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.

[stubbornone]

'Umbrage', like 'beauty' is frequently in the 'eye of the beholder.'
I think that one of the areas in which we differ is in how inclusively we apply the term 'illogical.'

For example, the Hitchens quote in my current sig:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence� seems perfectly logical to me. Do you find it illogical?

One of the reasons some are attracted to science, to agnosticism, to 'soft' atheism is that they all are logical positions from which one needs nothing but objective experience to maintain one's position.

Christianity requires a leap of faith* that is entirely different from the reasonable assumptions of science that are based on repeated objective experience and repeated experiments and observations.

______________________________
I am aware of the fallacy of equivocation that is used by those with religious faith to make the false claim that we all have 'faith,' thus putting subjective faith in the same category as scientific conclusion based on a colloquial definition of 'faith.'

Interesting, if atheism has no burden of proof, no evidence, then we can dismiss it entirely by your own reasoning can we not?

And THAT is indeed the point.

Logic states that ALL claims must be supported or they are illogical.

There are several open threads at the moment that play out the Christian burden of support, and the best that can be rebutted is that it is not completely convincing ... an acknowledgement that is already on record when we Christians acknowledge the element of faith required to reach the conclusion, as in a leap from preponderance to certainty.

The opposite, from atheism, is not a compelling preponderance of the evidence case, its ... the claim that atheism has no burden of support, that it has no evidence and requires none.

Now, which one can be most easily and readily rejected in terms of logic?

That is the main point.

However, when the later point makers insist not just that they are logical, but in castigating the logic of their adversaries, it is indeed logical to assume that emotion is not just involved but paramount.

Claiming that the observations are 'personal' is indeed taking umbrage rather than offering an explanation as to how the concept is logical rather than emotional.

Atheism, at least as I have defined it, is not so much a belief as it is the absence of belief. Atheism is what remains when one only accepts objective evidence.

I think your frustration comes from a failure to recognize this difference between 'soft' atheism and religious faith. I fully admit the former is much easier to 'prove' because it requires no proof. My kind of atheism is the default position after Centuries of science and objective observation.

Since I realize this is an unacceptable position to you, what label would you give to a belief system that is willing to accept only that which is proved by science and empirical observation; that accepts the natural and does not believe in the supernatural* with out competent evidence?

Another way to put this would be to say 'I accept god as a hypothetical construct if one can define 'god' in a way to make it a falsifiable belief.' If 'god' cannot be falsifiable than it can't even qualify as a hypothetical.
________________________
*Today's 'supernatural' could become tomorrows 'natural' upon sufficient evidence.

That is semantics. You have concluded that there is no God.

Either there is something that lead you to conclude that, and is thus, at least at face value, a logical conclusion, or ...

You simply declared there is no God, and the entire premise rests upon nothing ... and in your own words, can be rejected as nothing.

Atheism must be one or the other.

[d.thomas]

.



No one mentions the burden of proof when applied to leprechauns or tooth fairies but mention the non belief in ancient invisible gods and all of a sudden people go absolutely nuts as if their world of make belief is going to crumble. This thread is nothing but entertaining for those that don't believe in Thor, Vishnu, Zeus, or any number of invisible gods, I can't name them all. Theists can't stand the fact that the burden of proof is on them because they have nothing.



.

[stubbornone]

Theists, let's try something different for a moment, and join me in a little exercise...

I'm an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in god. I make no claims about god's existence or lack thereof. I simply don't know. I don't even know if it's possible. After reviewing all the evidence, I'm still not convinced.

What evidence do you expect me to be burdened with?

You?

None.

But you are not, by any means, the sort of atheist we theist types get frustrated with.

I'll give you an example of the sort of thing we come across quite frequently; a script, if you will, of a typical exchange:

Atheist: there is no God. There's no evidence for a god, and I know that there isn't one.

Theist: That's quite a claim. Care to prove that there is no god?

