Is there any burden of proof on atheists to disprove the existence of a god? [Spirituality & Religion]
I would say no because atheism is not a claim to know god is not real but a position that the evidence is insufficient to accept the claim that a god exists.
i personally dislike this wide definition of atheism because it overlaps with the definition of agnostic and leaves no specific category for people who actually believe that there is no god. when i was younger and going to school there were 3 seperate, non-overlapping categories: atheists, agnostics and believers. 1:belives there is no god, 2:doesnt know, 3:believes there is a god. to me this was a much more practical terminology because the use of one of these words gave a clear idea of where someone stands. with this wide definition of atheism one cannot just say he is an atheist, he must specify exactly what type. the usefulness of words IS to not have to use a full definition, because the word replaces the definition. but when a word has various meanings it becomes less useful. like in this case, if simply saying atheist doest really tell you where someone stands, why even use the word, just say " i think there is not enough evidence" or " i think there is no god" since you will have to define your particular use of the word if you use it.
Meh. I have no issue with specificity. After all, if you're having a conversation with someone, they're stance will soon become clear even if the language has evolved past what you learned in school.
@Pikachu you didnt really address my argument and it is a pretty solid one. language is just a tool and should be made to reflect reality, there are not many other avenues than to admit it would make more sense unless you can surprise me with an actual argument about why the present use of these words is more practical.
[quote] language is just a tool and should be made to reflect reality,[/quote]
Agreed. And it does.
The reality is that if you're an agnostic you don't have a belief that a god exists and that actually makes you an agnostic atheist. You can also be an agnostic theist or gnostic theist. You can even be a gnostic atheist if you're an idiot.
The fact that you think there should be one word with no overlapping meaning isn't actually an argument, it's just a preference.
When 84% of the world identifies with [i]a [/i] religious group, atheists do indeed have a burden of proof when trying to disprove the existence of (a) God. Regardless of whether religion has declined in the West or not, a large portion of the global population is religious in some way and we should consider all of their beliefs when debating the existence of (a) God, or Gods.
I myself don’t think it can be proved or disproved though. Identifying with (a) God or not is a very personal thing and people all have their own reasons for doing so or not doing so. You cannot universally prove or disprove something that is so unique to the individual and their perspective on life.
[quote]atheists do indeed have a burden of proof when trying to disprove the existence of (a) God[/quote]
Agreed. If an atheist is trying to disprove god then they have a burden of proof. But the question is do atheists have a burden to disprove the existence of a god or gods?
@Sharon Actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a good rhetorical device as it demonstrates an inherit contradiction with religious dogma.
SW-User
Not at all .-. To believe in something takes an understanding that is well structured and foolproof. The stance of atheism to me is an easier stance. I can reject anything I don't see fit in my classifier of evidence and reasoning
I don't admire a position of rejection to a quite necessary question .-. But I do believe a position of rejection is necessary to deny senseless fabrication
I always heard that you do not need one because if he does not exist there does not need proof that he does not exist, but I think there is already proof that god does not exist because if there was a god he would not make life unfair and he would solve the problems that arise.
I say maybe because I'm not for sure but I'm leaning towards yes.
I'm not sure if logic in mathematics is used in the right way here but saying you can't disprove a negative is pesudologic because there are many proofs that can substantiate negative claims in economics, science and mathematics. There can be also [b]multiple claims[/b] during a debate so the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content of the claim doesn't matter.
I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists believe the burden of proof belongs to the side making a positive claim. The theist says "there is a god" and that carries with it a burden of proof. The atheist says " there is insufficient reason to accept that claim as true" and that carries no burden of proof.
Hey, I once gave an atheist all the tools to summon my goddess and he didn’t even bother. I even have him my tablet that I made with my own blood to do the summoning.
