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.

[TheTruth101]

^

I'm better off being an atheist?

But you said I'll fry in eternal Hell for being an atheist.

Oh, if some people could just make some sense, even if it's just once.

Well, the difference is, an Atheist will be in a higher level of hell than your kind.(Assuming one is a Good Samaritan). You are at the bottom of the bottom. (And yes, there is such a thing called levels of hell).

refer to Dante's Inferno.

[stubbornone]

Theists are asking things of atheists such as burden of proof as if atheists care about solving little god problems that theists are dealing with. If theists can't bear the burden of proof then why go to atheists for help?

You deliberately sought out and joined a Christian debate forum, and then went to the Chriatianity and Apologetics session (which is odd, because you and several other atheists are pretending that there is no evidence for God and have never hard of Apologetics) and are now feigning disinterest?

You don;t care about God so you have no burden of proof?

But you went out of your way to join a Christian debate forum?

Yeah, for entertainment purposes, is that not why everybody comes here, to amuse themselves?

Yep, lots of people deliberately seek out religious venues to ... not care in the slightest. Most bored people would just use X-box, go to a bar, go for a run, read, write, call parents, but I guess a few religious people out there will, in their free time, seek out atheist web sites because they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in atheism?

In short, you are clearly looking for an excuse. Its about not being wrong at any cost, and the only sacrifice that is made in place of pride is ... honor.

[stubbornone]

To be precise, agnostic atheism does not make any claims. It is the position that God might or might not exist, which is not a positive claim.

Under traditional definitions, agnosticism could be called the position that God might or might not exist. Why are you throwing on the word “atheism� after the word agnostic?

Agnosticism is, by the way, a positive claim. It is just a claim about my intellectual state, not about the reality outside of me.

Absolutely incorrect.

Agnosticism is what you think you do or don't know. Atheism is what you do know. They are not mutually exclusive terms and actually complement each other quite well. (The opposite would be a gnostic theist, someone who thinks they know there is a god.)

I know I lack a belief in a god, but I can't be sure whether or not he exists.

That's NOT in itself a positive claim that puts any burden on me. That's a fact.

Well, logic seems to be all over the place ... where to start.

Lets begin with, "I can't tell one way or another, er, so I decided anyway ... that its not."

In short, just as charged, you were lead by absolutely nothing to conclude something. Guilty exactly as charged.

Next, this would be the ACTUAL definition of agnosticism:

"ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something"

Once again, your own personal subjectivity is not a part of a logical debate, indeed the leaking of personal opinion into a logical discourse is supposed to be something people committed to logic strive to reduce and eliminate ... you have tarnished BOTH agnosticism and atheism with your sense of subjectivity ... lending further credence to the criticism that your atheism is simply not logical.

[ytrewq]

rosey wrote:

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

ytrewq wrote:

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. Just common sense.

The age of the claim, or how many people happen to believe it, is irrelevant

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 someone says they are 100% dead certain that their God (or anything else) exists, then they have an onus to provide exceedingly strong evidence (proof) that their assertion is correct.

More likely, the wise theist/Christian would claim they are 'fairly certain' their God exists, in which case they have an onus to provide 'strong' evidence their God exists, but not necessarily 'proof'. Most people would agree that if someone says 'they believe' that their God exists, that is equivalent to saying they are fairly certain, but cannot completely exclude the possible that he does not, in which case 'strong evidence' rather than 'proof' will suffice.

Similarly, the wise atheist will not say he is '100% certain' that God does not exist, because that would incur the burden of proving it, which is unlikely to be possible, because in general it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. However, with that point noted, if literally no evidence is given for an assertion that something exists, we should presume that it does not, otherwise every crackpot claim under the sun would have to be assumed true unless proven otherwise.

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.

Theists DO have evidence, even though it is usually subjective and inconclusive. Opinions will differ as to the quantity and quality of the evidence available, and the weight that should be given to scripture and 'personal feelings and experiences'. However, that is not the topic of this thread. IMHO, the principle of 'Burden of proof' is clear and logical, and applies equally to all that make a claim, but arguments about quality and quantity of evidence will likely go on forever.

I posted the above very early in this thread. I thought it a reasonable summary, and it was not challenged.

Stubbornone, you have strong views on this topic. Do you (anyone else) think my summary above is reasonable?

There are, as previously addressed, two types of atheists when it comes to the burden of proof.

