The burden of proof always rests on the one making the existence claim. That small point seems to be lost on all theists.

@anglophone Agnostics as well.

@David1955 You're right, it doesn't have to be proven. We can take note of the vanishingly small probability of God's existence and then make the logical choice to live our lives accordingly, i.e. as functional atheists. In other words, take Pascal's wager, live free from religion, and be sufficiently confident that the only Heaven or Hell we will ever experience are right here on Earth.

I think yours is a much more important question!

About 5 minutes?

I'm afraid it is, the term was purely Christian, being coined by T.H. Huxley (grandfather of Aldus) an evolutionary biology AKA "Darwin's Bulldog" who felt that the fundamentally anti-biblical message of evolutionary theory could be mitigated by having a way to believe the science and the bible by employing reasonable doubt, this he termed agnostic science, meaning that we can know the science is right and at the same time not know that the bible is wrong.
It is derived from primitive Gnostic Christianity and in all other religions is at best only considered a euphemism for heresy or at worst blasphemy.

@LenHazell53 thank you Len, I should have known that because I have always related it to the Gnostic books of the Bible.

True…….Yet look at this Trump campaign sign……kind of like a contradiction. A friend of mine shot this somewhere in Oklahoma, a state that’s part of the Buy Bull belt in the Southern US.

@CuddyCruiser
That is basically a variation on the old joke
Trump, Lincoln and Washington go to heaven and stand in front of God
God says to Washington
"You founded the USA come sit at my right hand"
God says to Lincoln
"You ended slavery, come sit at my left hand"
Then God sees Trump and says
"Sorry sir, just keeping your seat warm for you."

Quite right, however not many would contend that lack of evidence for the easter bunny and santa claus provides a logical basis for uncertainty, which is the essence of the question.

@waitingforgodo It depends on the degree of uncertainty. I for one, am an acting atheist in effect. But I am also honest, I hope, and therefore my honesty forces me to admit that I do not have any evidence to disprove either the Easter Bunny, or Santa, therefore to that degree, and only to that degree, I am agnostic about those and about god as well. That does not mean that I have any belief in them, only that I do not have Santas body to prove that he is not here any longer.

And I am happy with that, because, in a tactical sense, I do not therefore give any leaverage to the theist appologists who ask, for proof of the none existence of god from hard atheists. Which leaves the burden of proof where it should be, with the believer. Which is good, if for no other reason than that I have neither the time, nor interest to debate such silly points with faith fools. I am an atheist but I am happy to be agnostic as well because the two are not mutually exclusive, since one is about knowledge and the other about belief, and defending the hard atheist possition seems to me to be a waste of time.

And my degree to which I credit any idea with the likelyhood of being true, is dependent on the quality of the evidence in its favour as well as that against. So that I assess the evidence for, humans usually having two legs as quite extremely high, the evidence for evolution by natural sellection as very high, the evidence that seeing a bus shelter means there could be a bus, as quite good, the evidence for the Yeti very poor, and for god and Santa extremely poor, and not therefore liable even to make me consider their existence. It is a sliding scale and not a matter of absolutes, the evidence for absolutes being itself very poor.

"We really need to understand that non-existence of proof does not equate to proof of non-existence."

Two words

Cosmic teapot ( Betrand Russell)

@LenHazell53 The "Russell's Teapot" argument is, basically, "Inability to prove god does not exist does not equate to proof that he does".

In effect I'm offering the other side of that same argument. Lack of proof cannot prove the existence of god (Russell), but in exactly the same way it cannot prove the non-existence of god either (me).

Basically lack of proof proves nothing either way - that is the fundamental nature of not having proof.

@ToakReon
Russell's cosmic Teapot was offered in debate as a rebuttal to Martin Rees' "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" contention.

Not as a an answer to "Inability to prove god does not exist does not equate to proof that he does"
it can be seen as a mockery of it, if it is used as you are doing, to answer a completely different argument.

Your contention of non-existence of proof does not equate to proof of non-existence, is like Rees a reworking of Pascals wager. Erring too far on the side of caution.

