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

[leibowde84]

I think the problem lies in how they think knowledge is obtained. I think some people think knowledge can be obtained by "feeling something is true" I will fundamentally disagree with that assertion. I do not think anyone can independently claim to know anything without verification from other people. Our own senses and feelings often play tricks on us.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, atheists and agnostics refuse to ask certain questions in the scientific process because to them these questions are unscientific. These people accept psychology, which literally means the study of the soul, however they refuse to acknowledge any physician of the soul. Atheists and agnostics are problem solvers, however, they don't actually believe any problem is solved, therefore, they don't believe in any actual problem solver. They think this world is ill will because it, the world, was created out of nothing by nothing. They're illogical as problem solvers and scientists.

psychology: definition of psychology in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
noun
The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.

No mention of the "soul". "Psychology" might have at one time been associated with "the soul", but that was ages ago. Psychology is based on behavioral science.

 

[leibowde84]

It seems you are confusing what I know.....with what I can be sure of.

knowledge: definition of knowledge in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."

If you "can't be sure" of something, it is a belief, not knowledge. Knowledge cannot be based on subjective beliefs.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

psychology: definition of psychology in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
noun
The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.

No mention of the "soul". "Psychology" might have at one time been associated with "the soul", but that was ages ago. Psychology is based on behavioral science.

Psych means soul. Ology means study. The greek word psyche means the breath or life in the body. That breath or life is considered the persons soul. So it is the study of the soul.

 

[leibowde84]

Psych means soul. Ology means study. The greek word psyche means the breath or life in the body. That breath or life is considered the persons soul. So it is the study of the soul.

You do realize that the linguistic construct of a modern term does not define it, right? So, you are contending that your definition trumps that of psychologists and medical dictionaries? That is a bit vain, don't you think?

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

You do realize that the linguistic construct of a modern term does not define it, right? So, you are contending that your definition trumps that of psychologists and medical dictionaries? That is a bit vain, don't you think?

So to dismiss the construct from its root isn't vain?

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

You do realize that the linguistic construct of a modern term does not define it, right? So, you are contending that your definition trumps that of psychologists and medical dictionaries? That is a bit vain, don't you think?

Like Jesus says, you have become like the Judeans; for they love the tree and hate the fruit. They hate the tree and love the fruit.

 

[leibowde84]

So to dismiss the construct from its root isn't vain?

I think it is appropriate to use the actual meaning of terms as they are used in the English Language. I understand what the roots of the word mean, but they were taken from another language. And, although "mind" is connected to "soul", I'm not sure that there was an appropriate root to use for "mind", so it is possible that "soul" was as close as they could get.

 

[McBell]

Yeah and if God really exists then that would make you the fool for not appreciating it, just because you don't THINK God exists doesn't mean God is not real, at most you have a THEORY that God doesn't exist, you might use some caution before you try throwing your THEORY at other people.

One wonders why you think your advice should not equally apply to those throwing their "god exists" theory around?
Hypocrisy perhaps?

 

[leibowde84]

Like Jesus says, you have become like the Judeans; for they love the tree and hate the fruit. They hate the tree and love the fruit.

I don't think he was talking about linguistic word usage, was he?

 

[McBell]

It's very disrespectful to not back up your mouth with scriptures, because if you don't your just another one of trillions of opinions, in other words, mass confusion.

Why would you think that throwing Bible verses into the mix magically makes an opinion more "respectful"?

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

I think it is appropriate to use the actual meaning of terms as they are used in the English Language. I understand what the roots of the word mean, but they were taken from another language. And, although "mind" is connected to "soul", I'm not sure that there was an appropriate root to use for "mind", so it is possible that "soul" was as close as they could get.

No you didn't understand the root of the word. If you did you surely would have mentioned it from the greek when you responded to my post. What you did was actually dismiss a fact in the support of your own argument. That's what atheists and agnostics do when they are contriving of their own purpose within their own words. They dismiss the root and the cause of things; so they could be made to seem right; as if nothing within the ancient world has any bearing or purpose on the modern. That's what atheists and agnostics do is dismiss the latter in place of the former. That's why I say you hate tree and love the fruit. Love the tree and hate the fruit.

