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?

[Grumpy]

Goose

So that when the Iliad claims that Achilles' mother, Thetis, had dipped the infant Achilles in the river Styx, holding onto him by his heel, and thus giving him invulnerability where the waters touched him, historians reject that claim of supernatural protection as being myth.

But why do historians reject it? If they reject a priori on the sole basis it is a supernatural claim then they commit a fallacy.

Your kidding, right??? You mean that you accept ALL the tales of the supernatural as being valid???

If the claim that 500 people rose from the dead when Jesus rose from the dead failed a reasonable historical method, I would have no problem acknowledging that accepting that claim as true would be on less than reasonable evidence.

The historical fact that dead bodies have never been seen to rise from the grave is good enough for me.

Likewise, if the claim that Jesus rose from the dead were to pass a reasonable historical method we can say we accept the claim as true on good evidence.

It doesn't.

Grumpy

[Jester]

didn't make any comments about the "whys" of this belief, but merely pointed out that it was, in fact, a belief.

Please explain how the statement, "I do not believe." is a belief. You are the one stating that words have specific meaning but you are not adhering to the definitions of some words.

I believe that I am adhering to them.
To offer that explanation:
I am saying that atheism is not "I do not believe God exists" (this would be non-theism), but "I believe that God doesn't exist".

I am an atheist and do not claim that I can prove a god does not exist.

You need not be able to prove something in order to believe it. The term refers to what what one believes, not what one can prove.

So I do not make the claim that god does not exist. I do however admit that I do not believe a god exists because I am honest with myself and others.

I would call you an agnostic or a non-theist, then. I do not feel that either of these terms are the least bit insulting, but seem simply to be more accurate based on your claims.

Agnostic has a completely different meaning. They are making a statement about what can or cannot be known. I am making a statement about my position on your tall tale about gods (I don't believe you). See the difference?

Not yet. One of the definitions of agnostic I listed above fits this position perfectly: that you are skeptical about the existence of God, but do not claim that he does not exist.
Unless, of course, you do specifically claim that he (as well as all other gods) does/do not exist. Then you would be an atheist. This may actually be the case, as you seem to have asserted that my beliefs are a "tall tale". This is not a direct claim that you can prove it, but is, in fact, the assertion that they are false; not that you simply don't actively believe them, but that you believe them to be a tall tale.
This brings us to a larger point. Specifically, if all that most atheists are claiming on this site is that they do not personally find evidence compelling, that they are unsure, and never assert that God does not exist, we would have very little debate going on. Or, rather, our debates would be of a very different variety.

Perhaps you should let others define their positions and worry about the foundation of your own position that is eroding away.

As an aside, could we not take jabs at my own theological position here?
Getting to your point, I completely agree that people should be allowed to define their own positions. My contention is, and always was, that they use terms that fit what they have defined as their positions. Just as I cannot say "I'm a Muslim, but I don't believe Mohamed's claim that Christ wasn't divine", you cannot say "I'm an atheist, but I don't take the position that God doesn't exist". It's not a matter of your being allowed to take whatever position you choose; it is a matter of using the right word to describe your position.

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

Yes. So that when the Iliad claims that Achilles' mother, Thetis, had dipped the infant Achilles in the river Styx, holding onto him by his heel, and thus giving him invulnerability where the waters touched him, historians reject that claim of supernatural protection as being myth.

But why do historians reject it? If they reject a priori on the sole basis it is a supernatural claim then they commit a fallacy.

YES, why do historians and scholars reject the tale of Achilles? Why do many or most religionists reject the tale?

I do not speak for historians or anyone other than myself, but I do not reject the claim on the sole basis that it is a supernatural claim.

Instead, I refuse to accept the story of Achilles because there is no evidence that it is true. There are stories, and perhaps testimonials, and claims – but not evidence. I also observe that the tale is directly contrary to all that is known about the real world – that dipping a child in water does not impart invulnerability.

Exactly the same is true of "miracle" tales told in bible stories. I have seen NO evidence that donkeys or snakes conversed with humans (only stories), that dead bodies come back to life (only unsubstantiated claims), that a star "went before them and stopped over a birthplace" (only convoluted, unsupported "explanations" offered by those who wish to believe the tales).

Do you accept ALL unverified supernatural tales? If not, which ones are REJECTED and why? Are tales about competing supernatural "gods" rejected on the sole basis that they are supernatural claims?

Similarly, the New Testament has some historical facts. But genuine historians do not use it as a basis for believing that 500 people got out of their graves when Jesus rose from the dead.

If the claim that 500 people rose from the dead when Jesus rose from the dead failed a reasonable historical method, I would have no problem acknowledging that accepting that claim as true would be on less than reasonable evidence. I wouldn't spend much time defending it. Likewise, if the claim that Jesus rose from the dead were to pass a reasonable historical method we can say we accept the claim as true on good evidence.

