In the debate about whether or no god exists, is the burden of proof on the theist to prove he does or the atheist to prove he doesn't? [Spirituality & Religion]

@sogdianrock:
agreed

sogdianrock aka the world's best fence sitter.

@sogdianrock: How about the fact the belief that God exists has always existed while the wave of atheism is at large only recently even if it has always existed in somewhat less numbers in the past era.
So the burden to prove that this belief is unfounded falls on the atheists?

hi sludgefeast2
haha I only added ps for fun. My position is clear up to that point.
Best wishes
:)
ps thanks for the accolade: sogdianrock aka the world's best fence sitter.

how about, like the dude said, if it is faith based then they should stop proclaiming it as indisputable fact 👍

@sludgefeast2: How about, their faith says that it is an indisputable fact.

hi lockedupforgood
Each new generation is responsible for their own logic and cannot rely on illogic from the past as evidence.
Here read wikipedia on:
Hypatia (/ˌhaɪˈpeɪʃə, -ʃi.ə/;[2][3][4] hy-PAY-shə, -shee-ə; Greek: Ὑπατία Hupatía; born c. 350–370; died 415),[1][5] often called Hypatia of Alexandria, was a Greek mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher in Egypt, then a part of the Eastern Roman Empire.[6] She was the head of the Neoplatonic school at Alexandria, where she taught philosophy and astronomy.[7][8][9][10]

A pagan, Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob known as the Parabalani after being accused of exacerbating a conflict between two prominent figures in Alexandria, the governor, Orestes, and the bishop, Cyril of Alexandria.[11][12]

She did not believe in Christianity and was killed for her beliefs - she a scientist.

Best wishes
:)

@lockedupforgood: where does it say that ? show me that passage...?

@sogdianrock: Either way it doesn't make sense that proving something falls on the hands of those who want to prove something exists in the contrary of when something doesn't.
If I say The Mars doesn't exist then it'll be my responsibility to prove why it doesn't than the whole world's responsibility to why it does exist.
It is more like the minority have to face the burden of proving something or they'll be crushed. That's reality as opposed to useless rationality.

@sludgefeast2: You want to pick the quotes from the holy books that tell them God is the only truth and they should believe it and preach everyone? I thought everyone knew what the holy books say.

sounds a lot like you haven't read it either.

@sludgefeast2: I have but it'll take me some time to find those quotes from the books. Wait.

hi lockedupforgood
as said you can think, believe or say whatever you want. That is freedom! However if you want that to be accepted by critical others then you must argue tour case by being consistent in what you say. You need not follow these rules of conversation or dialogue but without them two people cannot really engage.

Regarding your statement that if you say that Mars does not exist then it is your responsibility to evidence your statement. I agree. In the same way when Mars was discovered by early astronomers they would have had to display Mars to their peers.

Regarding your statement that the onus of proof is on atheists to prove the non existence of God this is as I said before impossible because you cannot prove a negative. This is rationality but rationality is not divisible into useless and useful. Rationality is a set of logical rules which establishes the basis for engagement between people with different views.

So sure you can believe in God but it would not be rational for you to expect that to be of itself evidence to me that God exists. Nor is it beholden on me to0 prove God does not exist for the reason that is impossible to do.
Best wishes
:)

@sogdianrock: Hope you go through everything I said.
I do not see the point of your first paragraph and I definitely don't know if there are any set rules of conversation unless you are writing a letter, a scientific research journal, etc.

As response to your second paragraph, this only proves my point that the believers in minority prove to the majority regarding stuffs as in something "new". Mars was proven to exist by those who found it before which it wasn't thought to exist by [b]majority[/b] of people. Now Mars, in order to be proven nonexistent have to be proven by the few select who don't believe in it. Hence, why I say the burden of proof falls on the few people so that there would be a shift in the general way of believing in things.

As response to your third paragraph, rationality or anything is useless if it does not or would never refer to reality in any way and rationality or anything is useful if it does or will in foreseeable future refer to reality in some way. Therefore, rationality or any set of rules or any thing can be divided into useful or useless.

As response to your fourth or last paragraph, I would like to say that if you see my original answer it pretty much says the same thing. But your answer says that the burden of proof falls on the theists which is why I replied. Proving God is as hard as not proving Him. I do not believe in God, personally but for the sake of conversation let's say I do then I would also believe what God said right? And God said in the Holy Texts to preach this to others(without violence mostly) so according to that logic I might not be very wrong. And these are the reasons why this debate is alive. To declare the fact that God does not exist would be disprove each and every quote of the Holy Texts which hasn't yet been done but not impossible. The only thing you have to do is to prove that something exists which contradicts whatever is written in the Holy Book and therefore, you would have proven that whatever God has said is wrong therefore it might have been made up by human and therefore very unlikely that God exists.
Edit: Just like the Earth was proven to be geoid which disproved the myth that it was flat.