Its pretty simple, and the first rule of logic, something must be falsifiable in order to arrive at a yes or no solution set. The evidence for God does not produce certainty one way or the other. HONEST atheists can accept that, and your proof above is in line with HONEST atheism.

As I have stated several times, there are, and I have seen, several strong preponderance of the evidence cases in support of atheism. Just like ours though, these cases are not conclusive, and the end result is that, like other faith choice, atheism is thus a valid choice until we reach a point of falsifiability.

That is a conclusion that is based upon preponderance, at least in your opinion, and inference. You can indeed explain your claim and what brought you there.

The other atheists, the one that whose logic I dislike intensely (because its not only illogical, its usually tied to mocking, delinquency, and simple meanness) are those atheists who will twist, or use some and ignore other, rules of logic to basically claim that they don;t have to support anything at all.

All that does it put atheism into the category of conspiracy. Its an affront to all faiths, including honest atheism. Even atheists should be upset that their choices are being so badly drug through the mud of irrationality.

Honest atheism isn't a problem, it a choice in an unclear evidential environment. One that, if honestly held, leads to tolerance and an acknowledgement that other other faith choices are honest efforts to solve the riddle of God.

Until such time as we can falsify God, the honest efforts toward that goal are the best we can do.

We we become so certain of our 'proof' that we disrespect all other attempts, it is a clear sign that we are on the wrong track. Again, its not atheism that is illogical, its atheists claiming they have no burden of proof that are illogical.

Nice reply. I don't have any significant disagreement with what you have said there. Here are a few comments, rather than disagreements.

The evidence for God does not produce certainty one way or the other. HONEST atheists can accept that ...

Sure, though I have to add that HONEST theists need to accept it as well. You would have to admit, that there are a few theists out there who speak and write as if the existence of their God is an absolute sacred truth, rather than their own opinion, which they cannot be certain of.

You speak of atheists bending the rules of logic, and some do, but you would have to admit that a tiny bit of that goes on in the theistic camp as well?

Again, its not atheism that is illogical, its atheists claiming they have no burden of proof that are illogical

.

Maybe you misunderstand them for, as per my previous posting, it is perfectly true that the theist hold the 'burden of evidence' in the first instance, for it is they that have made the claim tha God exists, and is capable of various feats. However, once the theist provide evidence, even if sometimes weak and inconclusive, the atheists then have a responsibility to get off their arses and consider their evidence, and either refute it, or at least show that it is weak or inconclusive. Alternatively and/or additionally, atheists have the option of providing evidence of their own that certain of the claims made of God seem unlikely in the light of modern scientific knowledge, and many of my postings are of that type. Others here have pointed out that the scripture (especially Christian) is often illogical and inconsistent, and on close analysis often does not reflect 'good morality' at all. Most atheists here do NOT sit on their arses and say nothing except that the theists owe them evidence. (Which they do, and they frequently provide)

Above all, StubbornOne, don't get get angry. When logical mistakes are made, and I don't care by who, politely and clearly point out the logical error. The silent majority who read these threads, but don't reply, will take note.

[d.thomas]

Theists are asking things of atheists such as burden of proof as if atheists care about solving little god problems that theists are dealing with. If theists can't bear the burden of proof then why go to atheists for help?

You deliberately sought out and joined a Christian debate forum, and then went to the Chriatianity and Apologetics session (which is odd, because you and several other atheists are pretending that there is no evidence for God and have never hard of Apologetics) and are now feigning disinterest?

You don;t care about God so you have no burden of proof?

But you went out of your way to join a Christian debate forum?

Yeah, for entertainment purposes, is that not why everybody comes here, to amuse themselves?

Yep, lots of people deliberately seek out religious venues to ... not care in the slightest. Most bored people would just use X-box, go to a bar, go for a run, read, write, call parents, but I guess a few religious people out there will, in their free time, seek out atheist web sites because they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in atheism?

In short, you are clearly looking for an excuse. Its about not being wrong at any cost, and the only sacrifice that is made in place of pride is ... honor.

I'm interested in debating theists, but why would I be interested in a god? If theists are so interested in gods then they can figure a gods' existence out for themselves, why they want to put the burden of proof onto those that don't do god is what I find interesting.

[TheTruth101]

Theists are asking things of atheists such as burden of proof as if atheists care about solving little god problems that theists are dealing with. If theists can't bear the burden of proof then why go to atheists for help?

You deliberately sought out and joined a Christian debate forum, and then went to the Chriatianity and Apologetics session (which is odd, because you and several other atheists are pretending that there is no evidence for God and have never hard of Apologetics) and are now feigning disinterest?