Atheist: Not my problem. YOU have to prove that there IS one.

Theist; There is a difference between 'I don't believe in a god" and "I know that there isn't one." You said the latter. It's a claim. You prove it.

Atheist: atheism means nothing except a lack of belief in a deity or deities. I don't have to prove anything. There is no god.

Theist: (sigh).

Most of us theist types...at least, most who have encountered atheists on debate forums, anyway, are quite aware that there are two forms of atheism; 'soft' atheism is what all atheists CLAIM atheism is, when they get challenged on anything; a simple lack of belief in a deity or deities.

However, when you get to those who cross the line into 'strong' atheism, or a very positive declaration "THERE IS NO GOD!", then the burden of proof IS on that atheist.

I've never seen one admit it, though. Or rather, I've never seen a 'strong' atheist admit it.

I have a simple formula. I'm a 'soft' atheist, but that is not the end of the matter. There is a large class of beliefs that simply do not fit with everything else we know about science; beliefs that require a belief in magic, the supernatural, or some process that science cannot verify.

Neither 'soft' atheists nor theists take a simple 'Gosh, I don't know' approach to 99.99% of these beliefs, but at best all agree these beliefs are unlikely at best.

This is where the old line comes in; 'We are both atheists. I just believe in one less ''god'' than you do.' In other words, it is fair for a 'soft' atheist to say I am not absolutely certain there is no god; I just think it unlikely. In that context I have no problem with saying I have no burden of proof. If they didn't already have the burden of proof as 'he who alleges,' the burden shifts to those who want to prove anything supernatural or magical.

Even in soft atheism, there is either something, a train of thought, that lead you to conclude that the other faith choices are inaccurate ... or .. there is not.

Again, what is debated here isn't the quality of the evidence, its whether or not atheists have a logical burden, like everyone else, to support their claims.

After all, I am fairly certain the dark matter is a combination of planetoid bodies and intergalactic dust/particles, but it could be something else entirely. I can explain why I have reached this conclusion, but preface it with the 'soft' conclusion meaning I am open to other interpretation ... even if doubtful of other theories.

Nevertheless, I have a logical duty to support my conclusion.

Again, there is a proof above that explains the premise as to why, according to the rules of logic, atheists, who have concluded that there in no God, have as much of a burden of proof as we do. If you have concluded there is no God because you are waiting for someone else to investigate the question for you? That doesn't even enter into the realm of logical analysis does it.

The question: Is there a God?

Yes - theist of one branch or another, and there is a logical, explainable series of things that lead one to conclude that. Some obviously better than others.

Maybe? - Agnostic. Default position at the beginning of an investigation. Could also indicate non-interest and refusal to investigate, or simply indeterminate findings upon examination.

No - atheist. Only you don't know why and indeed cannot explain it, nor do you have a requirement (except that of logic) to explain it?

The premise derives from reasonable expectations ... is there a man behind that door? Claiming no has as much a burden of proof as claiming yes.

The reason? Objective standards of logic.

[stubbornone]

.



No one mentions the burden of proof when applied to leprechauns or tooth fairies but mention the non belief in ancient invisible gods and all of a sudden people go absolutely nuts as if their world of make belief is going to crumble. This thread is nothing but entertaining for those that don't believe in Thor, Vishnu, Zeus, or any number of invisible gods, I can't name them all. Theists can't stand the fact that the burden of proof is on them because they have nothing.



.

That is because Leprechauns have been provably falsified.

Once again, we have a repeat of the guilt by association fallacy, wherein atheists compare God to any random false thing they can and declare the evidence identical ...

Except for the fact that some of the Gods you listed, for example, claimed to love on Mount Olympus, and ... well, in this fascinating modern age we love in, we know that this is false.

Even with all this information at our finger tips however, it doesn't prevent one from being obtuse and failing to actually conduct an investigation, comparing the claims ... its best to assume that the people who disagree with you are raving lunatics devoid of worth or intellect?

