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.

[Mithrae]

Monotheism most likely developed after polytheism - and polytheism probably developed after animism. So by your reasoning, Christians have a burden of proof first to show that spiritual being/s are great and powerful rather than the individual spirits of each tree or rock or stream in animism, and then to show that there is only one supreme spiritual being rather than many gods.

Of course, some Christians would suggest that belief in the one true God is the oldest of all beliefs, just as atheists might suggest that before animism and the like there was no belief in spiritual beings at all. I'm not sure either claim could be satisfactorily proven.

So I suspect that the principle you're suggesting would be an exercise in futility. But on an individual level I think there's some merit to the idea that we should have good reasons for changing our views on something; our minds aren't a blank slate, and short of solipsism we can't justify everything we believe. So is someone raised a Christian who finds fault with the bible really justified in rejecting all religions and theism entirely, or is that more of an emotional response?

[TheTruth101]

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.

Burden of proof relies on people of logic and science, Atheists. I, as a person of faith, have answers
to the nature as in accordance with the bible. However, a scientist on this forum can't answer a single question handed to him when confronted with his own laws, which is of science.

[Justin108]

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.

Burden of proof relies on people of logic and science, Atheists. I, as a person of faith, have answers
to the nature as in accordance with the bible. However, a scientist on this forum can't answer a single question handed to him when confronted with his own laws, which is of science.

Reality has always been more complex than fantasy. The reason it's harder for science to explain reality than for religion is because religion can be made up as we go. That's how different denominations are formed - they come up with new ideas (with no supporting evidence found in reality) and preach it to be the ultimate truth. Science on the other hand has to look at reality. They cannot come up with a new idea unless reality suggests it.

[R34L1TY]

The burden of Proof is on the person who claims something.

If I claimed that Humans are Apes, I would have the burden of having to prove it. Which I could very easily.

Darwin claimed Evolution, and then proved it.

The Bible became and we are all told to have faith, no proof at all.

For something that apparently explains everything, there should be some sort of proof like at least a shred of proof..but there is none. But there is Faith, in which is all you have to go on.

If you want to say "Christianity" came first, okay..we can play that game. Before Religion was nothing, so prove Religion? Generally speaking..before Religion..everyone was an Atheist, right??

[Moses Yoder]

I agree with Dr. R, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If I am going to publicly claim that God exists I need to prove it. However, to say you believe God exists is not a claim that God exists, only that you believe so, thus your only burden is to prove you believe God exists.

[Bust Nak]

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.

It is indeed up to those who provide new ideas and theorise that have the burden of proof. In otherwords the burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

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.

We claim that we don't believe in God. Our testimony is ample prove for that claim.
We claim that your arguments for God is ineffective. We have provided ample counter-arguments.
We claim that you have yet to fulfill the burden of proof for the Resurrection of Christ, the flood and the like. We also have got evidence of such too.
I would go as far as using the two points above to fulfill the burden of proof for that claim that there is no god.

Anything other outstanding claim that you think we haven't fulfill the burden of proof for? In the meantime, I'll remind you again that it's not up to us to disprove the flood, etc.

[playhavock]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious.

No. Not just the religious or particulary the Christans. Anyone who makes a claim has the burden of proof. This is how logic (not atheist/agnostics) work. Atheists/agnostics might use logic, but that is a side point.

If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ,

I'll do it.
Christ historicaly can not be shown to even have existed. Even as a normal person. No prevous historans or people who wrote about poltics, relgion, and/or other issues before, during or even after Christ wrote once about this person. The silence is overwhelming. The only sorce of this person is the writings of the unknown authors of the gosples, the earlyest being 20+ years or so after Christ was said to have lived. The claims the gosples make would have Chirst and his deeds been seen more then once by those who would have recorded such events. The sun darking during his death is not even mentioned, not by those in the area or any other historian of that time. So not only is there no postive evidance that any of the things that the bible says happened did happen, but there is counter facts to it. Not only this but history itself shows that the perosn who was said to put Christ to death, was not even in power at the time, along with meny, meny other issues.

