Original Sin?

Quacks, liars, fakes and the misguided, we find many of those. There's proof of those through history.

Quote: rxwine

I feel pretty confident that the ball is in the believer's court for those second items -- to show us something, not just pretend they are on equal footing with skeptics.

Pretending they're on equal footing
works with some people. If you
constantly turn it back on the non-
believer to bolster his position, it
wears some of them down. The goal
of some religions is to convert in any
way possible. Confusion is a large
part of their arsenal, get the non
believer confused and he's often
a sitting duck. Such a silly game, much
ado about nothing..

Quote: rxwine

Gods are still in the second category. I feel pretty confident that the ball is in the believer's court for those second items -- to show us something, not just pretend they are on equal footing with skeptics.

Let's try another analogy:

Take the Sun. You can see it, you can feel it, you can feel it's effects. Even if you were blind, you would be able to tell the difference when being exposed to sunlight. And since it's easy to infer the Earth is round, you can easily infer the Sun either goes around the Earth, or the Earth revolves on an axis, thus explaining why the Sun sets and rises.

Now, the Ancient Egyptians believed the Sun, which they thought of as a god, actually died each evening and was resurrected each morning. They had a rather elaborate mythological narrative about it, where Ra, the Sun, would travel across the Land of the Dead, meet with Osiris to regenerate his life force, and then eventually be resurrected over the Earth in the morning.

Suppose you were limited to the technology and knowledge available to you in, oh, late Ancient Egypt, say around 500 BCE. You could easily prove the first position, with many unknowns, but would be completely unable to disprove the Egyptian's belief.

Ok, if any deity were as obvious as the Sun, then atheists would have to disprove its existence, or at least show it's not a deity, whatever the hell it is.

Since "god" is completely imperceptible and intangible, and all "proof" is reduced to arguments from ignorance and subjective experiences, then the ball si most definitely in the believer's court: Where's your proof?

Quote: FrGamble

To make a "positive" truth claim that there is definitely no God is different than saying there is not evidence for the existence of God. The former is the illogical position of an atheist. The second is that of an agnostic. .

Please review the commonly accepted definitions of positive and negative atheism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

Quote:

negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

Note how this is different from agnosticism, which is the position that the truth of certain beliefs is unknown and possibly unknowable.

Saying that you believe there is no god because there is no plausible evidence is an atheist position.

I don't know why you keep trying to wedge agnosticism in there.

People who do not believe in gods, who do not make positive statements that there are no gods, are not agnostics.

People who are saying that there are no gods and can be no gods because of a lack of evidence are challenging those making the positive assertion that there are gods to show some plausible evidence.

Http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof

Http://www.strangenotions.com/who-has-the-burden-of-proof-when-discussing-god/

It is also impossible to "prove something doesn't exist" when you can't also "prove that something exists" See santa clause, invisible pink unicorns, and god.

The second site comes closest to a logical explanation of how those claiming that there is no god share a burden of proof, but it is cast in their section about philosophical proof. I think we have shown plenty of philosophical evidence against the existence of gods.

If you want physical, scientific disproof of something, you are going to have to give me something that has physical, scientific evidence that can then be proven or disproven.

Quote: Dalex64

I don't know why you keep trying to wedge agnosticism in there.
.

I have zero respect for agnostics. Being
on the fence is not an option. They're
really atheists waiting for proof.

Quote: Evenbob

It's an old trick I was taught in debate class.
It's very dishonest to put the burden of proof
where it doesn't belong,

You are mistaken. I am not shifting the burden of proof. I know that I have a burden of proof one that I have fulfilled many times and received no valid counter to others than childish ridicule and ignoring the evidence I have given. We both have a burden of proof. It is not solely yours and not solely mine.

Quote: Nareed

Let's try another analogy:

Take the Sun. You can see it, you can feel it, you can feel it's effects.

The effects of God are seen and felt very strongly.

Quote:

Since "god" is completely imperceptible and intangible, and all "proof" is reduced to arguments from ignorance and subjective experiences, then the ball si most definitely in the believer's court: Where's your proof?

God is not at all imperceptible or intangible. I have provided lots of evidence already.

Quote: FrGamble

God is not at all imperceptible or intangible. I have provided lots of evidence already.

Your evidence is no better than proof of alien UFOs from non-Earth life forms. Nothing so far.

Quote: FrGamble

We both have a burden of proof..

No. We. Don't. Do you realize what you're
saying? I can't choose to reject your god
myth idea unless I have proof that what
you're saying is wrong. That's what a
dictator does, that's what the Church
used to do. You're saying that unless
I can prove you wrong, I can't reject
your ideas.

Quote: Evenbob

No. We. Don't. Do you realize what you're
saying? I can't choose to reject your god
myth idea unless I have proof that what
you're saying is wrong. That's what a
dictator does, that's what the Church
used to do. You're saying that unless
I can prove you wrong, I can't reject
your ideas.

You are free to do whatever you want. You can reject my ideas all you want, but I would think that you wouldn't want to call them definitively wrong without some evidence or logical argument to show that they are wrong or you are right. Is that too much to ask? Right now it is clear you reject them and you think them wrong the problem is you have nothing to support your position. Believe me I understand that you don't like the Church or God and maybe me and I respect that. I just wish it was based on something more than your feelings, emotions, or opinions.