BTW - this is yet another standard claim from atheism. Simple propaganda.

[stubbornone]

There are several posts already about that exact concept within the previous few posts. Please read up rather than asking me to repeat the entire argument again for you.

Indeed, we can probably begin with the question: do you know what the Hegelian dialectic is? How is operates?

And when one side isn't making a claim, has neither thesis or antithesis, how that dialectic works?

Speaking of reading up, you haven't addressed my last post. In fact, I noticed you complaining about how nobody responded to the point you made about how you can in fact prove a negative (sometimes), which isn't what the burden is. Here it is from last night...

You can indeed prove a negative.

I know, but that's not what you said. You said negatives have a burden, too. I don't have to prove I'm not black, but I can.

And we aren't in court, we are talking about logic.

Burden of proof, default position of non-belief, and the often associated null hypothesis is Logic 101. At my university students learn about it (either in parts or in full) in philosophy, law, English (essay writing), even business statistics courses. I had to learn it just for computer science. Courts depend on that logic to avoid coming to incorrect conclusions, and so do many other information workers.

But heh, even in court, when the police come and say, "Well, we have all this evidence against him ..." I guess the best response would be to claim you have no burden of proof? That the police just don't get how crime actually works? How the presentation of evidence was so dreadfully out of touch with your opinion that you decided to ignore it?

Right, they have to prove you guilty. You don't prove you're innocent. Responding to allegations against you that are backed by evidence, however, should result in you and your lawyer discussing whether you should testify in your own defense, which is a calculated risk. You don't actually have to say anything.

The analogy here would be us atheists refuting theist "evidence" which we do all the time.

Sometimes? You CAN prove a negative or you cannot.

And this is why, in another thread, I pointed out that atheists are probe to rationalization, have no standards or objective criteria, and the goal seems to be to simply avoid being wrong.

You CAN prove a negative.

Atheists HAVE a burden of proof.

And without a set of objective standards, what you get is not 'refuting evidence', what you get is serial denial at any cost ... made manifest in such perverse silliness like the Jesus Myth, wherein atheist extraordinare Wells, uses the same ever changing set of standards to literally reject all the evidence of Jesus.

Its absurd and in EXACTLY the same category, intellectually, as rabid denial of evolution - which by the way is a negative, so it requires no burden of proof, and all the deniers of evolution have to do is 'refute the evidence you present'.

And it all begins with the rejection of the simple standards of logic ... because accepting them means you might have to confront some of the illogical conclusions your faith brought you too?

Happens to everyone, and that clearly includes atheists.

[Danmark]

'Umbrage', like 'beauty' is frequently in the 'eye of the beholder.'
I think that one of the areas in which we differ is in how inclusively we apply the term 'illogical.'

For example, the Hitchens quote in my current sig:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence� seems perfectly logical to me. Do you find it illogical?

One of the reasons some are attracted to science, to agnosticism, to 'soft' atheism is that they all are logical positions from which one needs nothing but objective experience to maintain one's position.

Christianity requires a leap of faith* that is entirely different from the reasonable assumptions of science that are based on repeated objective experience and repeated experiments and observations.

______________________________
I am aware of the fallacy of equivocation that is used by those with religious faith to make the false claim that we all have 'faith,' thus putting subjective faith in the same category as scientific conclusion based on a colloquial definition of 'faith.'

Interesting, if atheism has no burden of proof, no evidence, then we can dismiss it entirely by your own reasoning can we not?

And THAT is indeed the point.

Logic states that ALL claims must be supported or they are illogical.

There are several open threads at the moment that play out the Christian burden of support, and the best that can be rebutted is that it is not completely convincing ... an acknowledgement that is already on record when we Christians acknowledge the element of faith required to reach the conclusion, as in a leap from preponderance to certainty.

The opposite, from atheism, is not a compelling preponderance of the evidence case, its ... the claim that atheism has no burden of support, that it has no evidence and requires none.