You don;t care about God so you have no burden of proof?

But you went out of your way to join a Christian debate forum?

Yeah, for entertainment purposes, is that not why everybody comes here, to amuse themselves?

Yep, lots of people deliberately seek out religious venues to ... not care in the slightest. Most bored people would just use X-box, go to a bar, go for a run, read, write, call parents, but I guess a few religious people out there will, in their free time, seek out atheist web sites because they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in atheism?

In short, you are clearly looking for an excuse. Its about not being wrong at any cost, and the only sacrifice that is made in place of pride is ... honor.

I'm interested in debating theists, but why would I be interested in a god? If theists are so interested in gods then they can figure a gods' existence out for themselves, why they want to put the burden of proof onto those that don't do god is what I find interesting.

Ok, now I think your just plainly playing dumb.

[ndf8th]

I think of this Burden of proof.

The person that make a positive claim has that burden.

so suppose for the sake of discussion that I make a claim.

If I see myself as a religious freethinker
that have a different view on what God is
then I have to live up to that burden of proof
that that god exist if the existence of that God
is part of the belief I claim to have?

When I tell atheists about my religious freethinker views
then them say that God has to be supernatural or else it is no god.

why can not a god be natural. I mean the burden of proof
that the god exist would apply to a natural god as well as a supernatural god.

As long as I give evidence for it then it is a god logically? Or me fail to get it?

Is this a derail? I talk about the title and about gods and atheism

[stubbornone]

Theists are asking things of atheists such as burden of proof as if atheists care about solving little god problems that theists are dealing with. If theists can't bear the burden of proof then why go to atheists for help?

You deliberately sought out and joined a Christian debate forum, and then went to the Chriatianity and Apologetics session (which is odd, because you and several other atheists are pretending that there is no evidence for God and have never hard of Apologetics) and are now feigning disinterest?

You don;t care about God so you have no burden of proof?

But you went out of your way to join a Christian debate forum?

Yeah, for entertainment purposes, is that not why everybody comes here, to amuse themselves?

Yep, lots of people deliberately seek out religious venues to ... not care in the slightest. Most bored people would just use X-box, go to a bar, go for a run, read, write, call parents, but I guess a few religious people out there will, in their free time, seek out atheist web sites because they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in atheism?

In short, you are clearly looking for an excuse. Its about not being wrong at any cost, and the only sacrifice that is made in place of pride is ... honor.

I'm interested in debating theists, but why would I be interested in a god? If theists are so interested in gods then they can figure a gods' existence out for themselves, why they want to put the burden of proof onto those that don't do god is what I find interesting.

I am in agreement with Truth on this one. I want to talk to theists, who are clearly interested in God, which will naturally be the subject on a Christian debate forum in the Apologetic section no less, because ... I have no interest in God whatsoever?

Tell me, is conceeding a point this difficult, does the entire intellectual stability of atheism hang on your insistence that atheism doesn't have a burden of proof because YOU personally, which apparently embodies ALL of atheism , aren't interested?

Take yourself out of the debate about atheism, which is something that logical people attempt to do anyway, and gives us a reason why atheism has no burden of proof.

Well, gosh, I sure do like talking to theists in about Apologetics, which is the evidence for God, but not to talk about God ... silliness.

[stubbornone]

I think of this Burden of proof.

The person that make a positive claim has that burden.

so suppose for the sake of discussion that I make a claim.

If I see myself as a religious freethinker
that have a different view on what God is
then I have to live up to that burden of proof
that that god exist if the existence of that God
is part of the belief I claim to have?

When I tell atheists about my religious freethinker views
then them say that God has to be supernatural or else it is no god.

why can not a god be natural. I mean the burden of proof
that the god exist would apply to a natural god as well as a supernatural god.

As long as I give evidence for it then it is a god logically? Or me fail to get it?

Is this a derail? I talk about the title and about gods and atheism

Nope its not a derail, its another acknowledgement that people making claims must support them.

[Star]

Lets begin with, "I can't tell one way or another, er, so I decided anyway ... that its not."

In short, just as charged, you were lead by absolutely nothing to conclude something. Guilty exactly as charged.

Huh? Is lying through your teeth part of your religion or something?

I made no conclusion regarding the existence of god. Just stop it. It's getting embarrassing.

Lack of belief is not the same as believing something doesn't exist. Go take a course in basic logic at your local community college. It's not rocket science.