 

[leibowde84]

No you didn't understand the root of the word. If you did you surely would have mentioned it from the greek when you responded to my post. What you did was actually dismiss a fact in the support of your own argument. That's what atheists and agnostics do when they are contriving of their own purpose within their own words. They dismiss the root and the cause of things; so they could be made to seem right; as if nothing within the ancient world has any bearing or purpose on the modern. That's what atheists and agnostics do is dismiss the latter in place of the former. That's why I say you hate tree and love the fruit. Love the tree and hate the fruit.

First of all, I am a theist (Christian). But, your prejudice is astounding. Second, I noted that the root of the word had importance in the meaning of the modern term, but the modern term is simply not confined to the meaning of its roots. It is ludicrous to think that terms would be limited in this way.

I'm going to have to go with how psychologists define the term psychology over your subjective feelings about confining terms to the meaning of their roots.

 

[leibowde84]

No you didn't understand the root of the word. If you did you surely would have mentioned it from the greek when you responded to my post. What you did was actually dismiss a fact in the support of your own argument. That's what atheists and agnostics do when they are contriving of their own purpose within their own words. They dismiss the root and the cause of things; so they could be made to seem right; as if nothing within the ancient world has any bearing or purpose on the modern. That's what atheists and agnostics do is dismiss the latter in place of the former. That's why I say you hate tree and love the fruit. Love the tree and hate the fruit.

By the way, I agree with you as to what the roots of the word mean. I never claimed otherwise. I am just pointing out the FACT that terms in the English Language, especially in the medical/scientific fields, are not confined to the sum of their parts. That is basic grade school grammar.

 

[Nakosis]

If agnosticism is a claim to knowledge it is a subset of atheism/theism, not a version of atheism.

It's a claim of a lack of knowledge. Atheism is a lack of belief in God.

To say an agnostic has a belief in any God would mean they're saying there exists some knowledge about God to have a belief in.

If they say there is no knowledge of God, what belief can they have about God?

 

[Nakosis]

Well, atheists and agnostics refuse to ask certain questions in the scientific process because to them these questions are unscientific. These people accept psychology, which literally means the study of the soul, however they refuse to acknowledge any physician of the soul. Atheists and agnostics are problem solvers, however, they don't actually believe any problem is solved, therefore, they don't believe in any actual problem solver. They think this world is ill will because it, the world, was created out of nothing by nothing. They're illogical as problem solvers and scientists.

This is not true. Atheist means to lack a belief in God. It doesn't mean to lack a belief in a soul. An atheist may happen to believe this as well but it's not necessary to being an atheist.

 

[Nakosis]

No you didn't understand the root of the word. If you did you surely would have mentioned it from the greek when you responded to my post. What you did was actually dismiss a fact in the support of your own argument. That's what atheists and agnostics do when they are contriving of their own purpose within their own words. They dismiss the root and the cause of things; so they could be made to seem right; as if nothing within the ancient world has any bearing or purpose on the modern. That's what atheists and agnostics do is dismiss the latter in place of the former. That's why I say you hate tree and love the fruit. Love the tree and hate the fruit.

Kind of a broad brush you are using there to paint atheists and agnostics. It's pretty simple if you stick to the actual definitions. Someone calling themselves an atheist doesn't mean you know anything about them other than they lack a belief in any God. Agnostic believe nothing is known about God so claim neither faith nor disbelief. Doesn't have anything to do with belief in a soul or being spiritual or not.

 

[Lyndon]

A lot of true agnostics do not claim nothing is known about God, they simply claim, NOT ENOUGH is known about God to make a decision whether God exists or not.

 

[Lyndon]

One wonders why you think your advice should not equally apply to those throwing their "god exists" theory around?
Hypocrisy perhaps?

Sorry but I don't throw my THEORY that Gods exist in other peoples face, I respect the right of every individual to make up their own mind about God and gods, for themselves. Some other members on this forum do not though, and constantly harass and belittle people for having beliefs different than there own, and this can be theists or atheists, but on this forum its seems to be more atheists are doing it.

 

[Cephus]

You haven't been reading my posts, have you. All I'm saying is that agnostic and atheist are two distinctly different words with different meanings. As agnostics presumably way outnumber atheists, it seems like some kind of atheist plot to swell their numbers by redefining agnostics as atheists. Only sort of kidding!!

No, it just proves you have no idea what you're talking about. You are right that atheist and agnostic are two entirely different words with entirely different meanings, that's because they address entirely different concepts. You can be an atheist *AND* an agnostic, in fact, virtually all atheists are agnostics. One refers to belief, the other to knowledge.