Now, which one can be most easily and readily rejected in terms of logic?

That is the main point.

However, when the later point makers insist not just that they are logical, but in castigating the logic of their adversaries, it is indeed logical to assume that emotion is not just involved but paramount.

Claiming that the observations are 'personal' is indeed taking umbrage rather than offering an explanation as to how the concept is logical rather than emotional.

Atheism, at least as I have defined it, is not so much a belief as it is the absence of belief. Atheism is what remains when one only accepts objective evidence.

I think your frustration comes from a failure to recognize this difference between 'soft' atheism and religious faith. I fully admit the former is much easier to 'prove' because it requires no proof. My kind of atheism is the default position after Centuries of science and objective observation.

Since I realize this is an unacceptable position to you, what label would you give to a belief system that is willing to accept only that which is proved by science and empirical observation; that accepts the natural and does not believe in the supernatural* with out competent evidence?

Another way to put this would be to say 'I accept god as a hypothetical construct if one can define 'god' in a way to make it a falsifiable belief.' If 'god' cannot be falsifiable than it can't even qualify as a hypothetical.
________________________
*Today's 'supernatural' could become tomorrows 'natural' upon sufficient evidence.

That is semantics. You have concluded that there is no God.

Either there is something that lead you to conclude that, and is thus, at least at face value, a logical conclusion, or ...

You simply declared there is no God, and the entire premise rests upon nothing ... and in your own words, can be rejected as nothing.

Atheism must be one or the other.

Neither life, nor my thinking is as simple as you suggest.

You can attempt to put your words into my mouth, but does not accomplish your purpose.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The question: Is there a God?

Yes - theist of one branch or another, and there is a logical, explainable series of things that lead one to conclude that. Some obviously better than others.

Maybe? - Agnostic. Default position at the beginning of an investigation. Could also indicate non-interest and refusal to investigate, or simply indeterminate findings upon examination.

No - atheist. Only you don't know why and indeed cannot explain it, nor do you have a requirement (except that of logic) to explain it?

The premise derives from reasonable expectations ... is there a man behind that door? Claiming no has as much a burden of proof as claiming yes.

The reason? Objective standards of logic.

Ok, I think part of the problem you are having here is that you are working with a false trichotomy. You aren't taking all the possible answers to the question of the existence of God into account. This is a more comprehensive way of considering the question:

[Star]

Stubbornone, leprechauns have not been provably falsified.

I have a small village of them in my backyard. By your logic, the burden of proof is on you to prove this claim untrue.

[d.thomas]

.



No one mentions the burden of proof when applied to leprechauns or tooth fairies but mention the non belief in ancient invisible gods and all of a sudden people go absolutely nuts as if their world of make belief is going to crumble. This thread is nothing but entertaining for those that don't believe in Thor, Vishnu, Zeus, or any number of invisible gods, I can't name them all. Theists can't stand the fact that the burden of proof is on them because they have nothing.



.

That is because Leprechauns have been provably falsified.

Once again, we have a repeat of the guilt by association fallacy, wherein atheists compare God to any random false thing they can and declare the evidence identical ...

Except for the fact that some of the Gods you listed, for example, claimed to love on Mount Olympus, and ... well, in this fascinating modern age we love in, we know that this is false.

Even with all this information at our finger tips however, it doesn't prevent one from being obtuse and failing to actually conduct an investigation, comparing the claims ... its best to assume that the people who disagree with you are raving lunatics devoid of worth or intellect?

BTW - this is yet another standard claim from atheism. Simple propaganda.

By definition leprechauns are not falsifiable and neither are definitions of invisible gods. If you defined gods and leprechauns in falsifiable terms we could show for their existence or non existence. You are not very good at this.

[Star]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

• - Santa
  - Easter Bunny
  - Tooth Fairy
  - Big Foot
  - Ogopogo
  - Chupacabra
  - Satan
  - Allah
  - Angels
  - Ghosts
  - Demons