Hi lockedupforgood
You say " I definitely don't know if there are any set rules of conversation unless you are writing a letter, a scientific research journal, etc."

I say I definitely do know that there a set of rules - perhaps unstated - except in the formal settings which you mention.

The rules of engagement in any discussion between two people include not making things up. So if I said I have two heads then if we continued to talk - you having assumed everything I say is true - then at some point you would be disappointed because in fact I do not have two heads. This is called a lie. As said before you or I are free to believe and say what we like. That is freedom. However if you lie then trust breaks down and people stop trying to understand each other.

It could be that lies can be broken down into two categories: outright lies and mistaken beliefs. I suspect belief in God is sometimes an outright lie but is also often a mistaken belief.

In life - outright liars apart - we all have mistaken beliefs. Most once believed Santa to be real for example. However in life we need to sift the lies from the truth so we can prosper and not leave ourselves open to exploitation by the outright liars. So we must talk with each other and follow basic rules - which I have stated but as said which are often unstated. Thank you for this opportunity to engage with you on the matter of the rules of debate.
best wishes
:)

Hi lockedupforgood
regarding the rest of your last message I think I have covered it all already. Regarding the God question more broadly while I do not believe it is possible to disprove a negative I do believe that there is ample evidence to show people like believing in God. That God is functional to the human psyche - although not without cost. There is also ample evidence of how Gods have evolved over time as human needs have evolved. That does not make God real just nice - although not without cost.
Best wishes
:)

@sogdianrock: Okay I get the point. But I never lied nor made something up so I don't see why you wrote what you wrote.

You are trying to "win" the argument instead of having a healthy discussion by twisting the main topic and turning to a topic(the subject of liars) which was needless and pointless. Whatever the rules of conversations you are talking about I suppose you add to the rules that we should stay to the topic or those things that are relevant to it.

Your second comment is also out of nowhere. Instead of making a response to mine you are proving which wasn't required to be proven. There are huge gaps in your reasoning. In fact I do not see any reasoning at all. God being functional was never the question. It wasn't needed to bring it up again. You didn't say anything to prove/disprove my point.
You talk as if you are yourself a God who will always speak the unquestionable absolute truth. And that, my friend, does not agree with the rules of debate.

@sludgefeast2:
From Bhagavat Gita, the holy book of Hindus where the Supreme Lord Krishna says the stuffs himself
Chapter 10, text 7
[b]"One who is factually convinced of opulence and mystic power of mine engages in unalloyed devotional service, of which there is no doubt."[/b]
Notice the word factually which would tell you that they are talking about reality.
Chapter 9, Text 12
[b]"Those who are bewildered are attracted by demonistic and atheistic views. In that deluded condition their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities and their culture of knowledge are all defeated."[/b]
This says that atheism is delusional which is also proving the fact that people who believe in religion also believe that it is a fact and everything else is not.

From the Holy Bible, the holy book of Christians.
Hebrews 2:10
[b]In bringing many sons and daughters to glory,
it was fitting that God, for whom and through
whom everything exists, should make the pioneer
of their salvation perfect through what he
suffered.[/b]

It says affirmatively that everything exists because of God which must exist right? It's hard to point one quote in the Holy Bible because it does not even consider the possibility of God not existing. It starts with God himself.


From the Holy Quran, the holy book of Muslims
[b]Al Baqarah
3
This is a perfect book; there is no doubt in it; this is the guidance for the righteous
7
Those who have disbelieved(in God) it being equal that thou warn them or warn them not they will not believe.
8
Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering and for them is a great punishment.
10
They think they would deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive none but themselves. Only they perceive it not.
19
They are deaf, dumb and blind.[/b] So they will not return.

These speak for themselves. That God is the truth and atheists can't "see" it.

These are the reasons why the dude who said it is faith based has said something true but completely useless. These are the reasons why the burden of truth probably falls with the atheists (just maybe). But you get my point.

wow. religious people are all crazy then.

@sludgefeast2: I know right? Its acceptable if someone believes in God but funny if someone believes in a religion but then its harder to convince them the other way than it is to convert atheists into theists.