Burden of proof

[rosey]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

[Nilloc James]

Logically its silly to say "until you prove something wrong it is assumed to be true"

As Bertran Russel pointed out, I cannot disprove a tea pot in orbit around Saturn - but no rational human being would say "this teapot exists". Sometimes we just say "there is no evidence thus we.must reject the theory". Happens all the time in science: I saw a string theoriest say "O do not believe in string theory, there is no evidence". Even if you like the idea, claiming its true just because you like it is intellectually dishonest.

[Darias]

The idea of the burden of proof does not care whether something is "well established" or "widely accepted" as you use the term. It does not matter if an idea is new or old; it doesn't matter if everyone ascribed to it or not; it matters if an idea has evidence or not.

As a skeptic, it is not my job to disprove Bigfoot. I tend not to believe in Bigfoot but I have not ruled out the possibility of a discovery of a new species of ape somewhere in the wildernesses of the world -- no matter how unlikely. I await evidence for such a species and when that happens, I will accept what the evidence reveals. Until then, Bigfoot will remain the butt of jokes. They discovered the giant squid after all...

However, not all claims are equal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone claims there are pink fairies in Guatamala, I cannot disprove them scientifically, but they better have a heck of a lot of evidence to support their claims. Otherwise, they best prepare for laughs.

Imagine if most of the world believed that pink fairies exist, without evidence. My demands for evidence might make me an outcast in society. People might question my morality or take away my political rights because I failed to believe without evidence what was "common sense" for most people.

Your belief in god is like the belief in bigfoot for me. (And I'm being generous in this analogy because an ape we haven't found might exist and I doubt any sort of god could even possibly exist. But I can't make claims about the non-existence of god.)

Your belief in Christianity is like a belief in pink fairies. There is absolutely no evidence for the divinity of Christ or evidence that Jesus even existed. It is even more ludicrous than a belief in a god, because it also lacks evidence but moreover because the claims contained in the Bible also fly in the face of known facts.

However, if evidence is found that backs up the existence of Jesus as a person, I will accept him as an historic figure.

And if evidence of god is found -- I will acknowledge his existence.

You can't just expect me to take traditional ideas face value just because they are old. Slavery was also a time honored tradition amongst many human cultures -- where is the validity in this system. Why should I have to prove that freedom is better? If the case cannot be made for slavery, then it should no longer be upheld.





Also, just because you brought it up: although we never had reason to believe a global flood happened without evidence, now we have an obligation not to believe the story because the evidence shows that such a flood never occurred in Earth's history.

[ytrewq]

rosey wrote:

OK, so WHY is it generally accepted that burden of proof falls upon he who makes the claim?

Excellent question, and it has nothing to do with religion or Gods. The answer, is that if it were otherwise, we would need to accept that EVERY crackpot claim under the sun was true unless proven otherwise, which would be ridiculous and unworkable. For example, we would need to believe by default that every God, myth superstition and crackpot belief in the history of Mankind was true, unless we could specifically prove otherwise. I contend that that is ridiculous and unworkable, for you cannot specifically disprove many of these clearly absurd claims. The only workable approach, is that if no evidence is put forward for the existence of something, then our default position should be to assume it does not exist.

The age of the claim, or how many people happen to believe it, is irrelevant, for the above argument still holds. BTW there are plenty of ridiculous Gods, myths and superstitions that predate the Bible that were universally believed at the time, that we now universally regard as nonsense, so Christians would do well not to argue that older, commonly held beliefs are entitled to special consideration.

In my experience, theists and Christians sometimes want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to exclude THEIR particular beliefs from the general principles of debate that apply to everything else, from fairies to superstitions to spaghetti monsters. In debating, this is known as Special Pleading, and is not permitted for what I trust are obvious reasons. Frequently, requests for special pleading imply that the argument requiring it cannot stand up on it’s own merits, for why else would special pleading be requested?

I conclude that the generally accepted rules for debating are both sensible and correct, meaning that the burden for providing evidence falls on the person making the claim. The practical implication, is that if no evidence is put forward for the existence of something, then our default position should be to assume it does not exist. Just common sense.

I don’t like the term ‘Burden of Proof’ though, for it is unreasonable to expect 100% ‘proof’ of anything. The strength of evidence required needs to match the strength of the assertion.

If anyone feels there is a logical error in anything written here, then please send in a posting and explain why, preferably without reference to Gods or religion, which are not relevant to discussing the rules for debate. This is an important topic, and I have an open mind.

[stubbornone]

Monotheism most likely developed after polytheism - and polytheism probably developed after animism. So by your reasoning, Christians have a burden of proof first to show that spiritual being/s are great and powerful rather than the individual spirits of each tree or rock or stream in animism, and then to show that there is only one supreme spiritual being rather than many gods.