The default position must be that if there is no evidence of existence then it should be assumed the subject does not/ did not exist until proven otherwise.

@LenHazell53 No, if there is lack of evidence you do not assume "yes" or "no" - you base your assessment on probabilities.

Can we prove the existence of the Loch Ness monster? No, we can't.

Can we prove the non-existence of the Lock Ness monster? No, we can't - well, not conclusively, anyway.

So what do we do?

Do we 'give up' and take the 'easy way out' - saying we just don't know? Only if we're desperate to be non-committal.

Do we declare as fact that the Lock Ness monster either exists or does not exist? Only if we're being dishonest and declaring a certainty in the absense of proof.

What we do is look at the probabilities.

What is the CHANCE of the Loch Ness monster existing? Well, the chance of it existing and having managed to evade confirmable discovery is pretty damn small. The chance of it living in such a limited eco-system without the effects of its presence becoming apparent is pretty damn small. The chance of a singular creature type having lingered in a singular location, presumably for millions of years, is pretty damn small.

Put all of those together and the chance of the Lock Ness monster existing is tiny.

Do I believe in the Lock Ness monster? Absolutely not. You feed all those probabilities together and the chances of the Lock Ness monster being there are insanely small. You'd have to be delusional to actually believe in it.

But is its non-existence PROVEN?

No.

Similarly, is not having any knowledge of fairies at the bottom of the garden sufficient for logical uncertainty?

That's the better question, especially as it has a possibility of an answer. The rest of this endless discussion is like someone said, mental masturbation, and I'm really uncomfortable watching all these people do it. So tired of it, except and until someone like you comes up with the better question, but at this point I don't care for it's answer either. And so, I bid this thread farewell.

@Garban First, does the text specifically indicate that it is a fair tale?

The text stands for itself. That is, I am not the position to say it is or is not a fairy tale.

You claim it is a fairly tale, I am not claiming either way but simply asking for your grounds to prove to me your stance that it is a fairly tale. .

@Word Does the fact that it has talking donkeys like the children's fairy-tale-themed movie Shrek count?

The "word" is reverence, not reference. Bottom line: I don't care to discuss or read people like you discussing this shit anymore, which was my motive for being here under the umbrella of agnosticism/atheism in the first place... but you people keep horning in with your compulsion to prove we're fools and rain on me and my friends anyway. Fine, you played your word game and we're all fools, okay, happy?, now STFU and go away!

@ChestRockfield not necessarily. Fairy tale is for children. The biblical accounts are not considered magical and speaks against magical practices and, the land of israel really exist and is not imaginary lands.

Biblical text is not specifically for children.

Fairy tale
a children's story about magical and imaginary beings and lands

@AlbertSchepis you don't have to beat yourself up. Yes, I left christianity and can say I was fooled by the guise that fools a lot of people into christianity. However, from my experience with things of Jesus style meme God organism, I now understand how both christianity and illogical atheism /agnosticism are infested with simular species of meme mind virus organism.

So, it's not that I try to put illogical atheist down for their lack of understanding, but to admit that one is foolish at first is w means to then educate oneself so they are no longer fooled by the guises of christianity or illogical atheism.

@Word WTF is "illogical atheism"?

@Word First, the stories we now call fairy takes were NOT originally written just for children asshole who knows everything. They were entertainment and usually with s moral twist. Older renderings of "fairy takes" would scare the fuck out of most children. As for the bibly, the old testament was, as Lewis Black has said, a group of stories to entertain people living in a desert. The new testament was created from a bunch of stories and placed in an order decided upon by a group of humans, most of which had a political agenda at the time. There are more than one version of the bibly out there. Hell, if not for the politics of the 4th century you might not be a trinitarian (and, yes maybe you aren't, I'm assuming as most xtions are). All human made stories either made by an author chosen to be included or stolen from another author from another place.

@redbai yes, atheism proven illogical, its simply pointing out the default position of atheism that is illogical.

