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]

It is far more rational to take the 'it's not there' approach.. with everything. I do not believe in little green men from alpha centauri, because I have no evidence of little green men from Alpha Centauri. I not believe in ghosts, devils, demons, etc etc, because I lack evidence for those things. I don't see why I should make a special category for a deity, just because ..

Exactly, I don't see why I should make a special category for a deity either.

[stubbornone]

It is far more rational to take the 'it's not there' approach.. with everything. I do not believe in little green men from alpha centauri, because I have no evidence of little green men from Alpha Centauri. I not believe in ghosts, devils, demons, etc etc, because I lack evidence for those things. I don't see why I should make a special category for a deity, just because ..

Exactly, I don't see why I should make a special category for a deity either.

That is a statement of faith.

And if you believe its rational, then you have a required burden of proof to explain how you reached a conclusion.

Claiming rationality while abandoning it is exactly the criticism that has been laid upon atheists who deny they have a burden of proof.

And every time you embrace rationality as you cause, you incure the duty to explain your position. Because if your position does not rest upon explainable evidence, then it is simply not rational.

[Star]

Guess you missed the part about which section you are debating in?

Christianity and Apologetics

Whoops ...

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.
2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.
3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.
4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.
5. Please avoid "preaching" and using the forum as simply a way to blast people with the gospel message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.
6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists.
7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.

Apologetics (from Greek [font=Georgia]ἀπολογία[/font], "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. The Apologetic forum is not a Christian forum per se, but a forum for Christians to defend their position with reason, logic and evidence.

Thank you for this.

I noticed Stubborn make a few comments implying that atheists shouldn't be here. He likened it to non-bowlers going to a bowling alley to tell them they don't bowl.

[d.thomas]

It is far more rational to take the 'it's not there' approach.. with everything. I do not believe in little green men from alpha centauri, because I have no evidence of little green men from Alpha Centauri. I not believe in ghosts, devils, demons, etc etc, because I lack evidence for those things. I don't see why I should make a special category for a deity, just because ..

Exactly, I don't see why I should make a special category for a deity either.

That is a statement of faith.

And if you believe its rational, then you have a required burden of proof to explain how you reached a conclusion.

Claiming rationality while abandoning it is exactly the criticism that has been laid upon atheists who deny they have a burden of proof.

And every time you embrace rationality as you cause, you incure the duty to explain your position. Because if your position does not rest upon explainable evidence, then it is simply not rational.

Supposing it is a statement of faith, how much faith is required to believe that little green men from alpha centauri have arrived here on earth vs the amount of faith required to believe that it's not true?

[stubbornone]

Guess you missed the part about which section you are debating in?

Christianity and Apologetics

Whoops ...

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.
2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.
3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.
4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.
5. Please avoid "preaching" and using the forum as simply a way to blast people with the gospel message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.
6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists.
7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.

Apologetics (from Greek [font=Georgia]ἀπολογία[/font], "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. The Apologetic forum is not a Christian forum per se, but a forum for Christians to defend their position with reason, logic and evidence.

Thank you for this.

I noticed Stubborn make a few comments implying that atheists shouldn't be here. He likened it to non-bowlers going to a bowling alley to tell them they don't bowl.

Did you bother to read it?

#1 - If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked.

Pulled directly from the source.

#2 - The Apologetic forum is not a Christian forum per se, but a forum for Christians to defend their position with reason, logic and evidence.

So you came directly to a forum where Christianity is defended with logic and reason, where the rules require you to support your claims, and then claimed you have no burden of proof ... in violation both of the rules of logic and the forum rules ... because you are totally disinterested in God?

In short, the idea that atheism is relieved of its burden of proof due to 'disinterest' is nothing but dishonesty born of deliberate exclusion of things that do not support their view.

Silliness itself.

It's why, a while back, when asked what I though the biggest threat was to atheism my reply was, "Simple honesty."

[Star]

Nope you just come into a Christian debate forum and preach atheism while telling people (actually dt did) that you have no burden of proof because ... you ahve no interest in God.