Of course, some Christians would suggest that belief in the one true God is the oldest of all beliefs, just as atheists might suggest that before animism and the like there was no belief in spiritual beings at all. I'm not sure either claim could be satisfactorily proven.

So I suspect that the principle you're suggesting would be an exercise in futility. But on an individual level I think there's some merit to the idea that we should have good reasons for changing our views on something; our minds aren't a blank slate, and short of solipsism we can't justify everything we believe. So is someone raised a Christian who finds fault with the bible really justified in rejecting all religions and theism entirely, or is that more of an emotional response?

Mith, that makes no sense. That something came before doesn't mean you have to endlessly reprove something over and over again. What the OP is talking about is called paradigm shift -- as in, the person seeking to upset the current paradigm has to undermine the evidential underpinnings of teh current paradigm ... as opposed to claiming that they are right by rejecting any evidence whatsoever placed by others in support of the currently accepted paradigm ... essentially turing the rules of both logic and simple civilty on their head.

Logic has a pretty clear cut rule, all claims must be supported by some type of reaosning/evidence.

Christians must prove theirs.

Atheists must also prove their.

The problem is that the evidence for God is inconclusive, and atheists claiming they have no burden of proof, are not making a claim ... are simply being dishonest in a very logically identifiable sense.

Not all atheists do this mind you, but its common enough that one has to wonder at the source of this widespread teaching in atheism?

[stubbornone]

The idea of the burden of proof does not care whether something is "well established" or "widely accepted" as you use the term. It does not matter if an idea is new or old; it doesn't matter if everyone ascribed to it or not; it matters if an idea has evidence or not.

As a skeptic, it is not my job to disprove Bigfoot. I tend not to believe in Bigfoot but I have not ruled out the possibility of a discovery of a new species of ape somewhere in the wildernesses of the world -- no matter how unlikely. I await evidence for such a species and when that happens, I will accept what the evidence reveals. Until then, Bigfoot will remain the butt of jokes. They discovered the giant squid after all...

However, not all claims are equal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone claims there are pink fairies in Guatamala, I cannot disprove them scientifically, but they better have a heck of a lot of evidence to support their claims. Otherwise, they best prepare for laughs.

Imagine if most of the world believed that pink fairies exist, without evidence. My demands for evidence might make me an outcast in society. People might question my morality or take away my political rights because I failed to believe without evidence what was "common sense" for most people.

Your belief in god is like the belief in bigfoot for me. (And I'm being generous in this analogy because an ape we haven't found might exist and I doubt any sort of god could even possibly exist. But I can't make claims about the non-existence of god.)

Your belief in Christianity is like a belief in pink fairies. There is absolutely no evidence for the divinity of Christ or evidence that Jesus even existed. It is even more ludicrous than a belief in a god, because it also lacks evidence but moreover because the claims contained in the Bible also fly in the face of known facts.

However, if evidence is found that backs up the existence of Jesus as a person, I will accept him as an historic figure.

And if evidence of god is found -- I will acknowledge his existence.

You can't just expect me to take traditional ideas face value just because they are old. Slavery was also a time honored tradition amongst many human cultures -- where is the validity in this system. Why should I have to prove that freedom is better? If the case cannot be made for slavery, then it should no longer be upheld.





Also, just because you brought it up: although we never had reason to believe a global flood happened without evidence, now we have an obligation not to believe the story because the evidence shows that such a flood never occurred in Earth's history.

A paradigm certainly does.

A scientific theory certainly does.

There are simple intellectual standards that allow us to identify when something is a conspiracy theory, and the first sign a dig batted though flop is the constant demanding of evidence in the face of well established scientific positions.

Such demands never lead anywhere, because generally, the one asking for them is really just using an argument from absurdity, and plans on generally raising the bar to the point that there is no way to verify the point (much less any of theirs).

So simply denying other people's theories is generally not only considered to be unhelpful in a logical sense, its also antithetical to actual problem solving.

Case in point, very few people consider the OT parables to be LITERAL truth as they are laced with symbolism and analogy. Yet there was a flood in Pakistan just a few years ago, that, before the time of widespread flood control would have been eveb more devastating in terms of material and human loss. Its doesn;t take a stretch to determine that that ancient parable, intent mostly on passing on a lesson rather than literalism, would have been referring to period great flood that wracked the region repeatedly.

Once again, if we apply standards of absurdity rather than contextual analysis of audience and intended message and instead arrive at a point where we expect MODERN scientific exactness in 4,000+ year old oral traditions ... well, the error is a modern one, not an ancient one isn't it?

