as atheism and expect all of us to go along for the ride, have fun with your beliefs, you're free to believe any nonsense you want to.

They are not mutually exclusive terms, as you seem to be asserting.

 

[Lyndon]

For the last time, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, and agnostic is someone who doesn't have an opinion or belief one way or the other as to whether God exists or not. Two distinctly different definitions.

Atheism is based on belief, agnosticism is based on non belief.

 

[leibowde84]

You're not worth debating with, you've redefined agnosticism as atheism and expect all of us to go along for the ride, have fun with your beliefs, you're free to believe any nonsense you want to.

Nope. Certainly didn't do that. I pointed out the fact that Agnostics who "lack a belief in the existence of God" because they neither believe that God exists or does not exist can accurately be classified as atheist. I did not say that all atheists were agnostics, as that would be ridiculous. Agnostics are simply weak-atheists. Strong atheists, who do hold an active belief that God does not or cannot exist would not be agnostic.

I am using the dictionary definitions of these words. You are not. And you have provided absolutely no evidence pointing to your claim that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. You are just presenting a straw man argument with your last comment, seemingly because you are unable to provide a counter-argument. You provided a definition of agnosticism that supports my argument, and you have provided absolutely no definition of atheism that refutes mine. You just made up the requirement that an atheist must believe that God cannot exist, which is incorrect.

 

[leibowde84]

For the last time, an atheist is someone who doesn't have a belief in God, and agnostic is someone who doesn't have an opinion or belief one way or the other as to whether God exists or not. Two distinctly different definitions.

Atheism is based on belief, agnosticism is based on non belief.

By your own definitions here, you are proving my point. An atheist is one who doesn't have a belief in God. An agnostic is one who doesn't have a belief in God and doesn't have a belief that God doesn't exist. So, like you said, an agnostic does not have belief in God, and would, thus, be rightly considered an atheist. The words mean different things, but there is clearly overlap between them.

 

[leibowde84]

For the last time, an atheist is someone who doesn't have a belief in God, and agnostic is someone who doesn't have an opinion or belief one way or the other as to whether God exists or not. Two distinctly different definitions.

Atheism is based on belief, agnosticism is based on non belief.

In short, does an agnostic hold a belief in the existence of God? If they do not, then under your own definition of "atheism", they are an atheist. Remember, look above. You stated that an "atheist is someone who doesn't have a belief in God". Agnostics do not "have a belief in God". I''ll let you figure out the rest.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Just for the sake of argument, pretend that a very powerful God does exist. Then do you not think it likely that that God was somehow involved in the Creationary/evolutionary process. Why not, the only way you can claim God had no involvement in evolution is to prove God does not exist, and as I said before the idea that God does not exist is still an unproven theory.

For the sake of argument, fine.
Assuming God exists, would it be likely that it had a hand in whatever process you want to test?
Yes! Under the assumption that god exists, that would make total sense.
The problem, however, is that your entire argument for the existence of god in this case in based on a logical fallacy called presupposition.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presupposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just to show you how flawed the argument is. consider this:

"Just for the sake of argument, pretend that a very powerful Space Wizard exists. Then do you think it likely that the Powerful Space Wizard was somehow invovled in the creationary or Evolutionary process? Why not? The only way you can claim that the Powerful Space Wizard had no involvement in evolution is to prove that the Powerful Space Wizard does not exist. And as I said before, the idea that the Powerful Space Wizard does not exist is still an unproven theory."

See? By your own argument, your god is just as real as the Powerful Space Wizard.

Every answered prayer is evidence that God exists, God is not an extremely vague concept, but a powerful force that works in the lives of billions of people, at least that's my theory, your theory is that they are all deluded, and God does no exist.

Isn't it statistically likely that answered prayers are little more than happy coincidences? I have never seen one single example of cancer suddenly being cured without medical attention. Praise is lavished on God for answering the prayer of curing someone's cancer, when, in fact, the medical attention had much more to do with it than wishfully hoping to a deity. If you can show me an example of someone praying a wound closed, or praying cancer away, then you can make the claim that god answers prayers. Until then, you have to admit that it was medicine that cured those ailments.

God is an extremely vague concept. In fact I would argue that he must be vague because once you put definitions and boundaries on the definition of god, then it becomes all to easy to prove his nonexistence. When you define god loosely, vaguely, and fluidly, then you are free to change that definition anytime a challenge to god's existence is suggested.

