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.

[d.thomas]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

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

I am only going to do one, because, quite frankly, the tactic you are using is not just fallacious in the extreme, its also extraordinarily lazy in that it requires OTHERS to prove things for you rather than YOU conducting an inestigation and reaching a conclusion ... its merely a set up for an argument from absurdity, atheist baseball.

Santa claims to live in the North Pole, using the fascinating modern technology, we have mapped the North Pole, go underneath it with submarines, have air tracking control systems (both passive and active), and we have found time and again that it is parents rather than a mythical Santa that places presents under trees ... none of which detracts form the reality of a very Real Saint Nicholas upon which the more fanciful tale rests.

Ergo, its reasonable and logical to conclude that Santa is a myth.

It is even more interesting that the more fantastical claims of Santa are added merely to placate the 'secular' tendencies of atheism, who have no problem with Santa per sea ... save the utter inability to figure out why he is a myth?

Once again, if we are struggling to reach conclusions and apply logical standards to problem sets ... that is a problem for atheism.

Imagine for a second why billions would think God is quite real, but those same billions reject Santa. Now, what do you think billions of people grasp that perhaps you are not grasping that allows them, but not you, to make such a delineation?

Might this just be a fallacious appeal to the guilt by association fallacy? A desperate attempt to avoid the fact that NOTHING lead you to conclude that there is no God? And if NOTHING lead you to a conclusion ... then you don;t have one do you?

All you have is nihilism, spite for religion. And quite frankly, who cares about the emotional state of people lead by NOTHING to dislike religion?

Anyone that finds Santa at the North Pole is sworn to secrecy, so the actual location is not known. Apparently a maze of mirrors are used to deflect snow in every direction so his location can't be photographed.

God is invisible and no matter what, photography, radar, infrared, or anything else we try will not detect him. Even the Hubble telescope has not found Heaven, the place where he resides. You see how this works?

#1 - you have no evidence for that, and, as predicted it is the insertion of a random unproveable claim. Its an argument from absurdity.

Congrats, you just put atheism in the same intellectual category as the fake moon landing.

Exactly as predicted above.

#2 - Satellites cannot be sworn to secrecy.

Once again, falsifiable is checking of claims against testable results. God claims he made the universe: Can you prove he did not?

Not according to statistics, in fact, an element of design appears probable.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

'Something' appears to answer prayers, etc.

And why should we look at that and conclude there is not God? Because atheists, in all their intellectual glory, cannot figure out how to falsify basic things? Don;t recognize arguments from absurdity when they are using them?

That is EXACTLY why I rejected atheism.

.

Yeah, we can see that you believe, why you are not an atheist, and it looks good on ya so stick with it.

[Danmark]

.



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.

Why add the personal remark: ' You are not very good at this'? How does that further the debate?

[stubbornone]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

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

I am only going to do one, because, quite frankly, the tactic you are using is not just fallacious in the extreme, its also extraordinarily lazy in that it requires OTHERS to prove things for you rather than YOU conducting an inestigation and reaching a conclusion ... its merely a set up for an argument from absurdity, atheist baseball.

Santa claims to live in the North Pole, using the fascinating modern technology, we have mapped the North Pole, go underneath it with submarines, have air tracking control systems (both passive and active), and we have found time and again that it is parents rather than a mythical Santa that places presents under trees ... none of which detracts form the reality of a very Real Saint Nicholas upon which the more fanciful tale rests.

Ergo, its reasonable and logical to conclude that Santa is a myth.

It is even more interesting that the more fantastical claims of Santa are added merely to placate the 'secular' tendencies of atheism, who have no problem with Santa per sea ... save the utter inability to figure out why he is a myth?

Once again, if we are struggling to reach conclusions and apply logical standards to problem sets ... that is a problem for atheism.

Imagine for a second why billions would think God is quite real, but those same billions reject Santa. Now, what do you think billions of people grasp that perhaps you are not grasping that allows them, but not you, to make such a delineation?

Might this just be a fallacious appeal to the guilt by association fallacy? A desperate attempt to avoid the fact that NOTHING lead you to conclude that there is no God? And if NOTHING lead you to a conclusion ... then you don;t have one do you?

All you have is nihilism, spite for religion. And quite frankly, who cares about the emotional state of people lead by NOTHING to dislike religion?

Anyone that finds Santa at the North Pole is sworn to secrecy, so the actual location is not known. Apparently a maze of mirrors are used to deflect snow in every direction so his location can't be photographed.

God is invisible and no matter what, photography, radar, infrared, or anything else we try will not detect him. Even the Hubble telescope has not found Heaven, the place where he resides. You see how this works?