[d.thomas]

Monotheism most likely developed after polytheism - and polytheism probably developed after animism. So by your reasoning, Christians have a burden of proof first to show that spiritual being/s are great and powerful rather than the individual spirits of each tree or rock or stream in animism, and then to show that there is only one supreme spiritual being rather than many gods.

Of course, some Christians would suggest that belief in the one true God is the oldest of all beliefs, just as atheists might suggest that before animism and the like there was no belief in spiritual beings at all. I'm not sure either claim could be satisfactorily proven.

So I suspect that the principle you're suggesting would be an exercise in futility. But on an individual level I think there's some merit to the idea that we should have good reasons for changing our views on something; our minds aren't a blank slate, and short of solipsism we can't justify everything we believe. So is someone raised a Christian who finds fault with the bible really justified in rejecting all religions and theism entirely, or is that more of an emotional response?

Mith, that makes no sense. That something came before doesn't mean you have to endlessly reprove something over and over again. What the OP is talking about is called paradigm shift -- as in, the person seeking to upset the current paradigm has to undermine the evidential underpinnings of teh current paradigm ... as opposed to claiming that they are right by rejecting any evidence whatsoever placed by others in support of the currently accepted paradigm ... essentially turing the rules of both logic and simple civilty on their head.

Logic has a pretty clear cut rule, all claims must be supported by some type of reaosning/evidence.

Christians must prove theirs.

Atheists must also prove their.

The problem is that the evidence for God is inconclusive, and atheists claiming they have no burden of proof, are not making a claim ... are simply being dishonest in a very logically identifiable sense.

Not all atheists do this mind you, but its common enough that one has to wonder at the source of this widespread teaching in atheism?

Theists run around claiming ancient invisible gods exist out there and therefore have to bear the burden of proof.

[Divine Insight]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

Atheism and all manner of religions were around far longer than Christianity.

In fact, even the biblical fables speak about atheists (i.e. non-believers in God) so those myths already show that there were clearly atheists around at the time the myths were written. This violates your claim that atheism is something recent.

Also, if you're going to go by "Which came first", you'd have to also confess that people like Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius would have all beaten Jesus (and thus the Hebrew God of Christianity) to the punch in terms of teaching better moral values than had been taught in the immoral Old Testament.

Finally, religions that view "God" as being a female predate not only Christianity but even the entire Old Testament and Hebrew culture by tens of thousands of years.

So Christianity itself is a fairly recent mythology when viewed in terms of humanity as a whole.

In fact, Christianity is clearly copied from Greek Mythology. The idea of a God impregnating a virgin mortal woman to produce a demigod was a clearly-established mythological idea long before the rumors of Jesus.

That brings up the additional question of why the real creator of the universe would have used the same methods that men had fantasied about in their own fables? Why would the real creator of the universe copy the behavior of the Greek Zeus?

Not only would the Christian God be copying Zeus in terms of impregnating a mortal woman to produce a demigod, but the Hebrew God of the Old Testament would have also been copying Zeus in terms of being appeased by blood sacrifices?

Why do you think that the creator of the universe would decide to copy the behavior of the mythological God of the Greeks?

~~~~~

And finally to the Real Issue

Why should Christian Evangelists need to prove their God to me?

Well, duh? They are the ones who are demanding that I believe in him and worship their dogma as "God's Word".

So, yes, it's entirely up to them to prove that their God is anything more than a myth.

Why should I worship a myth?

Why should I follow the rules of an ancient male-chauvinistic society who claims that God is a male-chauvinistic pig?

Why should I believe that without proof? Or even remotely convincing evidence?

On the contrary, I already have proof that these ancient Hebrew myths are indeed false.


My Proof that the Bible is False

The Bible claims that mankind is responsible for bringing death, sin, and all manner of imperfections into the world because of a so-called "Fall From Grace" where a hypothetical Adam and Eve did something against the will of God.

This is the entire foundation of the Biblical fables, proclaiming that we are now in dire need to repent and see to get back in good with this God that we have fallen from grace from.

Well, that's clearly a lie.

How so?

Today, we know that the world was dog-eat-dog long before mankind ever showed up on the planet. We know that death, disease, and all manner of imperfections existed long before humans did.

So the biblical fables are clearly based upon a lie.

It's a lie that mankind is responsible for any of these things that had been around long before mankind ever even appeared on the planet.

The Bible has been proven to be false. It's based on an obviously lie.

So we already have PROOF that the Bible is false.

~~~~

Is there a "God"?

Perhaps so.

But if there is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrew myths of the God of Abraham or the Christian claims that Jesus was his demigod Son.

That much we can be absolutely sure of.