So okay, the facts are agenst this. Now we move to the problem of the fact that we have never, ever observed a human who has recovered from the amount and types of injury that Jesus had. We have no way to know that this is possible, phyiscaly speaking - if we assume that "God did it" then what is to stop us from assuming that other mirical events from other relgions also are not caused by God? The issue of miricals is two fold; first you can not identify a mirical - second you can not show that your mirical is real and that other miricals are not. How could we know that this happened for real?

the flood,

No evidance shows that the whole of the earth has been flooded, first the salt water and fresh water fish would have all died out. Second, there is not enough water to rase up to cover every inch of land. Third all the plant life would have died, forth the idea that not only the flood happened but that Noah saved enough animals is in fact, beound being possible, by any strech of the immagenation. Two of each creature would meen we would see the results of inbreading even today, we do not. So this is blown out of the water, totaly and compleatly as the evidance is agenst it. You have to prove it happened, you have not and can not. NEXT.

etc.,

What else you want debunked?

they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them,

Yes, you do.

so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it.

Thats right. If you do not like having the burden to prove things then do not claim those things are real.

But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment.

Hahhahahhaahhahahaha. Oh my logic FAIL. Utterly fail. This is an augument apeal of tridation! Geez. Really? COME ON.

But, you know what, just for fun - I'll let you slide on this. Now Jesus has a huge burden on himself to show that his ideas/theories are true since Jesus is said to have been against the establishment of the Jewish people, now Jesus requires MORE evidance to be belivible. Looks like you are in trouble, but wait theres more, your idea goes counter to LOGIC that has been around longer then you have, so your very idea itself must now prove that it is true and that your idea has more burden of proof because it goes agienst the establishment of logic itself. Oops. looks like you just gave yourself MORE burden of proof.

Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years,

And other relgions predate and have been around longer. Does that meen they are right?

and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment

Sigh.

with their wild new ideas and theories

Wild new idea: There is no magical sky daddy that made us all!
Yeah I know, hard to belive.
-_-;

, 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.

I've used up my supply of sarcasam for this year on you. Clearly you do not like having the burdan of proof, your logic is falty and your ideas are to put it bluntly silly.

You have not and will not and can not prove that Jesus existed, or that there is a God or that miricals happen or any of the rest of the myth that you belive is true.

As a skeptic, this gave me a laugh, thank you for that - benound that, I'm waiting for you to give me a LOGICAL statment I can actualy respond to. Rather then the amount of fallacys you produced. Do better.

[Justin108]

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.

By that logic you have to disprove Greek mythology since it's older than Christianity. Greek mythology used to be the "establishment". The reason it fell away is not because it was disproved but because Christianity was the religion of Rome who eventually conquered Greece. In other words, Christianity became the established "truth" by force, not reason. Should we all start killing each other now until either atheism or theism is destroyed - with the winner being the "truth"?

Truth is not a popularity contest - which is ultimately what you're suggesting. The only reason Christianity is the "established truth" is because history is written by the winners. Christianity just happened to win against other religions because it has a talent for gathering mindless followers to war in its name.

So a brief version of my response is: can you disprove Greek mythology?

[avryluy]

I was reading the Portable Atheist last night and I came across a quote by Carl Van Doren that, to me, seems to be a fairly irrefutable point in terms of religion. He stated that "there is no trustworthy evidence as to a god's absolute existence."

Let me explain this quote in the way that I viewed it when reading it. People who believe in God will always claim and stand true to the statement that he exists. Alright, but there is no absolute proof. 'God' has been rewritten over and over to fit different personas, religions, etc. There is no absolute form of him. And if we were to use faith to go back in history, there would quite possibly be millions of gods validated.

So it seems that the only logical response to acknowledging a magical super-being is to stand true to the fact that there is not one.

(Please excuse any naivety or lack of intellect. I've recently joined and am fascinated by these discussions!)