The Burden of Proof

[Talbaz]

Where does it fall

to the non-believers to prove that gods and goddess don't exist?

or

does it fall to the believers to prove that they do?

[Chaigidel]

I really think its a non issue to the progress of the people considering our science does not ask either question.

but it falls to whoever wants to convince the other basically in any given situation :O

[mrcrusty]

but it falls to whoever wants to convince the other basically in any given situation :O

I agree with that statement but expanding on that:

If an atheist goes into a thread where it is assumed that God is real and states that He isn't, then the burden is on them.

Likewise if a theist goes into a thread where it is assumed that God isn't real, then the burden is on them.

For example, if the existance of God issue comes into play in threads which discusses the differences of religions (Islam/Christianity) which both believe that there is God, it is up to the atheists to prove that God isn't real. Not the other way around. (Because the discussion is about two religions which do believe God is real)

[SirLoinalot]

I could say that the burden of proof lies with the person claiming to know the truth or in the case of religion the theist, but theist are indoctrinated into a world where blind unquestioning faith is sometimes a virtue. How can a person who would accept an idea without evidence (and in many cases masses of contradictory evidence) be objective in any serious way?

So it falls on atheists to enlighten the religiously minded of the absolutely mind-bogglingy unlikeliness of there being a God.

Atheists maybe would not feel the need to debate the point if Religion could be seperated from politics, but it can not be. If a presidential candidate in the US stated that he/she was an atheist it would be tantamount to politcal suicide, such is the voting power of religious groups.

I believe and i dont need facts or proof. If you do, i respect you. but respect me back and dont question my beliefs, all i ask back is that.

Why should I not be able to question anothers beliefs? Why should religion be immune to critical examination?

[David Deas]

To the theists. Obviously.

The existence of a God is an unnecessary conclusion.

[Who]

It is hard to change someone's mind. If someone honestly believes in God, he/she will probably not have his/her mind changed, and the same goes for atheists. It all depends upon who cares more.

[Rush Limbaugh]

I t doesnt matter. Let each believe as they will. It doesnt hurt anyone.

[Talbaz]

ahhh but see as long as it doesn't its fine but not everyone will leave it at that

[Syron]

The "believers" obviously, since you cannot prove a negative.

theists claim their god exists, prove it.

[Who]

Precisely. People get hurt when they don't let each other believe what they will. And in today's day and age, it is not necessary for everyone to have the same religious beliefs, as long as church and state are separated.

[Who]

Precisely. People get hurt when they don't let each other believe what they will. And in today's day and age, it is not necessary for everyone to have the same religious beliefs, as long as church and state are separated.

Yes, I quoted myself, but I had to make this point, because if a government turns to theocracy, then it becomes impossible to let people believe as they want without problems.

[Who]

DOUBLE POST

[Scorch]

I quite seriously doubt that anyone will be able to prove anything, anyway.

[The Last Spartan]

You can't disprove a theism, you can only prove it (IF it does exist).

Why? Think about it. If you don't believe in a theism, you can't disprove it, because there will be too little evidence to come to a precise conclusion.

Just because there's no evidence to support something, doesn't mean it didn't happen or exist.

Anyway, I didn't vote, I'm staying out of the rest of this

[Who]

Well, most atheists try to disprove God through disproving the events in the Bible, but never actually disprove the existence of God, as that is currently impossible.

[Syron]

Well, most atheists try to disprove God through disproving the events in the Bible, but never actually disprove the existence of God, as that is currently impossible.

You can disprove positive claims, as in "my god did X"

[David Deas]

Well, most atheists try to disprove God through disproving the events in the Bible, but never actually disprove the existence of God, as that is currently impossible.

It's possible to disprove the existence of Yahweh without much difficulty. The Hebrew Bible is utterly disprovable because it actually makes claims which subject itself open to objective evaluation. What is much harder to disprove is the larger concept of intelligent design, which Christianity is a subdivision of.

[Who]

Is that meant to reinforce or argue against my post? You haven't disproved God's existence.

[Syron]

Is that meant to reinforce or argue against my post? You haven't disproved God's existence.

merely to explain........

I haven't disproven the existence of a god because as i have already said you cannot prove a negative.

[Talbaz]

actually most theist disprove there god(s) them selfs because they most often claim (am not sure about some far eastern ones) that no other god(s) exist outside the one they believe in

If one god doesn't exist how does any exist?

only answer can be "because what i believe is right."
which is a opinion and not argument


thus most religions are a opinion and have no base upon which to be argued.

a non-believe doesn't have to disprove anything the believe does it for themselfs