We have rock solid proof in the fossil record of life on Earth that the Bible is indeed a false mythology that is entirely based upon a lie.

So we already have PROOF that the Bible is false.

[stubbornone]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

~~~~~

And finally to the Real Issue

Why should Christian Evangelists need to prove their God to me?

Because that would be the postulated question on a debate forum? Perhaps?

As for the rest, your 'lies' of the Bible are simple and easily proven strawmen. For example, why does man have sin? Because WE brought it? No, because we were tempted in innocence by Satan to partake in the fruit of the tree of knowledge ... and thus lost innocence and knew both good and evil, and could choose among them accordingly.

Some, like Adam chose righteousness thereafter. Some, like Cain, did not.

So, there is no God because atheists cannot seem to get the basics of Christian theology right?

That would be why atheists to have to PROVE there claims rather than just bash the Bible ... its how logic works.

[d.thomas]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

Atheists predate Christianity, read on

Diagoras "the Atheist" of Melos, Greek poet, (5th cent. BCE).
Threw a wooden image of a god into a fire, remarking that the deity should perform another miracle and save itself. The uproar this caused in Athens prompted Diagoras to flee for his life. "Athens outlawed him and offered a reward for his capture dead or alive. He lived out his life in Spartan territory." from Famous Dead Nontheists

[TheTruth101]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

Atheism and all manner of religions were around far longer than Christianity.

In fact, even the biblical fables speak about atheists (i.e. non-believers in God) so those myths already show that there were clearly atheists around at the time the myths were written. This violates your claim that atheism is something recent.

Also, if you're going to go by "Which came first", you'd have to also confess that people like Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius would have all beaten Jesus (and thus the Hebrew God of Christianity) to the punch in terms of teaching better moral values than had been taught in the immoral Old Testament.

Finally, religions that view "God" as being a female predate not only Christianity but even the entire Old Testament and Hebrew culture by tens of thousands of years.

So Christianity itself is a fairly recent mythology when viewed in terms of humanity as a whole.

In fact, Christianity is clearly copied from Greek Mythology. The idea of a God impregnating a virgin mortal woman to produce a demigod was a clearly-established mythological idea long before the rumors of Jesus.

That brings up the additional question of why the real creator of the universe would have used the same methods that men had fantasied about in their own fables? Why would the real creator of the universe copy the behavior of the Greek Zeus?

Not only would the Christian God be copying Zeus in terms of impregnating a mortal woman to produce a demigod, but the Hebrew God of the Old Testament would have also been copying Zeus in terms of being appeased by blood sacrifices?

Why do you think that the creator of the universe would decide to copy the behavior of the mythological God of the Greeks?

~~~~~

And finally to the Real Issue

Why should Christian Evangelists need to prove their God to me?

Well, duh? They are the ones who are demanding that I believe in him and worship their dogma as "God's Word".

So, yes, it's entirely up to them to prove that their God is anything more than a myth.

Why should I worship a myth?

Why should I follow the rules of an ancient male-chauvinistic society who claims that God is a male-chauvinistic pig?

Why should I believe that without proof? Or even remotely convincing evidence?

On the contrary, I already have proof that these ancient Hebrew myths are indeed false.


My Proof that the Bible is False

The Bible claims that mankind is responsible for bringing death, sin, and all manner of imperfections into the world because of a so-called "Fall From Grace" where a hypothetical Adam and Eve did something against the will of God.

This is the entire foundation of the Biblical fables, proclaiming that we are now in dire need to repent and see to get back in good with this God that we have fallen from grace from.

Well, that's clearly a lie.

How so?

Today, we know that the world was dog-eat-dog long before mankind ever showed up on the planet. We know that death, disease, and all manner of imperfections existed long before humans did.

So the biblical fables are clearly based upon a lie.

It's a lie that mankind is responsible for any of these things that had been around long before mankind ever even appeared on the planet.

The Bible has been proven to be false. It's based on an obviously lie.

So we already have PROOF that the Bible is false.

~~~~

Is there a "God"?

Perhaps so.

But if there is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrew myths of the God of Abraham or the Christian claims that Jesus was his demigod Son.

That much we can be absolutely sure of.

We have rock solid proof in the fossil record of life on Earth that the Bible is indeed a false mythology that is entirely based upon a lie.

So we already have PROOF that the Bible is false.

There is a God, and Hebrew God is that God.

There is no God that is full of flowers like you would like to imagine, simply because like you have mentioned, diseases and suffering is everywhere. Your post is full of contradictions to say the least.

It's more evident here the male chuvenistic Hebrew God exists, because like you said, Hebrew God is evil, and Bible states we are made in his image, and its evil out there.

Goodluck being forgiven for all the blasphemy that you committed.