It seems the burden is on those who believe, because they can define the god that "exists". As an atheist can not, they have no responsibility to prove or disprove anything. And if you can't prove something, or event support it, why believe?
Do you need proof to not believe in Zeus?
2006-06-16 09:39:22 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think the quijibo story says it best.
http://groundedinreality.blogspot.com/2006/03/burden-of-proof.html
2006-06-16 09:45:04 · answer #1 · answered by The Resurrectionist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I need evidence or reason to support my beliefs. I can't believe something without that. I can't choose to believe something which sounds ridiculous just because I might wish to, no matter how much people might threaten me with eternal torture.
Its rather silly to demand evidence for people not to believe something exists. Non-existent things do not go around leaving evidence for their non-existence. If you really want someone to believe something then you need to provide evidence, and a reason why that evidence probably leads to the conclusion you are demanding belief in.
The problem christians have is their evidence consists of an ancient book, which also contains stories which are clearly fiction.
Men getting swallowed by fish/whales and living inside for three days.
Men living to 900 years old.
A world wide flood which geologists know did not happen.
Zombies rising from their graves and walking around.
The sun stopping in the sky.
Other than that book the arguments fundamentallists tend to make are clearly fallacious, usually reflecting ignorance of science, resulting in straw-man arguments. Since they don't understand science based knowlege they claim science makes claims that it clearly does not. We see this all the time.
Since their evidence is so lacking they are left with: "Prove God does not exist". To which I respond, sure when you prove the tooth fairy does not exist. They do not understand that the burden is on them to first provide a case for existence, after which we can consider their case and either accept it, or reject it.
2006-06-16 09:47:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are correct that the contrapositive is the easier case to make - you only need to prove one negation to prove your case, while the positive requires universal (in terms of occurence) proof.
But this is besides the point. Belief does not require proof; in fact, "knowing" that God exists and "believing" in God are entirely different epistemological experiences, though not entirely exclusive.
Besides, if we proved it to you, you still don't have to believe any more than proving clouds exist compels you to believe in them.
You might be pointing out that this is mere semantics. True. But semantics is the means by which we communicate the abstract, and so semantics, here, are what is relevant.
2006-06-16 09:47:16 · answer #3 · answered by Veritatum17 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some atheists believe they have proof--in the form of science and evolution.
No, I don't need proof not to believe in Zeus.
2006-06-16 09:47:11 · answer #4 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I have to admit that if I were to meet a man who claims that the Eiffel Tower does not exist, I'd have to ask him for his reasoning. Therefore, it isn't an iron-clad rule that the burden of proof is always on the believer and never on the non-believer.
2006-06-16 09:44:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A negative cannot be proven.
People who believe in supernatural entities do so despite the lack of evidence supporting that belief.
There is no evidence to support God belief, so atheism is the only choice for those who use evidence as a basis for their conclusions (or "beliefs").
2006-06-16 09:44:15 · answer #6 · answered by Left the building 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually as Atheists we do need proof to not believe. I for one, used the Bible as my proof to not believe that the Bible was an accurate portrayal of a god.
2006-06-16 09:45:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUHNA) is just as valid as Zeus, with the added bonus of a nice dinner.
2006-06-16 09:45:21 · answer #8 · answered by BarronVonUnderbeiht 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe there is a such thing as an atheists, i believe they say that, just for people to notice them, i believe they know there is a God, they just don't want to accept the Father for who He really is. Just like gay people, They say thier born being Gay, but its not, its a choice. We all are born as sinners, but we chose what we do. We all can't see the air that we need to say alive, but its there.
2006-06-17 02:49:31 · answer #9 · answered by poorboychristian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have it 100% correct. Bravo.
it is up to the person who says they have a purple unicorn in thier yard to prove it. Those who do not believe it, and who would, do not have to prove a negative (since this is impossible).
2006-06-16 09:43:57 · answer #10 · answered by Wylie Genius 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