I totally agree. but I found out that even if Atheists listed 100 reasons to prove God doesn't exist, christians will list 100 reasons why he does. So, nobody can really prove anything. or am I wrong. IT's just whatever you choose to believe.

No, yeah, the way logic works is that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim; in this case, religious folk claiming that deities exist. If you haven't heard of the invisible pink unicorn or Russell's teapot, they are good examples; I could assert that there's an invisible pink unicorn somewhere in space that cannot be detected by any scientific instruments. Obviously, this is ridiculous; I am the one who would have to provide evidence that exists. You would have no obligation to provide evidence that it does not (especially when I'm making claims that it's impossible to disprove its existence).

hetalivo is right. The believers that claim something exist are the ones that need to show proof of existence. Habeas Corpus.

very true the burden of proof falls on the believers to prove existence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs

Yep, but logic has nothing to do with the thoughts of believers. Its all about protecting the delusion, baby.

There is no burden of proof: I respect their right not to believe and they should respect my right to believe. Quid pro quo. :o)

I think that depends on the company you keep. In college, one is as likely to be challenged for belief in God as to be challenged as an Atheist. Intellectual people seem to have particular difficulty with intangibles, when these intangibles are held as absolutes by another party. You cannot quantitatively prove God does not exist, and I cannot prove quantitatively that He does - though I have considerable supporting evidence, it is circumstantial. Logically, I would refer you to Pascal's Wager, or to the dialogues of CS Lewis, who was once an Atheist. Josh McDowell has a book "Evidence Which Demands a Verdict" supporting the pro-God position. Examining the evidence of both sides of a debate is the best way to reach a fuller understanding of the substance being debated. So no, it isn't more logical to make Believers "prove" their God, any more than to insist you prove His absence. I consider both positions to be faith positions. After a certain point, you have to choose which set of arguments, with their evidence, is stronger. We are free to choose either side, or to walk away and say we honestly can't tell. But juries do convict on circumstantial evidence. If the issue is one of nagging relations, simply set a healthy boundary and say "we are not having this discussion" and remove yourself from the situation. They'll get the message, and you may have avoided a headache.

Yes, it certianly is more logical for theists to back up their belief because they make the enormous claim. However, their are so many misconsceptions about what atheists think that people often misunderstand their position, and think they all have an alternative to the theist's idea and are also making a claim about the big questions. therefore, they also would have to credit their case as well as discredit the theist's case. This is not the case because this relies on the idea all atheists accept the theories of evolution, the Big Bang, Abogensis, ect. I do personally but all atheists don't and don't have to do still be an atheist. It simply means you don't believe in a god and you don't have to have alternative opinions about theist's ideas to be an atheist. So to anyone who dosen't completely understand what it means to be a atheist, it would seem that the atheist has a counterclaim that has to be supported as well. In addition, they would need to discredit the claim of the theists to show how poor it is comparied to their own. So this is where this rooted idea some theists have that we also have to present evidence comes from.

Nope. It's circular logic and double standard. Too bad they don't realize the utter ignorance it demonstrates

As I am sure everyone should be aware that it is impossible to prove either the existence or nonexistence of a god. And until those who propose the existence of a god are prepared to say just exactly what a god is, then it would be extremely difficult for anyone to reason any evidence one way or the other. For me the evidence is against a biblical or Islamic god, but beyond that where do you start.

we do not .i do not believe in god .never will.till god him self can prove he exists so god common man get out here where are you?

8-13-2017 How do you prove something? Some people assume that "seeing is believing". Well, that is not true. What you see depends on what you believe. Everybody who looks at the stars sees the same light, but there is little agreement on what they are looking at. One group says our sun is powered by fusion, but another group says no, it's hotter on the outside than the inside, and there is no agreement between them. For a long time, there was a group of astronomers who could prove that the universe was not less than 19 billion years old, and another group of astronomers using the same data could prove that it was not more than 13 billion years old. Neither group could find any error in the other group's method of proof; it only depended on what you wanted to believe. The bottom line is each person has a list of rules to determine what is a valid proof and what is not, and there is no law that says we all have to use the same list. When it comes to proving this or that god, you are talking about believing alone: if you believe in a god then that god exists for you; if you don't believe then that one does not exist for you. And either way, if you are wrong then your believing is of no benefit. So as far as spiritual matters go, your training in human logic only leads you to arrogant pronouncements. You need to increase your knowledge to a point where you can justify your beliefs without creating stupid "What if" scenarios. Example: My God gave a book to tell us things we need to know. One section of that book is called Proverbs. I can read that section and I find good stuff in there. I don't need to seek anybody else's approval of what I believe. Your concept of "proof" does not apply to my beliefs.

All religions are based on faith. How do you prove (or disprove) faith?

It's ridiculous to claim there is no God who created the universe. If that were the case, I wouldn't have any dinner tonight. Praise the FSM. May you be touched by His noodly appendage. RAmen!

It has always rested with the one claiming something and demanding you do it their way. Athiests dont give a crap what you believe as long as you dont try yo shove it into their lives.

The burden of proof lies on anyone that makes any claim. Many atheists are agnostic rather than gnostic and don't make any claims so there's nothing for them to prove. If someone claims there is or isn't a god (rather than they believe or don't believe in a god) the burden of proof lies on them. You make a claim (any claim) you hold the burden of proof.

[[ Why does it seem that Atheists are expected to back up their beliefs with proof that God doesn't exist? ]] I don't know why that seems that way to you. Surely you have a better idea as to why than any of us could. [[ Doesn't it seem more logical that the burden of proof rest with the believers? ]] That might SEEM more logical but in fact there is no burden of proof on EITHER party in normal circumstances. LOGICALLY not just "seeming" logical but in actual logic there is no burden of proof on either party. Either party can reasonably ASK for proof. Neither party can reasonably DEMAND proof or unilaterally assign a burden of proof.

Atheism is not a claim therefore atheists don’t need to show proof. It is religious nut jobs who initiate their stupid “god” claims and they never show proof to backup their bull$hit because they are delusional. Religious nut jobs make atheism happen because they prove themselves to be unconvincing in their stupid religious claims while atheists are unaffected by religious delusions and peer pressure.

Because theists fallaciously shift the burden of proof. A claim that is made without evidence (like the claim that a god or gods exists) is made without evidence so it can be dismissed without evidence.

Nope Agnostics do not make a declarative statement , but Atheists do, You say there is no God....you must then have proof that there is no God right? Since it is lack of proof that drove you there to begin with. So you wouldn't make a declarative statement about God unless you had proof,,,righ?

The burden of proof DOES rest with believers. As any logician will tell you, you cannot be required to prove a negative -- that something doesn't exist. However, if something DOES exist, it should be entirely possible to prove that it does. And yet, in the many millennia of the existence of religions, believers have never offered a shred of objective, empirical evidence of the existence of a god. Their beliefs are not a matter of evidence but rather of sheer, personal, conviction, faith, interpretation, conjecture, and what-have-you.

Learn what the guy that wrote the book on evidence has to say about the matter. The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelists https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34989/34989-pdf.pdf