The burden of proof

[Ace Otana]

Now the one thing I'm tired of hearing is this "You have no proof that god does not exist"

Ok firstly atheists are not responsible for dis-proving god. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Theists made the claim and so it's down to them to prove what there claiming.

We cannot dis-prove god but theist cannot prove god. it's a stand still, Until atheists dismiss the claim. Dismissing doesn't mean claiming or knowing there's no god, it's plain and simple dismissal. Rejecting the claim in other words.

There's a saying for it "If you claim without evidence it will be dismissed without evidence"

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and should they fail to at lest bring some kind of evidence enough to at lest call it a theory then it will be dismissed. It's nothing more than a hypothesis, This is why it can be dismissed. If it was a theory then it cannot be dismissed because it would have evidence.

The christian beliefs have been dismissed/Rejected due to lack of evidence. So have the muslim religion and many other religions.

Also do not confuse dismissal with beliefs and claims. Dismissal doesn't mean that you know, your simply rejecting the claim.

[Eilonnwy]

Agreed. It seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding that theists have, that we atheist must prove our disbelief but in anything scientific or life in general, the person who makes the claim must provide the proof. If I said I had 9 fingers you'd say prove it! (I do have all 10, btw) It reminds me of an 4chan/anonymous meme "Pics, or it didn't happen!"

But somehow relgion has twisted their claim to be truth and that you must have proof to disbelieve. And then they have the audicity to say faith is proof! Or look around at life, that's proof! Or, I feel Jesus so it must be true! And then wonder why we don't accept these arguments as proof.

[Tiberius]

It's also a great reason why I.D fails so miserably. Evolution has the evidence, it is safe. I.D is a great theory, I would believe it in an instant. I just have one bit of evidence I need to see:

The "intelligent" designer.

[Brick-top]

There's a planet exactly on the opposite side of the sun on the exact same orbit as our own.

You cannot disprove it therefore I win.

[Tiberius]

Well we can, but that would ruin your perfectly good point

[Brick-top]

Well we can, but that would ruin your perfectly good point

I know but if I try to use an example that cannot be proven or disproven it sounds too moronic for Theists to get the point.

[Pete]

It's also a great reason why I.D fails so miserably. Evolution has the evidence, it is safe. I.D is a great theory, I would believe it in an instant. I just have one bit of evidence I need to see:

The "intelligent" designer.

ID has a serious flaw in it because it relies on the concept of irreducible complexity. Proponents of ID claim that there are things which cannot be explained by evolution supposedley because the complexity does not allow for intermediate transitional forms. I take that to be a very serious flaw in their reasoning.

I only have experience with theists asking for prood that God does not exist only in those cases where the atheist claims that God does not exist as if its a fact or something they can prove. We them simply call them out. Others ask them to prove it in an attempt to shut them up. Nobody really expects a proof though. Its an attempt to obtain their assumptions and then they try to show their assumptions are nothing more than beliefs.

Pete

---

There's a planet exactly on the opposite side of the sun on the exact same orbit as our own.

You cannot disprove it therefore I win.

That's a terrible example since, in principle, it is possible to prove otherwise in principle.

[Meatball]

You can't prove a negative, that's just what it boils down to. Some might call that a victory for theists, but those people are stupid. It's a logical fallacy to say something is true because it cannot be disproved. Arguing any further than this is just giving your opponent far too much credit.

Brick-top's example wasn't well thought out. Just refer Russell's teapot for this argument. It's a well-known previously established hypothetical that does the trick.

[Brick-top]

Pete

---

There's a planet exactly on the opposite side of the sun on the exact same orbit as our own.

You cannot disprove it therefore I win.

That's a terrible example since, in principle, it is possible to prove otherwise in principle.

In that case there's an invisible floating hamster keeping our universe in a bottle of pills.

You can't prove me wrong therefore I win.

[Tiberius]

ID has a serious flaw in it because it relies on the concept of irreducible complexity. Proponents of ID claim that there are things which cannot be explained by evolution supposedley because the complexity does not allow for intermediate transitional forms. I take that to be a very serious flaw in their reasoning.

Precisely.