If I remember correctly, the bible contains several or many tales of "resurrections". Are they all literally true as claimed?

If a person claims to fly by simply flapping their arms, do you accept the tale without asking for verification?

If a person is claimed to have levitated into the sky, do you accept the claim? Is that true if the "person" is proposed to be a "god or godman"? If it is a "god or godman" OTHER than the Christian favorite, do you still believe the claims?

I prophesy that the claim will be accepted if it is made for Jesus and rejected if made for other "gods". Am I right? If so, on what intelligent basis is that distinction made?

[Zzyzx]

.

I am saying that atheism is not "I do not believe God exists" (this would be non-theism), but "I believe that God doesn't exist".

Again, Jester, that is ONE definition of Atheism among MANY. It is one that may be favored by Theists but is not acceptable to many Atheists.

First, that these definitions are all similar.

I supplied a lot of different definitions that are NOT "all similar". There is substantial difference between the definitions supplied.

Second, and more importantly, the definitions which differ from mine are well within the realm of agnosticism.

There is a great deal of commonality or overlap in the terms Atheist and Agnostic – just as there is overlap in beliefs and worship practices of different Christian sects.

The fact that atheistic groups propose a more broadly defined definition for the term does not seem to me to be a good reason to change it. I would prefer that they, like yourself, use the term non-theist. It accomplishes this broadening without confusion.

Should we accept the Atheist's definition of Atheism (or the Theist suggestions)?

Should we accept the Christian's definition of Christianity (or the Atheist suggestions)?

My only other question here is: why?

Word usage changes over time. Definitions are not fixed and unchanging. Dictionaries reflect usage – not proscription.

Specifically, why the insistence on altering the word from its traditional meaning, as indicated by its derivation, rather than simply using a more clear term?

Do you maintain the same position with ALL words – that they should retain traditional meanings? If not, why single out Atheism?

Personally, I'd like knowing what my debate opponents believe, and tend to get tired of asking people, who bring up burden of proof to give me their personal definition of atheism. I have also run into several cases in which people have offered this more broad definition during a discussion of burden of proof, then made claims elsewhere that define their own beliefs (or atheism in general) by my definition. Granted, I could debate with each of these people specifically over the contradiction, but I'm wondering why I should have to do so, when there doesn't seem to be a good reason to have such a flexible definition in the first place.

Your dilemma is no more difficult (and probably a lot less difficult) than nine in dealing with the wide variation in positions under the heading of "Christian". I am forced to "shift gears" when debating you or MagusYanam, for example vs. Easyrider or Joer – though you all identify as "Christian", usually without qualifying terms.

It is interesting that when I ask for clarification of sect association and specific beliefs, I usually receive only very general replies devoid of specifics. Occasionally someone will identify their preferred denomination or sect. I wonder why the hesitation.

I'd rather just ask a person "are you an atheist or an agnostic" with assurance that the answer will tell me something about his/her beliefs.

Likewise, it would be nice (but impossible) to simply ask "are you Christian" and have some understanding of the debate position of the person.

On the opposite side of the coin. Non-theists wouldn't be constantly having to explain to new Christians on this site what they mean by "atheism". This would save us all some headaches.

I solve the problem for myself by using the Non-Theist term – though many Christians seem to fail to distinguish between that position and Atheism (and address me as a Atheist in spite of usergroup identification with Non-Theist and NOT with Atheist.

The Christians I debate most often (usually Fundamentalists / literalists) typically make NO distinction between the variations of position represented by opposition – as though "they all look alike to me".

[JoeyKnothead]

As another OP similar to this OP's subject seeks to have supernatural claims accepted as evidence merely because rule 3 can be interpreted as saying the Bible's claims of such are evidence in themself is, IMO, wrong.

I contend there should be a rule for C&A that says such as, "ALL CLAIMS are subject to verifiable, empirical evidence". Or such as "Just because the Bible claims it, does not mean it is automatically acceptable evidence."

IMO, the way rule 3 is worded now is too ambiguous as to exactly what evidence should be considered as valid for offering.

There are specific forums where the Bible is accepted as evidence in itself, and my opinion is that C&A should not start off accepting any claim within the Bible as accurate.
As can be seen by many theists' posts in C&A, often there will be nothing more but Biblical claim after Biblical claim in support of yet another Biblical claim. This can be quite maddening, in that rule 3 is used to claim the Bible is acceptable evidence to begin with.

Which subforum in Debating Christianity is the Bible not considered as evidence from the get go?

[McCulloch]

I think that Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book. is sufficient, don't you?

[JoeyKnothead]

I think that Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book. is sufficient, don't you?

Obviously not, by reading my previous post.

I won't further address what is an issue for the mods. My concerns are noted in my previous post.

