Does said theist(s) have a burden of proof for the God they believe in according to their religion?

Does said theist(s) have a burden of proof for the God they believe in according to their religion?

Why or why not?

Only if you believe that you need proof in order to believe.

For a specific religion, probably. But other than that it I'd just as reasonable to presuppose a God as it is not to. 

Everyone has a burden of proof for everything.

Proof of what.

Belief is basically, acceptance without proof.

No not everyone.

Some do say they believe something because of evidence.

But I get you'll have what is stronger than that with evidence. It's knowledge.

Not quite sure what your last post meant.

But, knowledge is acquired and stored data.

Evidence is not necessarily factual.

And if one knew that GOD was an unequivocal fact, then belief would be surplus to requirements.

If evidence is not necessarily fact, what is it at minimum?

At minimum.

Not really sure what that is asking.

Though, evidence may be a deliberate pack of lies. (Legal)

Or inaccurate and modified reinterpretations of inaccurate accounts of past events. (Biblical) 

Or theory, (Scientific)

The most simple reason why somebody might not believe in a god is that he or she doesn't see any persuasive reason or evidence to believe. They don't feel the need to believe in a god to explain the world around them. Nor do they believe a god is necessary for human beings to lead good, happy, and meaningful lives.

"Though, evidence may be a deliberate pack of lies."

That's called evidence in name sake. It's presented as such what it's really not.

"he or she doesn't see any persuasive reason or evidence to believe."

This is a weak basis. Furthermore, evidence is not required to believe anything but I understand it's a preference.

My question to Jim Bakker, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein is: Do you believe in God?

1. Jim-YES

2.Stephen-NO

3. Albert-NO

They dont have to prove it to themselves but if they want to convince someone else its a different story.. God by definition is not possible to be proven unless he decides to interact with us and come down to Earth but I guess he gave up on that.

It's probably still on it's way to another inhabited, but far distant corner of the Universe.

Not that I am suggesting that the Universe has corners.

Even if GOD can travel at lightspeed, it will still take it billions of years to get there, and billions of years to get back again.

And of course, there may be more than two inhabited corners.

So you are saying that you believe in the Easter Bunny?

i use two unconventional proofs for god. one is healing miracles, i dont see the kinds of miracles that happen to theists happen to atheists, or even non christians honestly, despite looking for that evidence and asking around. i realize that just because we dont see it, doesn't mean it's not there, but this is still significant. 

the other one is that the large majority of atheists come back believing in God after NDEs. it's irrational to say there's no evidence for the afterlife, when you get into the science of NDEs, and the credibility of NDEs lend credbility to all the atheists that convert. it's also been objectively studied that christian NDEs happen at a much greater rate than non christian themed NDEs... such that jesus is a common component of these experiences. nonchristian themes are very rare, and hard to quantify or qualify, and open to interpretation, and might be unreliable. 

there's all the philosophical arguments for God, such as the design argument and the causality argument. these are best kept at the level of philosophy but dont get much beyond just corroborating the God theory. 

in fact, all these points could be said to be just consistent with God, and if you wanted to split hairs, not evidence. a skeptic on this site made that point once, is this more about evidence or just 'consistent with the God theory but not evidence'. but with the miracle and NDE point, it's majorly lacking in common sense to stay atheist.

Why would you need to believe in Rabbits and the social occasion labelled as Eater?

I think it's safe to say that they definitely occur.

Within the context of human data storage and retrieval, relative to sensory perception.

Which is of course, all a brain generated simulation.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

"Why would you need to believe in Rabbits and the social occasion labelled as Eater?"

It has nothing to do with "need". The cause of my belief or knowledge of these two elements existing is from a phenomena called reality that has presented to me what it is to process the information of it I have learned via progress of growth where what's declared a creature I can detect, recognize and label a rabbit .

Likewise with easter it works the same way as being recognized as a custom, tradition , festivity. 

Sort of my point really.

That within the context of human knowledge and data processing

Certain things do not require belief.

We know them to be real within that context.

And Easter is a tradition very much based upon a Pagan celebration

Actually, far more to do with eggs than it is to do  with Jesus.

So, happy Chocolate Egg day Mall.

First_ Define  the word Miracle, and then give me your eyewitness account of such happening to theists?

I have happiness without chocolate or eggs. That's separating the truth from fabrication.

Same way with any other holiday, new year and birthday.

True.

Before chocolate eggs they used to paint hen eggs.

And also true that most religious holidays are based upon a pagan view of things.

Which Christians et al, were always keen to fabricate.

And  I also share your chocolate indifference.

So why does the Easter bunny hide his eggs?

...........................................................................

He dont want knowbody to know his been messing with a chicken.

They only burden is that of life of struggles. We have the non-creator God label aka finite, occupied space Universe, to thank for this life.

And we have the label of a creator God or gods etc.  If some want to define the creator God as pudding, then, the proof is in the pudding. Any chef knows that.

And pudding is an occupied space subset of Universe.  ......space....@......space... wherein @ = finite, occupied space Universe { non-creator of space God }.

1} Spirit-1, Meta-space,

2} macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space,

3} Spirit-2 { Fermionic matter and Bosonic forces},

.......Spirit-3 { Ultra-micro Gravity (  ) } and,

...........4 { ultra-micro } Dark Energy )(.

Are cosmic threes in more abundance than cosmic fours?

/ = lines aka chords or diameters etc

X = crossings aka points or vertexes

/\ = enclosures aka planes or openings or portals

Humans find beauty in curvature, ooh la la

 Of course they do. It is they that make the claim and have been preaching about him, his creations, his existence, his laws, his miracles, his wars, his jealousy, his anger gone to war on his behalf and command and all in all, his psychotic nature.

Why have you posted this in the Science and Nature sub forum?

Everything that occurs within a Universe at any given moment, is naturally occurring.

And to understand properly requires scientific research.

Or we can just make it up and compile  big old books of nonsense.

Good Morning Bromsgrove.

Good morning , Vic.

Hope you and yours are all well.  Here its a lovely day for the pub me thinks.