Sigh, I don’t know how many times I have to point out that the burden of proof is on the positive claim.
But the beleif in the supernatural has been around for a long time. And even though there have been some very astute atheists throughout history, notably some of the Greek philosophers for example, the history of humanity does bear with itself a long history of some beleif in the supernatural.
nucatholic:
Atheists don’t have to make an argument that proves there is no god, because it is impossible to prove an unfalsifiable claim.
But, as you already know, atheists are not going to convince anyone with this sort of reasoning nucatholic. You’re only convincing yourself.
Besides that, most people believe that history itself confirms their belief in God, a belief that they perceive stems from a distant memory of events from long ago and continues in some form today.
Atheism, on the whole, despite notable exceptions in the past, is really the new comer and is very much assuming that everyone else is just making stuff up.
In other words, the positive claim that one’s belief in God can be traced back into ancient history is the very thing which atheism has not actually proven wrong. Atheism has only assumed it knows better than others when it claims that everyone else who believes in the supernatural is wrong. But the burden of proof really is on the atheist to prove that the things experienced in the past were just delusions.
nucatholic:
Thatd be like me asking you to prove that Unicorns and Fairies don’t exist.
No. It’s like asking you why all these people who experienced the resurrected Christ were deluded when they made their claims. Since historical records have verified the claims many times over, the burden of proof is one the one claiming it never really happend.
nucatholic:
If I believed in fairies and unicorns, the burden of proof would be on me not those denying that they exist.
I think it can be fairly well reasoned that fairies come from myths, stories of glints of sunlight in people’s eyes which look like little fairies when one squints. Interestingly enough, the unicorn may have it’s origins in a kind of extinct form of bison that had once roamed around Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia.
Even in these harmless examples of fairies and unicorns, the myths are most likely based partly on some truth, some kind of experience which led people to believe they once existed, albeit distorted over time. And when one looks at the effects of religious claims thoughout history, one is dealing with topics which are far more difficult to explain than belief in fairies and unicorns.
When we’re talking about religion, we’ve gone long past superstitious myths distorted over time and well into real tangible history that can be verified by their writings and histotical witness. And upon closer examination, even in other religions outside Christianity, it is clear that something really did happen that led people to believe something miraculous happened.
Exactly what happened to cause people to believe as they did, a postive claim, it ultimately up to the atheist to decide. They cannot simply dismiss it because they don’t beleive it. They have to sufficiently prove it for themselves that nothing actually happened worth investigating further.
And atheists claiming that they hold the ‘positive claim’ isn’t going to prove anyone’s religion wrong. It just going to show that they don’t really care enough to look into religious people’s validly positive claims in the first place.
David Hume would disagree with Natural Moral Laws, so I am sure we can go both ways with this. Even if we don’t change the conversation, at least keep this one polite. I have enjoyed meeting many new people on this thread / board.