[byofrcs]

I think an important point needs to be made with regards to the "Burden of Proof" question. My comments here apply not only to Christianity but to virtually all religions (including, some might say, Atheism).

....only to the few atheists who make a positive claim that there is no god/s. Very few do. Atheists in general do not make such positive claims because they are atheist but when they are say, methodical naturalists and there is no room for god/s.

Pardon me as I jump onto a personal soap box.

From Dictionary.com:
a⋅the⋅ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The proper term for someone who does not make a positive claim on this issue is "agnostic". An atheist, by definition, believes that there is no God.

ag·nos·tic (�g-n�s'tĭk)
n.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

dic⋅tion⋅ar⋅y [dik-shuh-ner-ee] [IPA:  /ˈdɪkʃəˌnɛri/ ]
–noun
1. alphabetical collection of arguments that are an appeal to authority.
2. ......


Pardon me if I tell you that your interpretation is wrong.

A belief is a noun. Some people have an actual belief that there is no god. For example Madalyn O'Hair is an example of someone I would say would have the positive no-god belief and a total wingnut too but I just blame that on her being in the US.

Richard Dawkins on the other hand is an example of someone who has never stated that there is no God. It isn't a matter of agnosticism but of probability.

I have no belief in God but that is not why I disbelieve in God. I disbelieve in God because I am a materialist and so gods, along with loads of other crap just don't cut the ice. They are all improbable. Not equally improbable - a deist style god is the least improbable whereas say the '99-flavours' Allah and the Jewish God and 3-in-1 Christian God are very improbable.

What I am clear on is that the question can be asked and answered and so not agnostic. I don't consider myself anti-theist nor anti-clerical. I consider the trustworthiness of apologetics like I would SPAM. I actually think all apologetics can be weighted like we do with SPAM using Bayesian networks but instead of SPAMiness it is how Fallacious. I also think of Churches as running Advanced Free Fraud - 419 - with "Heaven" being the reward that will be shared.

But as I apply trust metrics to all things in life then I am not specifically against any one thing but against all things that cannot be trusted.

You should remember this because I, as an atheist, see attempts to categorise me as an agnostic as a poor argument against on my methodical naturalism and materialism. My arguments here come from those positive beliefs not from my hobby in not collecting stamps.

[Jester]

I am saying that atheism is not "I do not believe God exists" (this would be non-theism), but "I believe that God doesn't exist".

Again, Jester, that is ONE definition of Atheism among MANY. It is one that may be favored by Theists but is not acceptable to many Atheists.

I agree that many atheists take this position, but don't see that there is any good reason to change the terminology for their sake. Rather, I'd be in favor of inventing a new word that accurately descibes their beliefs in a manner that is clear to the majority of people (which is a requirement for any word). I've always appreciated the term non-theist to that end.

First, that these definitions are all similar.

I supplied a lot of different definitions that are NOT "all similar". There is substantial difference between the definitions supplied.

I disagree on this point.
There are many shades of difference, just as there are many shades of difference between definitions of the word "Christian", but there are some consistent themes present. It is simply not possible to cater to all of them, and having clear terms is a staple of good debating.
As such, I would say that all of the definitions were, essentially, either the belief that no god exists or a lack of belief in any gods. I proposed that the former was better on the grounds of clarity.

There is a great deal of commonality or overlap in the terms Atheist and Agnostic – just as there is overlap in beliefs and worship practices of different Christian sects.

I have no problem with that, but don't see that this necessitates vague definitions. In spite of the simmilarities between Catholics and Baptists, we still strive to have a clear understanding between the two. I would argue that the same should be true of atheists and agnostics.

The fact that atheistic groups propose a more broadly defined definition for the term does not seem to me to be a good reason to change it. I would prefer that they, like yourself, use the term non-theist. It accomplishes this broadening without confusion.

Should we accept the Atheist's definition of Atheism (or the Theist suggestions)?

Should we accept the Christian's definition of Christianity (or the Atheist suggestions)?

I believe we should side with the definition which is more clear. This will likely leave both sides a bit disappointed, but I don't see that this should be our concern.
The entire point of having the terms "agnostic" and "non-theist" is to distinguish these positions from atheism. Frankly, I don't see any reason why one should be committed to redefine the term when we allready have appropriate terms for such positions.

My only other question here is: why?

Word usage changes over time. Definitions are not fixed and unchanging. Dictionaries reflect usage – not proscription.

My question wasn't "why has it changed", the bulk of people in the English speaking world still use the definition I gave. Yes, this may be because most are theists, but I don't see that this is relevant. My question was asking why we should insist on changing an established word from its common understanding rather than using a new term.

Do you maintain the same position with ALL words – that they should retain traditional meanings? If not, why single out Atheism?

Because the meaning of this word hasn't changed for the bulk of the population.