I'm here debating Christian apologists and debunking their evidence, or rather, lack thereof. I'm not preaching anything.

Seriously, please ratchet down the victim mentality, notice that you are accusing religious people of shoving their faith down your throat, but here you are on an obviously CHRISTIAN forum ... where you are victim of the God being discussed?

Obviously Christian forum? That is an ignorant statement. I also believe I've differentiated types of atheists for you, so I'm not sure why you continue lumping us in the same category. Atheist is just someone who lacks a belief in god, for example, my three-year-old nephew. Your beef is with gnostic atheists who troll Christian-only meeting places, not us.

And THAT is apparently why atheists get to abandon the standards of logic while claiming they are logical?

You keep making incorrect statements about basic standards of logic. Have you even taken any formal logic training in an accredited post-secondary school? I've mentioned a few logical concepts, such as the unfalsifiable null hypothesis, that you haven't addressed yet.

BTW - some Muslims tell me the same thing, that I am following the wrong Prophet and will wind up in hell. BUt you know what? It doesn't bother me, because I am not Muslim, am allowed to disagree, and being threatened with going to hell ... has no effect whatsoever. I believe what I believe and AM WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.

Did you grow up in a predominantly Muslim environment heavily influenced by their rules? Do Muslim family members defriend you on Facebook because you don't believe in Allah? Were you read the Quran every morning before class in public school? No, so then your Muslim comparison is fallacious. I have grown up in a predominantly Christian environment where shrugging it off hasn't always been an option. (I'll ignore your strawmans, including the one implying I hate Christians.)

Perhaps I should join an Islamic forum, which of course I have ZERO interest in obviously, and tell people what a victim I am because of their opinions? Tell them how horrible they are for threatening to send ME, good ol' me, to hell! I hate you! But I have no interest in your faith ... silliness.

You want us atheists to leave and stop debating Christianity and other religions, is that what you're saying? If you have no atheists left to defend yourselves against, and you apparently get along so well with other religions, then why would you still call yourselves apologists on a Christian debate forum? Again, where's this logic you keep espousing?

I have to wonder, are you afraid and offended by what you believe in an imaginary Hell? Tell me, are you also offended when some threatens to hit with an invisible baseball bat? Send care bears after you to give you a great big care bear stare?

I need not believe in Hell to find it offensive when people gleefully call for me to be punished with something infinitely worse than death. It's not only offensive, it's downright disgusting and morally defunct, and the merits of such an argument is open for debate. Should I just accept that I'm going to hell without evidence because people tell me I am? Again this is coming down to a debate about burden of proof.

Well, here is a test on the old injury scale. I would like you to walk into the nearest police station and tell them to arrest the local Christians for threatening you with eternal damnation. If you think its that serious, I suggest you do something about it.

If not, its simply looking for an excuse to be a victim.

Huh? Why would I do that?

Just to be clear, my argument is that it's morally wrong to threaten people with hell. My argument is not that threatening people with hell is illegal. Debating and filing a police report are two different things.

[Star]

#1 - If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked.

That's the argument we're trying to convince you of. The person making the claim has the burden, which is you. Your claim is that the god of the Bible, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are real, and that I should turn or burn, and so you have the burden to provide the evidence if you want me to accept that. You haven't provided any evidence except for fallacious logical reasoning, scripture, and the personal accounts of others, all of which could be used as evidence for any religion, and really isn't evidence at all.

How do I know your religion is the right one? You want me to believe, right? Out of the thousands of mutually-exclusive religions people have followed over the millennia makes you think you got it right?

Your argument is poor. Your evidence is practically non-existent. I have no good reason to believe your religion over any other religion. If a personal god is real and really loves me, I'm sure he would come to me directly, and not wade through the primitive and flawed human nonsense I've been presented with by some apologists.

Pulled directly from the source.

#2 - The Apologetic forum is not a Christian forum per se, but a forum for Christians to defend their position with reason, logic and evidence.