#1 - you have no evidence for that, and, as predicted it is the insertion of a random unproveable claim. Its an argument from absurdity.

Congrats, you just put atheism in the same intellectual category as the fake moon landing.

Exactly as predicted above.

#2 - Satellites cannot be sworn to secrecy.

Once again, falsifiable is checking of claims against testable results. God claims he made the universe: Can you prove he did not?

Not according to statistics, in fact, an element of design appears probable.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

'Something' appears to answer prayers, etc.

And why should we look at that and conclude there is not God? Because atheists, in all their intellectual glory, cannot figure out how to falsify basic things? Don;t recognize arguments from absurdity when they are using them?

That is EXACTLY why I rejected atheism.

.

Yeah, we can see that you believe, why you are not an atheist, and it looks good on ya so stick with it.

Well, there is logic for you ... first complains about 'ad hominems' when someone finds his claim that no one has EVER presented evidence of God as willfull ignorance ...

But has no problem taking a pot shot at others, a clearly derisive snort devoid of anything other than animosity ... and because of this, atheism has no burden of proof, and it logical rather than emotional?

Well, whatever floats your boat atheist.

Just remember, logic is a set of standards. and your beliefs, not mine, are on the wrong side of that standard.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

One is left wondering why atheists struggle with the idea of falsifiablity, and why agnosticism, not atheism, is the default position when the inability to falsify is reached.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Did you miss my post?

[d.thomas]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

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

I am only going to do one, because, quite frankly, the tactic you are using is not just fallacious in the extreme, its also extraordinarily lazy in that it requires OTHERS to prove things for you rather than YOU conducting an inestigation and reaching a conclusion ... its merely a set up for an argument from absurdity, atheist baseball.

Santa claims to live in the North Pole, using the fascinating modern technology, we have mapped the North Pole, go underneath it with submarines, have air tracking control systems (both passive and active), and we have found time and again that it is parents rather than a mythical Santa that places presents under trees ... none of which detracts form the reality of a very Real Saint Nicholas upon which the more fanciful tale rests.

Ergo, its reasonable and logical to conclude that Santa is a myth.

It is even more interesting that the more fantastical claims of Santa are added merely to placate the 'secular' tendencies of atheism, who have no problem with Santa per sea ... save the utter inability to figure out why he is a myth?

Once again, if we are struggling to reach conclusions and apply logical standards to problem sets ... that is a problem for atheism.

Imagine for a second why billions would think God is quite real, but those same billions reject Santa. Now, what do you think billions of people grasp that perhaps you are not grasping that allows them, but not you, to make such a delineation?

Might this just be a fallacious appeal to the guilt by association fallacy? A desperate attempt to avoid the fact that NOTHING lead you to conclude that there is no God? And if NOTHING lead you to a conclusion ... then you don;t have one do you?

All you have is nihilism, spite for religion. And quite frankly, who cares about the emotional state of people lead by NOTHING to dislike religion?

Anyone that finds Santa at the North Pole is sworn to secrecy, so the actual location is not known. Apparently a maze of mirrors are used to deflect snow in every direction so his location can't be photographed.

God is invisible and no matter what, photography, radar, infrared, or anything else we try will not detect him. Even the Hubble telescope has not found Heaven, the place where he resides. You see how this works?

#1 - you have no evidence for that, and, as predicted it is the insertion of a random unproveable claim. Its an argument from absurdity.

Congrats, you just put atheism in the same intellectual category as the fake moon landing.

Exactly as predicted above.

#2 - Satellites cannot be sworn to secrecy.

Once again, falsifiable is checking of claims against testable results. God claims he made the universe: Can you prove he did not?

Not according to statistics, in fact, an element of design appears probable.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

'Something' appears to answer prayers, etc.

And why should we look at that and conclude there is not God? Because atheists, in all their intellectual glory, cannot figure out how to falsify basic things? Don;t recognize arguments from absurdity when they are using them?

That is EXACTLY why I rejected atheism.

.

Yeah, we can see that you believe, why you are not an atheist, and it looks good on ya so stick with it.

Well, there is logic for you ... first complains about 'ad hominems' when someone finds his claim that no one has EVER presented evidence of God as willfull ignorance ...

But has no problem taking a pot shot at others, a clearly derisive snort devoid of anything other than animosity ... and because of this, atheism has no burden of proof, and it logical rather than emotional?

Well, whatever floats your boat atheist.

Just remember, logic is a set of standards. and your beliefs, not mine, are on the wrong side of that standard.

So you make a better theist than an atheist, theism suits you, that is what I was essentially saying, anything wrong with that?

