One should prove, that there is such a thing as an "atheist" not just a person CLAIMING to be an Atheist but cant prove it.
---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.
OwnLogic, welcome to WWGHA Forum. Please make sure to learn how to use the quote function when replying to others. You just need to copy/paste the "quote author" section, with the brackets, for each person you are responding to. You can then enclose their text by placing the "/quote" (with brackets) function at the end of each quotation. After that, just type your response.
Now, onto your response to my OP. Do you understand what "burden of proof" is? The argument you raised above is called the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. Atheism is simply a LACK OF BELIEF if god or gods - nothing more. It is not
a positive statement. Furthermore, the burden of proof rests on he who makes the claim (like those who said lightening came from Zeus before we knew better).
The default position is not belief, but disbelief until sufficient evidence has been presented. Well, we have been presented with no sufficient evidence for God. As an example, do you believe in Unicorns? If not, why not? Chances are, you have not been presented with sufficient evidence. Here's another example - this is a paraphrased story from another one of our members here (and I think it fits quite nicely here). Say you and two friends (Bob and Jim) are walking down a foreign alleyway when you come upon a big closed cardboard box, one which none of you have ever seen before. You ask each of your friends what they think is inside the box. Bob says, "I don't know" but Jim says, "There is a Unicorn in there!" When you ask Jim how he thinks he knows this he says, "I just have faith." Which one of your friend's responses is the more reasonable position?
Disbelieving a claim until sound evidence is presented is the default position for fact finding b/c it is the most reliable. So too, with your God example. The burden of proof lies with you making the claim (like Jim needs to show how he knows a Unicorn is in the box).
Does this make sense why your response is nonsensical? We don't believe every claim FIRST and then try to support our belief. That is quite backwards. Instead, we disbelieve until the evidence allows for tentative acceptance.
With that said, here's something to think about;
If a person claiming to be an "atheist" doesnt believe in God, does it automatically follows that God doesnt exist?
No, but the same could be said about Unicorns or Santa Claus too. Either way, demonstrable evidence is needed - not just claims or bad arguments (as we so often see here from Christians).
---Before, people believed Earth was flat, but then it wasnt so as was mentioned in the Bible about the curvature or circle of the earth.
Actually, you are quite mistaken here. The people who wrote the bible quite clearly believed that the earth was a flat circular disk shaped living space, with "the heavens" spread out over it like a tent (Isaiah 40, etc). In fact the Hebrew word Chug
means circle and never implies a sphere. In fact, the terms "circle of the earth" and "the ends of the earth" were already in use by flat-earth believing Mesopotamians long before Isaiah was written. The verses in Isaiah 42 and 44 indicate a "pounding out" (toward flatness) of the earth by God at the alleged creation. This is b/c the ancients were living in a pre-scientific era and did not know about cosmology. This is why the writers of Isaiah (40, and Job 38, etc) talk about "from one end of the earth even to the other end..." (found also in Mesopotamian writings) or "take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it". See Job 11 also, "[God's] measure is longer than the earth..." and Job 38, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth. On what were it's bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone?"
If you compare these writings with other ancient writings of the time, it is quite clear that the Jews believed the earth is flat.
Now some people say theres No God then maybe theyre just as wrong again.
Some people use the scientific method to find evidence, but actually what they find is not evidence but more questions.
Questions are what drives science. In fact, it's the honest answer "I don't know" that drives science to go investigate, research, study, and find things out (without assuming an answer in advance of the evidence). Science follows
the evidence instead of leading
it (as religious belief so often does).
Last, people thought the earth was flat, just as they thought lightening came from the god Zeus and storms came from the god Poseidon. They were wrong because they practiced being gullible and didn't have enough information. Could this be the same for God belief? Many of us think so. I look forward to your response.