Is the onus on God to prove to us that he exists or is the onus on us to prove that he exists?

No one is born believing in gods. So if you do believe in a god, you must have decided at some point to adopt that position. Therefore it's completely reasonable to expect you to have some argument for doing so.

Incidentally, why is this question aimed only at atheists? Monotheists reject the existence of only one less god. And, with a theoretically infinite number of conceivable gods, that's really no difference at all.

If you think there is precisely one god (or any finite number) then do you think you should have to disprove the existence of every other god you can imagine? If only one out of a dozen people comes close to understanding what you're asking, that should be a pretty strong indication that you're not expressing yourself clearly. Thundercatt9, if you have access to the Internet then there is no excuse for falsely claiming that atheists cannot refute the arguments put forward by Christians in support of their religion.

It would take you literally ten seconds to find hundreds of such refutations. "If you have access to the Internet then there is no excuse for falsely claiming that Christians cannot refute the arguments put forward by atheists in support of their position." When did I claim that?

Obviously I don't find any of those arguments put forward by Christians to be convincing, but I never suggested that they are not made. You, on the other hand, claim that atheists have no arguments. That's lying, and misrepresenting what I wrote does not make your lie honest.

Now, back to the Ginger Cat. I think the problem is that you're discussing a caricature of atheism. No one actually thinks 'it's 100% as long as the other viewpoint can't prove it'.

You seem to be working from the assumption that in order to be an atheist, someone has to know with absolute certainty that nothing within the broadest definition of 'god' could possibly exist. Within that definition, there would indeed be no atheists. A corresponding definition of 'theist' would be similarly empty, except of the most closed-minded zealots.

If you define agnosticism as the absence of absolute knowledge, then obviously everyone is agnostic with respect to everything. The word 'agnostic' thus has no useful application, as you have defined it, because there is no situation in which anyone could not be agnostic. So the problem is that you define atheism so narrowly as to include no one, and agnosticism so broadly as to include everyone.

All these definitions are ultimately based on how you define 'knowledge'. Knowledge is what an atheist (or a theist) must have, and what an agnostic must not. I suggest that if you were to use a more standard definition of knowledge (e.g. 'the perception that something is true') then you would find that atheism becomes a perfectly reasonable position.

I know there are no gods in the same way I know my computer is plugged in. Logically it's possible that it isn't plugged in, and that I'm simply hallucinating its functions. But I would comfortably say that it is plugged in.

I perceive that to be true.

You seem to understand neither logical argument nor the simple and most obvious definitions of the words atheist and agnostic. Atheists do not propose any hypothesis. They simply are not persuaded by the hypothesis that believers present, that some hypothetical deity, that they are imagining, is real.

Atheists have no burden of proof because they are not proposing that any unseen hypothetical is real. But back to simple definitions: Theists are those who imagine some hypothetical deity, and are certain (have faith) and make the claim that this imagined hypothetical deity is real. Everyone else (who is not theist) is atheist, because 'not theist' is what atheist means.

Agnostic is not a belief, but an argument, a position, a reason, about knowledge and what is reasonable to believe and ask others to believe if there is some hypothetical that you cannot have testable knowledge about, in principle, like hypothetical invisible magical deities. It is a word coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, and he wrote extensively about what he meant by that word. If you are going to make public statements about his word, you should read what he says it means, first.

On the internet, there are these wonderful sites, called search engines, where you can locate all sorts of useful information. Edit: You may call this wordplay, but when you get the definitions of all the important words in this question wrong, every explanation of what is wrong with your preconceived notions on this subject will look like word play to you. -- Regards, John Popelish.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.