[Danmark]

I believe I agreed with you on the 'soft atheism' bit. The problem doesn't lie with the 'soft' atheist approach. Saying "I don't believe you" isn't a claim. Saying "I see no reason to believe in a deity" isn't a claim. Both are simple expressions of a personal opinion.

It's only with the 'there is no god" idea that the problem arises.

...........or with those who claim all these positive attributes for atheists: rationality, scientific, reasonable, peaceful, loving, better than....

....and then when challenged on any of 'em, retreat to the 'atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods" idea.

I certainly agree that 'atheism' does not include other traits, either the ones you named, or others such as 'communist heathen.'

Just like a Christian, an atheist can be fit into more than one category simultaneously, and have more than one quality, including those that may appear to contradict each other.

There, I've stated the obvious. But tho' it is obvious, some of the arguments don't seem to bear in mind the difference between the person and one of his beliefs.

[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.

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.

Why add the personal remark: ' You are not very good at this'? How does that further the debate?

When several atheists are resorting to the guilt by association fallacy and rejecting the basic so science in order to reject this basic principle ... it worth pointing out that someone has to be very poor at the process indeed if they cannot figure out why Santa is a myth.

Again Dan, did I force atheists to adopt this fallacious bit of trite? Did I force them to claim that they have no burden of proof? Did I beat them over the head and MAKE them haughtily claim that their atheism was reasonable and everyone else was stupid?

But basic science, the very premises of logic claimed ... to notice their absence entirely from the 'logical' argumentation of atheism, thus devoid of ability to use them apparently, is ... unhelpful?

No Dan, its the point.

Rationalism is a set of standards. Logic is a set of standards. Scientific reasoning is a set of standards. All claimed by atheists, and all bereft of notice in the reasoning provided in support of a claim that these standards reject at face value: that atheism has no burden of proof.

I for one, at least giving atheists the benefit of the doubt, would like to see at least one atheist actually make and support a claim about the subject at hand:

There is no God because ...

We have no burden of proof because ... (something actually resting upon an evidenced position as I have routinely provided).

Instead I am getting fallacies and general hurt feelings reports, even as pointing out this emotional nature in atheism is rejected ... because atheism is so scientific and logical ... and it has no burden of proof, and is thus not logical, but pointing that out makes me angry, which is an emotion not logic, but I cannot be emotional because I am an atheist and am using logic ... which can be seen in the claim that I have no burden of proof, which ...

Well, you see the circular logic. That is problem for atheists. Noticing that many are not very good at applying the logic they claim to be masters of, indeed often lord over people, is the argument.

There is an alternative: Don't claim your position is logical if you are not using logic. Pretty simple.

[stubbornone]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

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

I am only going to do one, because, quite frankly, the tactic you are using is not just fallacious in the extreme, its also extraordinarily lazy in that it requires OTHERS to prove things for you rather than YOU conducting an inestigation and reaching a conclusion ... its merely a set up for an argument from absurdity, atheist baseball.

Santa claims to live in the North Pole, using the fascinating modern technology, we have mapped the North Pole, go underneath it with submarines, have air tracking control systems (both passive and active), and we have found time and again that it is parents rather than a mythical Santa that places presents under trees ... none of which detracts form the reality of a very Real Saint Nicholas upon which the more fanciful tale rests.

Ergo, its reasonable and logical to conclude that Santa is a myth.

It is even more interesting that the more fantastical claims of Santa are added merely to placate the 'secular' tendencies of atheism, who have no problem with Santa per sea ... save the utter inability to figure out why he is a myth?

Once again, if we are struggling to reach conclusions and apply logical standards to problem sets ... that is a problem for atheism.

Imagine for a second why billions would think God is quite real, but those same billions reject Santa. Now, what do you think billions of people grasp that perhaps you are not grasping that allows them, but not you, to make such a delineation?

Might this just be a fallacious appeal to the guilt by association fallacy? A desperate attempt to avoid the fact that NOTHING lead you to conclude that there is no God? And if NOTHING lead you to a conclusion ... then you don;t have one do you?

All you have is nihilism, spite for religion. And quite frankly, who cares about the emotional state of people lead by NOTHING to dislike religion?

Anyone that finds Santa at the North Pole is sworn to secrecy, so the actual location is not known. Apparently a maze of mirrors are used to deflect snow in every direction so his location can't be photographed.

God is invisible and no matter what, photography, radar, infrared, or anything else we try will not detect him. Even the Hubble telescope has not found Heaven, the place where he resides. You see how this works?

#1 - you have no evidence for that, and, as predicted it is the insertion of a random unproveable claim. Its an argument from absurdity.

Congrats, you just put atheism in the same intellectual category as the fake moon landing.

