Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

That's just laziness, Frank.

It isn't a "wild guess" that god does not exist.

Quote:

If you say that "the flying noodle monster doesn't exist", then you are making an assertion that something doesn't exist, and the burden of proof would indeed fall on you to support that assertion. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative, it's an assertion.

Just because the object of the assertion is non-existence doesn't mean that the assertion you are making is somehow "negative". It's still an assertion of a state of being (which just happens to be non-existence).

You are incorrect.
I don't have to prove that the flying noodle monster does not exist. It's obvious to any simpleton that he doesn't exist. I can't prove that flying bunny rabbits don't exist either.

I'm starting to get a bit flabbergasted by you and Frank's logic here and how you can't see how silly it can be when being used with other (albeit silly) examples.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was a staple of Reasoning Logic's "logic" for a long time, along with unicorns, and teapots orbiting the Earth.

If you make an assertion...then the burden of proof for that assertion falls on you. Stop making assertions...or accept the burden of proof...or at least, of providing some reasoning and evidence.

If you want to play games with the flying noodle monster (something you apparently simply dreamed up)...mention that you simply dreamed up...and we can all acknowledge that it does not exist except in your dreams.

You are incorrect.
I don't have to prove that the flying noodle monster does not exist. It's obvious to any simpleton that he doesn't exist.

Why do people become atheists in the first place anyway?

Quote:

If you make an assertion...then the burden of proof for that assertion falls on you. Stop making assertions...or accept the burden of proof...or at least, of providing some reasoning and evidence.

you are asserting that if you make assertions you must prove them. if that is true, then you must first prove that it is true. now, is it true? no, everybody makes assertions and does not prove them. what is this burden of proof bs?

the burden is there if you invent it, and want the proof. that's all.

If you want to play games with the flying noodle monster (something

Quote:

you apparently simply dreamed up)...mention that you simply dreamed up...and we can all acknowledge that it does not exist except in your dreams.

If you want to play games with the life/reality/universe (something you apparently simply dreamed up)...mention that you simply dreamed up...and we can all acknowledge that it does not exist except in your dreams.

JimmyJ wrote:

You are incorrect.
I don't have to prove that the flying noodle monster does not exist. It's obvious to any simpleton that he doesn't exist.

If someone claims that God exists, then the burden of proof lies upon them to prove it. Likewise if someone claims that God does not exist, then the same burden of proof lies upon them. The burden must be born equally by both claims or it loses its value. Just because you claim something which seems obvious to you (and me) doesn't change the rules of the burden.

We are speaking philosophically of course. If we are limiting the debate to scientific methodology then there is no need to assert that anything supernatural (a God or the FSM) doesn't exist because it is the default position.

Remember too that the Burden of Proof is also meant to ferret out any discrepancies in the language and conceptual understanding of the arguments. For example, you might be speaking to someone who treats the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as though it "exists" simply because the concept itself exists and can be discussed. In such a case your generalized assertion that the FSM does not exist would be incorrect from their point of view, which is again, why the burden of proof falls up on the claimant.

Philosophic Burden of Proof -
The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

Holder of the burden:
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed". This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

Rosborne said: All people start out as atheists. Little kids have no knowledge of religion, they are without theism.
The real question is why they become religious, and that's because they are unfortunate enough to be indoctrinated by whatever religion they happen to be exposed to

1- It might be the other way round, namely that kids are born "on the Jesus wavelength" but have it hammered out of them by the establishment as they get older.

Rosborne said: Ask any kid who has never heard anything about Jesus, what he thinks of Jesus, and he won't know what you're talking about (obviously).