Exactly. It's a forum for BOTH sides to debate. What part of two sides in a debate is so objectionable to you? Remember, nobody's criticizing you for defending Christianity on this board. There's a time and a place and this is it. That's why we're debating and asking you for evidence.

So you came directly to a forum where Christianity is defended with logic and reason, where the rules require you to support your claims, and then claimed you have no burden of proof ... in violation both of the rules of logic and the forum rules ... because you are totally disinterested in God?

You think I'm breaking the rules of the forum?

What exactly do I need evidence for again? Evidence to prove that I'm undecided and that I take no position for or against the existence of an intelligent creator(s) of the universe? I'm not even sure if it's possible or not. I can't even say that much, yet you want evidence for that, and you think it's only logical. Absolutely amazing obtuseness.

[stubbornone]

Nope you just come into a Christian debate forum and preach atheism while telling people (actually dt did) that you have no burden of proof because ... you ahve no interest in God.

I'm here debating Christian apologists and debunking their evidence, or rather, lack thereof. I'm not preaching anything.

There are several open threads about your claim now. In fact, I posted one proof based solely on statistics, which is far from the comprehensive look at ALL the evidence. The response:

Atheists, a few anyways, rejected both math and massive portions of accepted science just to deny it ONE aspect.

And when we see atheists behaving as such ... what exactly do you expect? OK, so you claim that science and rationality lead you here, yet the Big Bang and math just went out the window ... how DID you arrive at a conclusion of atheism?

I have no burden of proof.

Yes brother, that is preaching. Running around claiming the mantel of rationalism for yourself and dneying it to others isn't just preaching, its really bad preaching.

Obviously Christian forum? That is an ignorant statement. I also believe I've differentiated types of atheists for you, so I'm not sure why you continue lumping us in the same category. Atheist is just someone who lacks a belief in god, for example, my three-year-old nephew. Your beef is with gnostic atheists who troll Christian-only meeting places, not us.

Who says this is a Christian only forum? Its clearly a CHRISTIAN forum, as has been shown many times. Just like a church, all are welcome.

I can only assume that your latest deliberate misquote is an attempt to reclaim the coveted status of victim?

And I don;t care what sects atheists create for themselves, as atheists repeatedly tell me, the ONLY thing that all atheists share is the belief that there is no God.

Something DID lead you there. The question is whether is logic or emotion.

Given that you just deliberately misquoted something to add victim status, I would submit that its clearly more the later than the former.

You keep making incorrect statements about basic standards of logic. Have you even taken any formal logic training in an accredited post-secondary school? I've mentioned a few logical concepts, such as the unfalsifiable null hypothesis, that you haven't addressed yet.

Yep, and I have sighted them. CLAIMS MUST BE SUPPORTED. Did you miss the logic proof - which stands in stark comparison to your preachy denial?

Is there a reason that you think everyone who is of another faith choice is devoid of logic?

Or is the emotional aspect of atheism I list as a more probable cause?

Did you grow up in a predominantly Muslim environment heavily influenced by their rules? Do Muslim family members defriend you on Facebook because you don't believe in Allah? Were you read the Quran every morning before class in public school? No, so then your Muslim comparison is fallacious. I have grown up in a predominantly Christian environment where shrugging it off hasn't always been an option. (I'll ignore your strawmans, including the one implying I hate Christians.)

Oh please, I grew up atheist in this society and I recognize whines when I see them. Dry eyes and realize that even as you claim the mantel of victim, perhaps you should ask the opposite of what its like to be mocked as you do Christians, on this forum. Why not ask a Mormon what its like to have their faith ridiculed on Broadway?

Nah, clearly atheists are the only people who have ever had someone be mean to them ... and crumble into a fetus position because they could not handle it?

Tell you what brother, the Rangers I went into battle with, with Muslims against terrorists, are no more impressed by your worship of victimhood then I am.

You are not relieved from the burden of proof simply because you claim you are victim. Go to Somalia, then you will see actual victims.