Exactly as predicted above.

#2 - Satellites cannot be sworn to secrecy.

Once again, falsifiable is checking of claims against testable results. God claims he made the universe: Can you prove he did not?

Not according to statistics, in fact, an element of design appears probable.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

'Something' appears to answer prayers, etc.

And why should we look at that and conclude there is not God? Because atheists, in all their intellectual glory, cannot figure out how to falsify basic things? Don;t recognize arguments from absurdity when they are using them?

That is EXACTLY why I rejected atheism.

.

Yeah, we can see that you believe, why you are not an atheist, and it looks good on ya so stick with it.

Well, there is logic for you ... first complains about 'ad hominems' when someone finds his claim that no one has EVER presented evidence of God as willfull ignorance ...

But has no problem taking a pot shot at others, a clearly derisive snort devoid of anything other than animosity ... and because of this, atheism has no burden of proof, and it logical rather than emotional?

Well, whatever floats your boat atheist.

Just remember, logic is a set of standards. and your beliefs, not mine, are on the wrong side of that standard.

So you make a better theist than an atheist, theism suits you, that is what I was essentially saying, anything wrong with that?

The total absence of logic, reasoning, or science, in favor of overt emotionalism and making the person the subject of the argument.

Giving me your unsolicited opinion about my status as a theist does nothing to explain why you have no burden of proof, and if anything, only highlights the latent emotionalism of your position.

That clear enough for you?

[stubbornone]

One is left wondering why atheists struggle with the idea of falsifiablity, and why agnosticism, not atheism, is the default position when the inability to falsify is reached.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Did you miss my post?

Yes they are.

One cannot answer a question with BOTH MAYBE and NO. Indeed the two schools of thought have entirely different philosophical schools of support.

This is just another example of atheists changing definitions to avoid their burden of proof.

Agnosticism posits, in its intellectual form, that given the evidential state, that God is unknowable. Neither Yes nor No.

What is the ONE THING THAT ALL ATHEISTS HAVE IN COMMON: They believe there is no God. A No.

Now how can Maybe also be no?

This is yet another example of atheists resorting to creative writing wherein they usurp agnostic writing to essentially say ... the evidence for God is inconclusive and in thus definitively no.

You have concluded there is no God, either logic lead your there or it did not.

Usurping agnosticism doesn't magically give you logic.

BTW - atheists do this alot. They do it with Buddhists commonly in an inclusive way, yet when looking at prisoner studies, they reject the 'non-religious' as atheist.

The entire thing seems geared toward never being wrong rather than seeking truth.

And the simple fact remains: Atheism has a burden of proof.

[Danmark]

.



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.

Why add the personal remark: ' You are not very good at this'? How does that further the debate?

When several atheists are resorting to the guilt by association fallacy and rejecting the basic so science in order to reject this basic principle ... it worth pointing out that someone has to be very poor at the process indeed if they cannot figure out why Santa is a myth.

Again Dan, did I force atheists to adopt this fallacious bit of trite? Did I force them to claim that they have no burden of proof? Did I beat them over the head and MAKE them haughtily claim that their atheism was reasonable and everyone else was stupid?

But basic science, the very premises of logic claimed ... to notice their absence entirely from the 'logical' argumentation of atheism, thus devoid of ability to use them apparently, is ... unhelpful?

No Dan, its the point.

Rationalism is a set of standards. Logic is a set of standards. Scientific reasoning is a set of standards. All claimed by atheists, and all bereft of notice in the reasoning provided in support of a claim that these standards reject at face value: that atheism has no burden of proof.

I for one, at least giving atheists the benefit of the doubt, would like to see at least one atheist actually make and support a claim about the subject at hand:

There is no God because ...

We have no burden of proof because ... (something actually resting upon an evidenced position as I have routinely provided).

Instead I am getting fallacies and general hurt feelings reports, even as pointing out this emotional nature in atheism is rejected ... because atheism is so scientific and logical ... and it has no burden of proof, and is thus not logical, but pointing that out makes me angry, which is an emotion not logic, but I cannot be emotional because I am an atheist and am using logic ... which can be seen in the claim that I have no burden of proof, which ...

Well, you see the circular logic. That is problem for atheists. Noticing that many are not very good at applying the logic they claim to be masters of, indeed often lord over people, is the argument.

There is an alternative: Don't claim your position is logical if you are not using logic. Pretty simple.

It appears that you and d.thomas are trading personal remarks. To what purpose?
As I've mentioned before to you, you seem to read much into posts that was not intended, including emotions.

I'm resolving to do a better job of ignoring posts that don't rigorously stick to the argument and avoid the personal.