Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[fr0d0]

Good grief fr0d0! Haven't you been on this forum long enough to answer your own poll?

You talking to me ms Kichie?

If you notice, the poll was to answer some atheists here who thought that belief that there wasn't a god was the position of a vast majority of atheists. I said it wasn't and they called me a liar.

The wording of the options was a direct quote from the first dictionary definition to appear in my Google search.

---

ten thousand years of constant searching turning up absolutely zilch speaks of at least one exception.

Classic fallacy. Because something is unique doesn't mean it's any less likely to exist.

And you are shouldering the burden of proof claiming that there could be possible transferable evidence of the supernatural. That's pure illogic right there.

[Ryantology]

Classic fallacy. Because something is unique doesn't mean it's any less likely to exist.

If something doesn't exist, it isn't very unique. Indeed, there is nothing unique about your god claim. There are thousands of them and they all have the same total lack of evidential backing.

And you are shouldering the burden of proof claiming that there could be possible transferable evidence of the supernatural. That's pure illogic right there.

The supernatural is pure 'illogic'.

No, there can't be transferable evidence of the supernatural because the very concept of the supernatural is designed specifically to avoid any scrutiny. It's an unfalsifiable (read: absolutely of no value) hypothesis, and this is done on purpose, so that people like you, with no actual intellectual foundation to stand on, can pretend that you do when you say "you can't prove it isn't real therefore it is a valid statement with real meaning".

Actually, that's not exactly right. What you're really saying is "It is a valid statement with real meaning BECAUSE you can't prove it's not real". So, equally, are statements insisting upon the existence of unicorns and leprechauns.

[Counterapologistblog]

The burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of the theist, not the atheist.

Having said that, it is not quite right to say that you "can't prove a negative". See this link

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...heory.html

[Rampant.A.I.]

Good grief fr0d0! Haven't you been on this forum long enough to answer your own poll?

You talking to me ms Kichie?

If you notice, the poll was to answer some atheists here who thought that belief that there wasn't a god was the position of a vast majority of atheists. I said it wasn't and they called me a liar.

The wording of the options was a direct quote from the first dictionary definition to appear in my Google search.

---

ten thousand years of constant searching turning up absolutely zilch speaks of at least one exception.

Classic fallacy. Because something is unique doesn't mean it's any less likely to exist.

And you are shouldering the burden of proof claiming that there could be possible transferable evidence of the supernatural. That's pure illogic right there.

Way to miss the point and shift the burden of proof again.

So, before you launch into another lie-rade, do you think "aha! Gotcha! There is NO evidence anyone can present to support this claim!" Is a compelling argument?

You say repeatedly that your faith "is rational" then refuse to elaborate further. Why is your specific entity, not just "the supernatural" completely immune from necessary evidence, unlike any reasonable belief?

Do you then believe every reported encounter with ghosts, imps, Djinn, Leprechauns, Unicorns, Fairies, and other supernatural entities? If not, why not?

http://youtu.be/nda_OSWeyn8

You said yourself the supernatural doesn't need transferable evidence to be believable.

[Chas]

I totally understand your frustration chas.

I made the statement in another thread that atheists here make sure everyone understands that atheism is a lack of belief, and they called me a liar and demanded I make a poll.

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

Horseshit.
I am making no claim, therefore I have no burden of proof.

The only reason given is that there is no evidence for your claim. The one for which you bear the burden of proof.

[Rampant.A.I.]

It's amazing to watch the kind of intellectual gymnastics people will go through rationalizing why they don't need to support their claims.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

No one is saying the conclusion is assumed to be false because it has not been proven. They are saying they reject your claim in the absence of proof: Note the loudest protestors that their claim is true cannot provide a logical argument for why, they can only advance more claims that it is valid.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph...n_of_proof

burden of proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.

---

The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

---

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

[Foxaèr]

Only those who already believe also claim there is proof for those who are willing to also believe by foregoing with reason in order to join the multitude in their delusion.

It never fails to amaze me that theists are willing to throw their arms around ignorance for the simple sake of zero evidence, overwhelming fear of the truth, and feelings of empty comfort that is in cohorts with pseudo knowledge.

[MindForgedManacle]

I ALMOST agree with Chad. However, my gripe with atheism being "a lack of belief in gods" is that it can rightly be levelled that defining it that way is a sneaky way of trying to avoid any possible burden of proof. And this is completely unnecessary. After all, it is semantically equivalent to defining it as "not believing in the existence of gods", and likewise doesn't seem to give one the burden of proof.

[*Deidre*]

I accept (for want of a better word) the universal definition of the term "atheism," and my own take is that it is because there is no objective evidence to support the existence of a god or gods.

One may exist, but if one does exist, it isn't evident by any objective proof.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

Can you demonstrate proving a negative? Do making the claims "unicorns, leprechauns and elves don't exist" require extensive evidence, or is rejecting their existence "burden reversal" as well?

I refer to the multitude of threads claiming to show problems with various doctrines, claiming that believers are delusional etc. For example...

Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?

In this case the burden of proof is actually on the atheist. That's very different from the following...

Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: Why?

The problem is that some of you flip flop between the two pretending not to know the difference.