You want us atheists to leave and stop debating Christianity and other religions, is that what you're saying? If you have no atheists left to defend yourselves against, and you apparently get along so well with other religions, then why would you still call yourselves apologists on a Christian debate forum? Again, where's this logic you keep espousing?

Another strawman of victimhood.

What I would like you to do is use logic.

I would like you to acknowledge, as I have previously spelled out many times, that the evidence for God is inconclusive, but that it is preponderance that leads you to conclude. That would prevent you from listing all other faith choices as illogical.

Instead, as you have no burden of proof, which is illogical, you undertake no objective examination of the evidence, because there is none (dishonest), and there is simply no logical way to confront the ready made building block of conspiracy supported by an argument from absurdity.

Examine the record for yourself, drop the excuses and take a look at what is being presented all over the forum.

If you do not, that is choice. I for one will not call such a choice logical and will continue to demonstrate the shortcomings of the approach.

If that makes you a victim? Who cares? You are welcome to make you case, but understand ON A DEBATE FORUM, you will be rebutted. What did you expect?

If you insist on claiming that being rebutted means people are demanding you leave? I will point out that its simply a deliberate fabrication. Please, prove me wrong and find me stating that atheists should leave vs. the acknowledgement that this is s Christian forum, and atheists would have to blind dumb to come here and think that God would not be discussed.

I need not believe in Hell to find it offensive when people gleefully call for me to be punished with something infinitely worse than death. It's not only offensive, it's downright disgusting and morally defunct, and the merits of such an argument is open for debate. Should I just accept that I'm going to hell without evidence because people tell me I am? Again this is coming down to a debate about burden of proof

.

Once again, who cares?

Hell is about consequence, which you apparently eschew. Guess what? I don't care that you deny consequences beyond this life.

For someone claiming they have no interest in God or Christianity, thus no burden of proof, it seems like what we say defines every aspect of your angry spiritual life?

So much for that claim.

There are open threads right here on this forum about the spiritual side of Hell, but why continue to offer them to those who are simply looking for a reason to be angry?

Huh? Why would I do that?

Who knows? But clearly you are.

Just to be clear, my argument is that it's morally wrong to threaten people with hell. My argument is not that threatening people with hell is illegal. Debating and filing a police report are two different things.

No, you are arguing that atheism has no burden of proof. Hell is what we call a changed goal post.

[stubbornone]

#1 - If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked.

That's the argument we're trying to convince you of. The person making the claim has the burden, which is you. Your claim is that the god of the Bible, Jesus, and the .

there persons running around the forum claiming God is a fantasy are the ones making the claim ... without support.

So, based on the rules of the forum, and the rules of logic, I hereby call you to task.

Shifting the burden of proof is simply an acknowledgement that you cannot support the claim.

I will also remind you yet again, that there are several open threads wherein Christians meet their burden of proof.

This one is about ATHEISM'S burden of proof.

You are free to continue to ignore Christians doing exactly what you ask. Its dishonest to do so, but that is your choice to make.

So, its time for atheists to put up or shut up as they say.

Either evidence lead you to conclude, or it did not.

Given the repeated failures to produce evidence ... clearly its not evidence that lead you to atheism.

It really is that simple.

[d.thomas]

#1 - If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked.

That's the argument we're trying to convince you of. The person making the claim has the burden, which is you. Your claim is that the god of the Bible, Jesus, and the .

there persons running around the forum claiming God is a fantasy are the ones making the claim ... without support.

So, based on the rules of the forum, and the rules of logic, I hereby call you to task.

Shifting the burden of proof is simply an acknowledgement that you cannot support the claim.

I will also remind you yet again, that there are several open threads wherein Christians meet their burden of proof.

This one is about ATHEISM'S burden of proof.

You are free to continue to ignore Christians doing exactly what you ask. Its dishonest to do so, but that is your choice to make.

So, its time for atheists to put up or shut up as they say.

Either evidence lead you to conclude, or it did not.

Given the repeated failures to produce evidence ... clearly its not evidence that lead you to atheism.

It really is that simple.

Describe your god in falsifiable terms so that people don't accuse you of believing in fantasy.