 

[leibowde84]

An atheist simply lacks a belief in god.

And, an agnostic, being undecided on belief for or against God's existence, lacks that belief and can, thus, be classified as an "atheist" as well.

 

[Lyndon]

I'm not saying that an individual could not be half way between atheism and agnosticism, or that an individual could not be halfway between agnosticism and theism but there's a spectrum on one extreme Atheism ( belief there is no God) at the other extreme Theism (belief that there is a God) and in the MIDDLE(not same as atheism as you say) is agnosticism ( no solid belief there is or isn't a God) Agnosticism is just as close to Theism as it is to atheism on the spectrum of belief.

An Atheist not only lacks belief in God, but has belief there is no God as well, this is not true of agnostics.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Show me any atheist who claims they have no disbelief in God, they don't exist.

Me.

If it wasn't for theists claiming there was a god, could I be called an atheist?

Atheist is a term which defines me only because it is forced to exist by theistic claims.
Technically, disbelief is the default position. Every single person is born an "atheist". We are then taught varying versions of belief after that.
But rejecting the idea of god is only possible because there is a claim that god exists. I can only disbelieve in something that has been claimed to exist.
I would be utterly indifferent on the topic of god, were it not for theistic claims.

 

[Cephus]

No need.....it would depend on which website you went to.
Have you tried any reporting the number of atheists?.....I have.

There's a link right there, it's a study done by Pew Research. You're just wrong, as usual.

 

[Cephus]

When you can't have proof.....and you can't.....
you have to use your sense of reasoning.

No, when you can't have evidence, you simply do not believe at all. So long as there is no evidence for God, only an idiot believes in God.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not saying that an individual could not be half way between atheism and agnosticism, or that an individual could not be halfway between agnosticism and theism but there's a spectrum on one extreme Atheism ( belief there is no God) at the other extreme Theism (belief that there is a God) and in the MIDDLE(not same as atheism as you say) is agnosticism ( no solid belief there is or isn't a God) Agnosticism is just as close to Theism as it is to atheism on the spectrum of belief.

Again, your definition of atheism is incorrect. And, "disbelief" only requires a "lack of faith in something" ... it doesn't necessarily mean an active belief that something does not exist. But, that aside, you are ignoring the fact that "atheism" only requires a "lack of belief in the existence of God". There is no positive belief that God does not or cannot exist required.

How does an agnostic not "lack a belief in the exitence of God"? You have yet to provide your reasoning for this. And, since all that isss required for atheism is a lack of said belief, anyone without that belief is an atheist.

 

[Cephus]

Go look in the mirror.....call yourself and accident.....
be convincing.

Done. Anything else?

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not saying that an individual could not be half way between atheism and agnosticism, or that an individual could not be halfway between agnosticism and theism but there's a spectrum on one extreme Atheism ( belief there is no God) at the other extreme Theism (belief that there is a God) and in the MIDDLE(not same as atheism as you say) is agnosticism ( no solid belief there is or isn't a God) Agnosticism is just as close to Theism as it is to atheism on the spectrum of belief.

An Atheist not only lacks belief in God, but has belief there is no God as well, this is not true of agnostics.

You are simply wrong about what is required to be an "atheist". Can you not clearly see that the definition of "atheism" does not require the belief that God does not exist? It clearly says that atheism is "disbelief OR A LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of God". Why do you refuse to see what is right in front of your face? You keep on using the incorrect definition of atheism again and again. Where are you getting this incorrect definition from?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Isn't every unanswered prayer evidence against god then?

And how do you go about demonstrating that prayers are answered at all, and then how do you demonstrate the answer came from the specific god you worship?

Is this going to be responded to?

 

[Lyndon]

There's some dishonesty going on here by someone claiming to quote Merriam Webster 's definition of atheist, this is what their dictionary says; ( 2 definitions given)

a person who believes that God does not exist

Full Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\

A true agnostic neither believes that God does not exist, nor believes that there is no deity, according to Merriam Webster dictionary

 

[Lyndon]

Every prayer that is not responded to is no better or worse than if you had never prayed, every prayer that is answered is a bonus.

 

[leibowde84]

Every prayer that is not responded to is no better or worse than if you had never prayed, every prayer that is answered is a bonus.

How do you know that it was answered, when probability would demand that some prayers be "answered" by coincidence?