@Beowulfsfriend there is as genius within biblical text that takes some understanding to observe. Illogical atheist and brilliant biologist Richard Dawkins gives us one of the best conceptual understandings to understand the genius within biblical text.

Meme as coined and defined by illogical atheist and brilliant biologist Richard Dawkins can be seen as the major theme of biblical text that ties both old and new testiment together.

You say, old testiment written by who ever whatever reason and then you indicate your sources says someone else wrote new testiment for what ever reason seperate.

Here is some understanding of the observable meme connection between the old and new testiment: the new testiment life of Jesus as purported in new testiment is a meme mimic of the old testiment meme prophesies, meme behaviors and other related meme organism activity that corresponds or correlates between the old and new testiment.

So, with out discussion as to truth or fiction of biblical text, the genius of biblical text theme can be seen in the modern movie "stranger than fiction " (2006)with actor Will Ferrell. Where the old testiment is the author that controls all of the MIMICKED actions of Jesus character in new testiment.

For someone to write the new testiment seperate from old testiment, they would have to know the old testiment meme prophesies so that they match the old testiment meme information so that it corresponds with Jesus mimicking those things from old testiment.

As I have other posts in my group, there arexways to observe thru physics and chemistry of information the capabilities of a meme to evolve to mimic homo sapien form as that is the major theme of biblical text.

It is also a major reason I left christianity because I had experience with cognition related meme organism activity capabilities that I didn't understand at the time but still left christianity. Since leaving christianity and doing my own further research to understand my experiences, i find that viewing meme organism as to have capabilities to evolve to coalesce it's own cognition capability within the minds of people and to have capabilities of interaction with people's minds like can be seen in the zombie ant fungus that can control the ant that it infects.

So, with out me repeating everything from my group discussions here please feel free to look over my group discussions I already have posted.

"Illogical atheists guide for ending Christianity "

@redbai You know what, I have absolutely no idea wtf this guy is trying to say. He's all over the place. I think he's off his medication or something. He's like a fly buzzing around my room. I don't necessarily want to swat it, but he's not welcome and I don't go to people's homes and bother them (I consider this a home), so I don't appreciate them coming here and getting in my face. There are specific groups here where he can debate this shit... this isn't one of them.

@Word Are you under the impression that you've actually answered my question? Because if you are you should know it doesn't meet the task.

@redbai yes,
Atheism, the proposition that nothing God exists.

You are a God. You exist. You prove atheism illogical.

In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). [plato.stanford.edu]

Very well established historically, in modern usage AND documented in dictionary that people are gods.

laws for the nation of Israel 2000 years ago recognized their citizens as gods. Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’? John 10:34

Tep 10 Ultimate Rock Gods of All Time. [forum.songfacts.com]
List of people who have been considered deities
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

And, dictionary of modern usage shows. Bankers. Daniel Boone and Kit Carson as gods in their respective categories. See picture attached.

God
an adored, admired, or influential person.
"he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god"
[google.com]

People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens are gods of illogical atheism.

These gods of illogical atheism are gods because they are at top of hierarchy for illogical atheist in that they are very popular, influential and highly revered among other illogical atheist.

@Word FTR, you didn't and your word salads aren't comprehensible as anything relevant.

@redbai I only have the one word salad on my profile. It has nothing to do with conversation here, rather not at all relevant that you would bring it up. But, in case you just want it posted here, I will share.

cucumbers, peppers, tomatoes, onions, carrots, celery, radishes, mushrooms, avocado, olives, artichoke hearts, heart of palm, watercress, parsley, garden beets, green beans, potatoe, nuts, berries, seeds, chicken, tuna, hard-boiled eggs, bacon, shrimp, and cheese.

Would you like some dressing on that? I have hyperbole, condescending, and my favorite, onomatopoeia flavored dressing.

I hope you find this word salad flavorful.

@Beowulfsfriend @redbai
You need a grain of salt with every response you read of his. Someone told him once that his penis would grow 1mm every time he said meme, so it's now so littered in every post he makes they become completely nonsensical and incomprehensible.