Invitation to atheists

[IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve]

I'm sure almost every atheist already knows that the vast majority of people do believe that God exists. The reason why they claim that theists have the burden of proof is because atheists know they cannot justify their beliefs. Atheism simply does not hold up. History, science, and philosophy all point to God's existence.

I do hope you know this a bandwagon fallacy. Regardless of how many people believe in God (And if you had a one unified definition of God that everyone believe you MIGHT have more of a point.) it doesn't mean that you are correct, and that atheists have no justification. Again, this is replacing belief with absolute knowledge, a vast amount of people believe in God(s) therefore it must be true. The point is, if the theist position: "God(s) exist" is fact, then they should be able to adequately show it is indeed fact, and so far, from what I've seen all theist have failed in doing that. Do you realize if an Atheist states "God(s) don't exist" it's THEIR responsibility to show their position to be correct, so it isn't about not being able to justify belief systems. (Weak) Atheism basically states there is a lack of evidence for God(s), therefore there is no real reason to believe, why should they need prove their lack of belief??. If you believe that, then disprove the existence of invisible unicorns please (assuming you lack a belief in them).

Btw, if you are only counting monotheism as the only correct stance, then I THINK they are in the minority, when up against: Nonbelievers: (Some Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists, etc), Polytheists.

[IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve]

Some theists I've come across somehow think their beliefs=absolute knowledge. They use them interchangeably. Does anyone else notice that?

Like everyone has stated, whenever a theist claims "God(s) exists" not "I believe God(s) exists." The burden of proof is on them, always.

Not if the general consensus is that He does exist. See, the problem is with the assumption that generally most people believe, "God does not exist until he is proven." That is not true. Generally most people already assume that God exists. Therefore, the atheist must argue in the environment of "God exists until He is proven not to." The burden of proof is always on the atheist.

-Which God, and what attributes does this general consensus agree on?

-(Weak) Atheism is more likely then not the default position, until you come across something convincing, having a spiritual experience, learn about God and the scriptures. Unless you are willingly to say that we are all born with a full belief and understanding of the God concept and if so, could you explain why we are expected to be believe that?

-Again it doesn't matter what the general consensus states in this respect, because if you are going to state in FACT that "God exists" then it is YOUR responsibility to present your case. Vice versa for Atheists.

-The burden of proof is not only on the Atheist, that's a evasion of responsibility, when cross from BELIEF into Knowledge/fact then it's on you, period.

[IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve]

Some theists I've come across somehow think their beliefs=absolute knowledge. They use them interchangeably. Does anyone else notice that?

Like everyone has stated, whenever a theist claims "God(s) exists" not "I believe God(s) exists." The burden of proof is on them, always.

Not if the general consensus is that He does exist. See, the problem is with the assumption that generally most people believe, "God does not exist until he is proven." That is not true. Generally most people already assume that God exists. Therefore, the atheist must argue in the environment of "God exists until He is proven not to." The burden of proof is always on the atheist.

-Which God, and what attributes does this general consensus agree on?

-(Weak) Atheism is more likely then not the default position, until you come across something convincing, having a spiritual experience, learn about God and the scriptures. Unless you are willingly to say that we are all born with a full belief and understanding of the God concept and if so, could you explain why we are expected to be believe that?

-Again it doesn't matter what the general consensus states in this respect, because if you are going to state in FACT that "God exists" then it is YOUR responsibility to present your case. Vice versa for Atheists.

-The burden of proof is not only on the Atheist, that's a evasion of responsibility, when cross from BELIEF into Knowledge/fact then it's on you, period.

[Guest AV1611_USER]

I beg to differ. The vast majority of the world does not believe that it is your god of christianity that exists. Only 32% of the world's population is christian.

Atheists do not have to justify that they have no belief in a god. The person who makes the claim that something is true, they must be able to prove it to others when asked or the claim is not valid. Example: There are unicorns in my backyard. If someone questions that then I must prove it. I am the smartest person in the world. If someone doesn't believe me then I must prove it. If someone states, "I have no belief that there are unicorns in my backyard" or "I have no belief that I am the smartest person in the world," What is there to prove?