Personally, I'd like knowing what my debate opponents believe, and tend to get tired of asking people, who bring up burden of proof to give me their personal definition of atheism. I have also run into several cases in which people have offered this more broad definition during a discussion of burden of proof, then made claims elsewhere that define their own beliefs (or atheism in general) by my definition. Granted, I could debate with each of these people specifically over the contradiction, but I'm wondering why I should have to do so, when there doesn't seem to be a good reason to have such a flexible definition in the first place.

Your dilemma is no more difficult (and probably a lot less difficult) than nine in dealing with the wide variation in positions under the heading of "Christian". I am forced to "shift gears" when debating you or MagusYanam, for example vs. Easyrider or Joer – though you all identify as "Christian", usually without qualifying terms.

I completely agree that there is a real problem here, and would be fully in favor of establishing some terms to deliniate between types of Christians (the vagueness bothers me as well). I don't, however, see that pointing out that this problem exists elsewhere is a reason not to support solving it with regard to atheism.

It is interesting that when I ask for clarification of sect association and specific beliefs, I usually receive only very general replies devoid of specifics. Occasionally someone will identify their preferred denomination or sect. I wonder why the hesitation.

I can't say that I know for sure, but my personal guess is that most of us don't really know enough about the differences to give a response.
I'm fully with you on this one. It is clearly a parallel to my concern and should be dealt with.

I'd rather just ask a person "are you an atheist or an agnostic" with assurance that the answer will tell me something about his/her beliefs.

Likewise, it would be nice (but impossible) to simply ask "are you Christian" and have some understanding of the debate position of the person.

I agree.

On the opposite side of the coin. Non-theists wouldn't be constantly having to explain to new Christians on this site what they mean by "atheism". This would save us all some headaches.

I solve the problem for myself by using the Non-Theist term – though many Christians seem to fail to distinguish between that position and Atheism (and address me as a Atheist in spite of usergroup identification with Non-Theist and NOT with Atheist.

Sympathies for having to deal with those types (and, yes, I recieve something simmilar with regard to fundamentalism).
With regard to terminology, I'm merely arguing that others follow your lead on that.

The Christians I debate most often (usually Fundamentalists / literalists) typically make NO distinction between the variations of position represented by opposition – as though "they all look alike to me".

Yes, they drive me crazy as well.
Not that it excuses them in any way, but I do think that it would be easier for you if those types weren't also debating with people who gave definitions of atheism that is closer to what you claim with "non-theism". This really seems to feed their false belief that these groups are "all-alike".
There are individuals on this site who define atheism as something I would call "non-theism", but make very atheist (by my definition) claims. Again, this does not excuse the obnoxious theists, but it is easy to predict that they would hear your claims and assume that it was more of the same, and that you'd start making claims that the lack of a god has been completely established.
Wrong of them, I know, but more people using my definitions might help to curb that (probably not as much as either of us would like - but worth a shot).

[Goose]

I do not speak for historians or anyone other than myself, but I do not reject the claim on the sole basis that it is a supernatural claim.

What is your method for determining if a historical claim is true or not then? You've had well over a year to come up with one. Any progress yet?

Instead, I refuse to accept the story of Achilles because there is no evidence that it is true. There are stories, and perhaps testimonials, and claims – but not evidence.

The Zzyzx Contradiction

Exactly the same is true of "miracle" tales told in bible stories. I have seen NO evidence that donkeys or snakes conversed with humans (only stories), that dead bodies come back to life (only unsubstantiated claims), that a star "went before them and stopped over a birthplace" (only convoluted, unsupported "explanations" offered by those who wish to believe the tales).

The Zzyzx Contradiction

Do you accept ALL unverified supernatural tales?

How would you determine if it was a tale or not? What is your objective method?

If not, which ones are REJECTED and why?

I'll ask you the same thing. What is your objective method?

Are tales about competing supernatural "gods" rejected on the sole basis that they are supernatural claims?

Are claims about gods rejected on the sole basis they are about gods? If not, what is your objective method?

If I remember correctly, the bible contains several or many tales of "resurrections". Are they all literally true as claimed?

You tell me. What is the method we should use for determining the answer to your question?

If a person claims to fly by simply flapping their arms, do you accept the tale without asking for verification?

How do you know it is a "tale" before looking at the evidence?

If a person is claimed to have levitated into the sky, do you accept the claim? Is that true if the "person" is proposed to be a "god or godman"? If it is a "god or godman" OTHER than the Christian favorite, do you still believe the claims?

You tell me. What historical method should I use to determine if the claim is true or not?

I prophesy that the claim will be accepted if it is made for Jesus and rejected if made for other "gods". Am I right? If so, on what intelligent basis is that distinction made?

I prophesy you still do not have any objective method for determining if a claim from ancient history is true or false. Am I right?