That’s false on both accounts. Atheists have yet to see evidence of miracles, so they lack a belief. Atheism does not require a belief that miracles can’t happen. Naturalism also does not exclude miracles. You can accept a natural explanation for how clouds form while also believing in miracles.
The burden of proof lies with those who make the assertions. Atheists don’t need to disprove that which lacks evidence.
Depends on your definition of miracles. Since I define miracles as things which God is responsible for then your statement is clearly incorrect with that definition of the word.
I will grant you that an atheist can choose to define the word “miracles” differently and thus say that he believes there is such a thing as miracles.
That would depend on your definition of both miracles and God. Since I define God as something nonphysical, spiritual, and supernatural. Then by my definitions this statement is also incorrect.
Likewise I will grant that a naturalist may if he chooses define these words differently and thus assert as you do that naturalism does not exclude miracles.
Uh… don’t see the relevance here. This describes me as well but I do not support the claims of naturalism. I guess you have a different definition of that word (“naturalism”) as well.
The burden of proof lies with anyone who expects other people to agree with them. As I have CLEARLY already stated, I do not expect you to agree that miracles occur. But yes if you expect me to agree with a claim that there are no miracles then the burden of proof lies with you. If, however, you do not care one way or the other what I believe, but simply do not see any reason to believe yourself that any such things occur, then that is a different matter. But I likewise do not see any reason to believe that any such things do not occur and if you wish me to think otherwise then the burden of proof most certainly is yours. It is demonstrable that people can know things for which there is no objective evidence whatsoever. If they have a personal experience with something it is natural and nothing wrong with stating that this is the case, even while they acknowledge that having no proof they cannot expect anyone to agree with them. But I consider it unreasonable to say that people are wrong in their beliefs without objective evidence that this is the case. I see nothing wrong with people believing entirely different even contrary things because while I see excellent evidence that there is an objective aspect to reality (things which are the same for everyone), I see no evidence whatsoever that reality is exclusively objective (entirely the same for everyone).
It isn’t incorrect. You seem to be under the false impression that Atheism requires a belief that God doesn’t exist. That isn’t true. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, primarily due to a lack of evidence. As an atheist, I accept that miracles could occur and God could exist, so both are certainly allowed to exist in my worldview. The problem is that I have yet to see compelling evidence for either God or miracles.
If God produced changes in the natural world then those processes can be part of naturalism. All you would need is empirical evidence of these processes.
You don’t support the claim that clouds form through natural processes?
I have never asserted that miracles don’t exist. Atheism doesn’t assert that miracles don’t exist. What atheism asserts is that there is no compelling evidence for miracles, so the claims are not accepted.
This would lead to a discussion on the differences between knowledge and belief.
They will not to get it T.
Somebody has to push the rock to the top of the hill. 
Human psychology is a crazy thing. We all have our flaws and biases, so I’m not being judgmental by any stretch of the imagination. All I can do is keep pointing to what the positions really are and hope that light switch finally ticks over and people start to understand where I and other atheists are coming from.
Another good description of atheism I have heard is that we want to believe as many true things as possible. If the existence of deities is true then many, many of us would have no problem believing deities exist as long as we were shown compelling evidence. We are skeptics, not deniers.
Its called agnosticism though.Not atheism.But i guess we all want to believe whatever fits our lifestyle of some sort.
You dont know if God doesnt exist. You chose to believe he doesnt .Atheism.I chose to believe he does.Theism.Simple.There are many arguments about hes existance you just refuse to accept just as i refuse to the arguments of the atheists
Do you believe in everything people claim to be true?
Arguments lacking evidence are hard to accept. I will grant you that.
I agree .Thats why i dont accept the atheists one.Which proves my sentence
true
and that one
What argument are we making?
Ohh doesnt atheists have arguments?Thas a new one.Your god-like figure Dawkins wrote a few .There are others as well
I don’t view Dawkins as a god-like figure. I don’t view anyone as a god-like figure.
Wouldn’t you find it frustrating if people kept making up stuff you believe when you don’t actually believe it, especially when those assumed beliefs are overtly self serving? It would be refreshing if people actually discussed the arguments I actually make and the beliefs I actually have.
Make a thread maybe .I dont think there isnt actually an argument that hasnt been discussed amongst professional circlesWe the audience just chose the best possible explanation we believe to be true …Btw the Dawkin thing was a joke like example i tried to make to answer you that atheists have arguments as well.
Are tornadoes, floods, earthquakes and eruptions evil? No, and there are some positive benefits from them. Often the evil from them comes from our own sinful nature. We are greedy and build in flood plains. Government officials squander money, often on themselves, and fail to provide tsunami warning systems. We build in earthquake prone areas and in many parts of the world don’t follow the building codes or bribe officials to look the other way. A lot of what we attribute to “natural evil” is directly traceable to human sinfulness. See Alvin Plantinga, “Not the Way It Ought to Be.”
But it does interfere with free will if a person builds in a flood zone or doesn’t build properly etc.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.
Thats not always the case and you know it
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.