Is there any burden of proof on atheists to disprove the existence of a god? [Spirituality & Religion]

Not at all. I fact you may have stumbled on the nexus of science V Religion. In terms of Language we have heat and cold. But in fact, there is only heat and degrees of heat. "Cold" as a scientific term doesnt exist. It is just a complete lack of heat, at absolute zero.
Similarly, a Vacuum in space is a complete absence of matter. A nothing. In both cases we feel the need to give this "nothing" a name and treat it as real. So it is with God. Scientists can demonstrate where God isnt, because other things are there. And the space where God can hide is getting smaller every year.

Yes.

And if they can't they will burn forever.

Because God is love.

No there is no burden of proof for us to disprove the existence of God, it is upto the Theists to prove its existence.

No more than a burden of proof on non-SantaClausians to disprove the existence of Santa Claus, or on non-Pastafarians to disprove the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Short answer; no.

The reason being, we can’t accept every claim as true, otherwise we’d end up believing in contradictory claims (i.e. Islam and Christianity cannot both be true since they hold contradictory doctrines and ethical codes), so there has to be a “buffer” if you like, a way for us to determine what’s true and what’s not true. Usually, that’s via the application of the scientific method, logic and reason.

If someone proposes “a God exists”, you can either accept it as true (theism) or reject it (atheism). It’s up to those who accept the proposition as true to prove it.

An easier way to demonstrate this is through the court analogy: we don’t assess innocence in court, we assess guilt. If someone claims you’re guilty of a crime, it is for the prosecution to demonstrate this, it’s not for you to demonstrate your innocence.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove their claim that you are guilty; the burden is on theists to prove their claim a God exists.

There’s a lot more to it, so I’d suggest reading up on Matt Dillahunty’s Court Analogy if you’d like to know more.

Whether god exists or not is of no consequence to me. I have no functional use for a supreme being.

Only on gnostic ones.

I sent him a subpoena, he never showed up to testify. Therefore, he does not exist. Next case.

It isnt fair ir logical to require proof of something that is not obviously apparent. It is the burden of the claimant to prove an extraordinary claim. You might claim to have invisible twelve foot wings. Its not my job to prove you don't

Nope.

Looks like @PrivatePeeks has blocked me. Oh well, another one bites the dust. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

No. That would be like expecting someone who doesn’t believe in Santa to disprove that. Lack of an explanation doesn’t equate to an explanation.

Only if they want Easter and Christmas off from work.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

No ... the null hypothesis does not have to be proved.

Mm not really, in general when debating something’s existence the burden of proof is on proving it does exist as proving something doesn’t exist is practically impossible. Anything [i]could[/i] exist

Easy. Fairies aren’t real hence god isn’t real.

But gnomes... that’s a whole different story.

Atheists simply deny the evidence. Not very bright of them but a constant out for them.

And how do you suggest folk prove the non-existence of something when you can't prove the opposite ?

It sounds like a lot of work ....live and let live

Generally the burden is to disprove the null hypothesis, not prove it.

It's a matter of faith. No burden at all.

No but nor is there any obligation on the god bothers to prove their case either. Regardless of what others think, we all have our beliefs. Live & let live, respectfully.

Ok..I think I might be slightly confused by this question. What exactly did you ask? I guess the "burden of proof" part is what throws me off. :)

For those who don't believe no proof is possible. For those who believe no proof is necessary.

Refloating the Titanic would be easier than disproving God

No

In what sense?

disprove to whom?

Here we go 🍿🕶️🥤

Prove to me the existence of heat without measuring instruments. Just explain it to me using words.

You already know the answer to this. 😒