Logic & Science of Atheism: The Burden of Proof

[treat2]

Atheism - Logic and Science

It is illogical to conclude that Atheism existed prior to Theism.

For that reason, two “conditions” apply to the Theist.
1) The Theist asserted the existence of "god(s)".
2) The Theist’s assertion was made prior to the existence of Atheism.

Logically, these conditions designate the BURDEN OF PROOF to the Theist. For that reason, it is not the responsibility of the Atheist to disprove the Theist’s assertion.

The Theist can not provide any empirical evidence to scientifically prove the existence of “god(s)”. For that reason, the result of the “Scientific Method” is the conclusion that the Theist’s assertion is baseless and false.

The Universe or life itself is not empirical evidence from which the existence of "god(s)" can be concluded, as these are only evidence of a tangible reality.

What I know exists, does not lead me to conclude what does not exist, does exist.

To the Theist: Please provide empirical evidence of the existence of any deity.

 

[jammieg]

The subjective proof of a belief is in the doing even the proof of logic is in the doing of logic, or sometimes one has to really go out on an unreasonable limb to find some reasonableness. I think most religions are like this, they are some other people's treasures found on wild trips but unlikely to be the ultimate truth, It might be kind of like the horoscope, most people who read them don't fully believe in them but there is something about reading one's horoscope that's kind of like soothsaying but also gives one a sense of direction or purpose that's a bit mystical and leads one to read into things too much, I think this is the process of letting one's imagination run wild, that is to believe in something that doesn't really exist and try and find something useful from this belief. The main problem maybe when one believes in something odd until they are sure it is real at which their imagination may be a captive, like John Edwards. There isn't much proof in telepathy but people can get to know others so well as to have very good guesses about what they are thinking, which is probably where the idea of telepathy started from, some people have good built in lie detectors, but what would happen if one did pretend that they could read other people's minds or others could read their mind?
If the effects of this help one to understand others or themselves then is that sufficient to make it the truth? I don't think it should be but the logical solution isn't always the right solution and I think that this is a shortcomming of science and logic.
Einstein also believed in God and wanted to read his mind, that's a bit crazy if someone else said it and meant it, but who knows maybe in part it got him somewhere. Descartes believed that the devil was out to convince him he didn't exist, and that's a lot of mental conflict to produce I think therefore I am. Although I hold true that one ultimately should go with reason over imagination but it may turn out that it's imagination that helps push reason forward.

 

[Kerrie]

mentor edit: i took out "atheism" in your title...this will lead others to believe it is a religous debate when i can clearly see you are disproving the existence of "gods".

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT GOD DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL RELIGION, thus we are able to discuss the concept of god. I consider this a borderline thread of relgious discussion, however will let it go since religion has not be brought up.