The burden of proof is always on the person who says "It is."

The very fact that we exist is proof of God's existence. Anyone who denies this is blind. Now give us proof for your position (hint: there isn't any).

[IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve]

Atheists do not have to justify that they have no belief in a god.

You are very much wrong my friend. The question,

[IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve]

I beg to differ. The vast majority of the world does not believe that it is your god of christianity that exists. Only 32% of the world's population is christian.

Atheists do not have to justify that they have no belief in a god. The person who makes the claim that something is true, they must be able to prove it to others when asked or the claim is not valid. Example: There are unicorns in my backyard. If someone questions that then I must prove it. I am the smartest person in the world. If someone doesn't believe me then I must prove it. If someone states, "I have no belief that there are unicorns in my backyard" or "I have no belief that I am the smartest person in the world," What is there to prove?

The burden of proof is always on the person who says "It is."

The very fact that we exist is proof of God's existence. Anyone who denies this is blind. Now give us proof for your position (hint: there isn't any).

No it's a possibility of God's existence, no one has been able to directly show that Universe needs or requires a Personal Eternal Creator God, much less the Man-God of the biblical scriptures. There are 1,000s of Creation stories, could you tell me why the Genesis account Is the only true account and discard the rest?

My answer would be "I do NOT know Why/How the Universe came into being prior to the Big Bang" I just know it's HERE. And whether it came about by a personal God, a deistic God, whether it Always was (At least the energy required for it), Or the Universe is just part of a Super Universe, Or the product of the destruction of a previous Universe, etc I honestly can not say at this point.

Edited August 3, 2007 by IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve

[IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve]

No post

Edited August 3, 2007 by IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve

[Ovedya]

-Which God, and what attributes does this general consensus agree on?

It doesn't matter, since the viewpoint of atheism is that no God or gods exist. Atheism accounts for roughly 20% of the world's population as a whole. Therefore, the general consensus is that "God exist." Whether that's a single diety, intelligent being, or a multiplicity of gods does not matter. The presumption is that "God exists," and the atheist is therefore burdened to prove that he/they does/do not exist.

-(Weak) Atheism is more likely then not the default position, until you come across something convincing, having a spiritual experience, learn about God and the scriptures. Unless you are willingly to say that we are all born with a full belief and understanding of the God concept and if so, could you explain why we are expected to be believe that?

Interesting that recently science has discovered an area of the brain largely responsible for the "faith belief." There is actually scientific evidence which supports the long-held (And Biblically taught) belief that faith is "inborn."

-Again it doesn't matter what the general consensus states in this respect, because if you are going to state in FACT that "God exists" then it is YOUR responsibility to present your case. Vice versa for Atheists.

Again, this is not true if the presumption is already there that God does exist. If someone suddenly claied that the sky is not, in fact, blue, then the burden is upon him to prove that it is not, since it is widely held that the sky is blue.

-The burden of proof is not only on the Atheist, that's a evasion of responsibility, when cross from BELIEF into Knowledge/fact then it's on you, period.

How many people in a court of law does it take for it to consider circumstantial evidence? The answer is, usually two or three.

[IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve]

Atheists do not have to justify that they have no belief in a god.

You are very much wrong my friend. The question,

[IamCurrentlyUnableToBelieve]

-Which God, and what attributes does this general consensus agree on?

It doesn't matter, since the viewpoint of atheism is that no God or gods exist. Atheism accounts for roughly 20% of the world's population as a whole. Therefore, the general consensus is that "God exist." Whether that's a single diety, intelligent being, or a multiplicity of gods does not matter. The presumption is that "God exists," and the atheist is therefore burdened to prove that he/they does/do not exist.

Is this a joke? The ASSUMPTION God exists, that translates into belief, not fact. I