The Burden of Proof

[McCulloch]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

[justifyothers]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

Why can't the two sides simply discuss their points? Why does one side have to assume responsibility at all?

[byofrcs]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

Hold on - is this some trap by the moderators to get us Atheists to trip up on this sub-forum rule on the Bible-is-true ?

I've tried to use the many worlds strategy of Plantinga and the NOMA of Stephen Gould but the moderators refuse that attempt (they consider it to be satirical - which given I'm British *that* is not satire).

The burden of proof always lies with those making the claims.

[JoeyKnothead]

You claim it, you own it.

Of course attempts to get some folks to support or retract their claims is an utterly useless endeavor.

Seems like to some the preaching is more important than the proving.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why can't the two sides simply discuss their points? Why does one side have to assume responsibility at all?

You and the other "Rational Theists" ARE capable of discussing points as are many Non-Theists; however, the "Fanatical Fringe Fundamentalists" insist upon preaching their brand of "REAL Christianity" rather than debating -- which sets the "Atheists" into hardened position of opposition.

Many of the resident "defenders of the faith" insist that they have special knowledge, and that everyone who does not worship as they worship is inferior and is destined to "hell". They make CLAIMS that cannot be substantiated and insist that they are true – with no evidence other than personal opinion, conjecture and scriptural quotations (none of which are meaningful in debate). Post #9 of http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10814 is a perfect example of this condition.

Reasoned debate CANNOT exist when claims are made without challenge and without substantiation. This should remain a DEBATE sub-forum in which reasoning, evidence and substantiation are required. Preaching of unsubstantiated claims should be confined to dedicated sub-forums. However, many who proselytize insist on doing so in C&A unethically.

[Goose]

Where does the burden of proof lie?

The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim. If the claim is that the Bible is a fairy tale, for example, then the one making such claim assumes the burden of proof.

Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible?

Aren't doubters just doubters? Why would a doubter want to disprove the Bible? The only reason I can see why they would want to disprove it is if they didn't want to believe it. And hence, they aren't really doubters but something else.

Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

Wouldn't it be reasonable to subject Biblical claims to the very same methods historians use? Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the same standard of "proof" for Biblical claims that we expect for other historical events/persons/places? Wouldn't that be rational?

[Gonzo]

The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim. If the claim is that the Bible is a fairy tale, for example, then the one making such claim assumes the burden of proof.

It's not hard to prove donkeys and snakes don't talk to humans, or that people don't rise from the dead, or that you can't turn water into wine. Now wait a minute, what do we call tales that have fantastical fictional claims that can't be shown true in reality? You'll have to refresh my memory.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to subject Biblical claims to the very same methods historians use? Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the same standard of "proof" for Biblical claims that we expect for other historical events/persons/places? Wouldn't that be rational?

So, if I have used your logic correctly (correct me if I'm wrong). Because a book records historical events/people/places that means that whatever is written in it is true? (So long as more than a few of those historical things check out).

[Goose]

The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim. If the claim is that the Bible is a fairy tale, for example, then the one making such claim assumes the burden of proof.

It's not hard to prove donkeys and snakes don't talk to humans, or that people don't rise from the dead, or that you can't turn water into wine. Now wait a minute, what do we call tales that have fantastical fictional claims that can't be shown true in reality? You'll have to refresh my memory.

For someone that believes that little blue furred monkey-men with webbed feet are possible, I find the above rejection of the supernatural rather comical.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to subject Biblical claims to the very same methods historians use? Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the same standard of "proof" for Biblical claims that we expect for other historical events/persons/places? Wouldn't that be rational?

[So, if I have used your logic correctly (correct me if I'm wrong). Because a book records historical events/people/places that means that whatever is written in it is true? (So long as more than a few of those historical things check out).

No. You haven't used my logic correctly.

[Gonzo]

For someone that believes that little blue furred monkey-men with webbed feet are possible, I find the above rejection of the supernatural rather comical.

I demonstrated each of those traits as existing in the human population (usually in the form of a recessive allele), that's called evidence. All I did was compound them in to one creature, something that's feasible based off of known laws of inheritance. Or do you question my logical deduction based on those premises?(my deduction being that those genetic traits can be passed to offspring)

I also noticed you backed off the thread, why was that?

My hypothetical offered much in the way evidence, much more than creationists searching for snake vocal chords could venture to find.

No. You haven't used my logic correctly.

Please, for my sake, could you clarify what you meant then?

[Scotracer]

Until something is demonstrably true, the burden of proof lies on those making the positive claims...i.e. any believer of any religious text most give evidence to why theirs is true.

When something has reached the level of critical analysis where it is universally accepted as true (i.e. The Big Bang and Evolution) it is up to the detractors to say why it is false. Both theories I described are backed by mountains of empirical evidence and are demonstrably true.