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.

[Star]

...when we actually do look at all the evidence in our universe, NONE of it shows gods in any way...

If we find a corpse with several knives sticking in its back, we needn't catch the murderer on the scene in order to realize that someone committed the deed..

Ouch, easy now. Assumptions are dangerous.

You said "someone". Maybe it was no one. Maybe it was several people.

Maybe it was a crime. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe it was a suicide.

[EduChris]

...Would you not consider the potential adoption of false religious beliefs to be a negative consequence?...

I see no reason to believe that the adoption of "false religious beliefs" is any worse than the adoption of "false secular beliefs." Moreover, if the adoption of "false religious beliefs" is to be counted as a potential negative consequence, then the failure to adopt "true religious beliefs" must also be counted as a potential negative consequence. In other words, it is not the "religious" or "secular" qualifiers that concern us; instead we are more concerned about truth vs. error.

...What is the difference between these two statements?..."God exists"..."The logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal."...If you are going to insist upon such distinctions, please be specific as to what distinction you see. Why are these statements not equivalent...

The issue is clarity. For example, we can talk about whether unicorns exist, but we cannot talk about whether unicorns are logically necessary, since unicorns (to the extent they are written about in fairy tales) are always presented as contingent entities. Educated people, of course, implicitly understand the difference between contingent and non-contingent entities, but here on this forum we must keep the distinction boldly in view for the sake of the uneducated participants who don't understand this critical distinction.

...Ok, good. As someone who makes a positive assertion, the burden is upon you to provide evidence or arguments such as this to support your claims. As far as this thread is concerned, we can conclude that the agnostic atheist is under no such obligation as they make no positive assertions about God's existence. To ask for evidence against God's existence is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, but to put forth arguments like this and solicit counterarguments is perfectly acceptable...

Again, the non-theist does hold the view that theism need not be the case--else the (honest) non-theist would cease to be a non-theist. And the positive assertion that theism need not be the case must be defended. Of course, since there is no evidence that theism need not be the case, I can understand perfectly well why non-theists are so reluctant to even attempt to argue on behalf of their position.

...the pursuit of truth" does not give us license to jump to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, even if proof is unobtainable...

Where proof is unobtainable, and where no one can remain on the fence in actual daily life, it follows that one is entitled to tentatively adopt the view which enjoys the best support, even if that support is not absolutely conclusive.

...To assume personal agency could not have arisen out of impersonal consequences until evidence to the contrary is provided is to commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

We know that personal agency can arise from personal agency. We do not know (nor can we ever know) that personal agency can arise from strictly impersonal causation. This fact alone makes "personal agency" better supported than "strictly impersonal causation," which in turn places the burden of proof squarely on the non-theist.

[d.thomas]

...You're just shifting the burden of proof onto those that don't believe...

I would say that the vast majority of non-theists claim that they are passionate for truth--and this is a good thing, in my opinion. Presumably you also are passionate for truth, right?

So, suppose for a moment that theism must be the case. If you were convinced that theism must be the case, you would be a theist, right? After all, you are passionate for truth, aren't you?

But you are not a theist. Therefore, you must hold the viewpoint that theism need not be the case.

...Science rejects the notion of gods because there are no facts concerning gods...

Science has nothing to say about theism, since science deals only with investigating the physical universe. Science does not investigate metaphysical matters, even though it (like all fields of human study) necessarily rests on unprovable metaphysical assumptions.

...just don't expect everyone to make such leaps of faith.

Where have I asked anyone to make "leaps of faith"?

On this forum, what counts is actual arguments, and it is unfortunate that we see much more angry rhetoric than actual arguments from many non-theists here.

It requires a leap of faith for theism to be the case because nothing supports the claim of invisible ancient gods existing out there. The claim is hollow so it comes as no surprise that more people have come to live without theism. I once believed because I was told from a young age what to believe but now that I have looked for the evidence and found it completely lacking I realize that gods are just a silly notion alongside leprechauns, demons, angels, fairies, Santa Claus, etc. Why you still believe is your business. You say actual arguments are what counts but we haven't come across one yet for the existence of ancient invisible gods out there.

[EduChris]

...You say actual arguments are what counts but we haven't come across one yet for the existence of ancient invisible gods out there.

Can you see a distinction between arguing for "the existence of ancient invisible gods out there," which I have never done, and arguing that "the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is best viewed as not-less-than-personal"? If you are unwilling to recognize the distinction, then you are not arguing with me, but rather with your own strawman concoctions.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

@ EduChris

I would like you to define the following terms as you understand them so that I may better understand you:

- non-theism

- agnostic atheism

- gnostic atheism

It wouls also be useful for you to note what claims you feel are being implicitly or explicitly made by those who hold each of the above positions.

...Would you not consider the potential adoption of false religious beliefs to be a negative consequence?...

I see no reason to believe that the adoption of "false religious beliefs" is any worse than the adoption of "false secular beliefs." Moreover, if the adoption of "false religious beliefs" is to be counted as a potential negative consequence, then the failure to adopt "true religious beliefs" must also be counted as a potential negative consequence. In other words, it is not the "religious" or "secular" qualifiers that concern us; instead we are more concerned about truth vs. error.

So yes, you would consider the potential adoption of false religious beliefs to be a negative consequence? That other false beliefs adopted in other contexts may also lead to negative consequences is of course acknowledged but is neither here nor there with regard to the question I am asking you.

...What is the difference between these two statements?..."God exists"..."The logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal."...If you are going to insist upon such distinctions, please be specific as to what distinction you see. Why are these statements not equivalent...

The issue is clarity. For example, we can talk about whether unicorns exist, but we cannot talk about whether unicorns are logically necessary, since unicorns (to the extent they are written about in fairy tales) are always presented as contingent entities. Educated people, of course, implicitly understand the difference between contingent and non-contingent entities, but here on this forum we must keep the distinction boldly in view for the sake of the uneducated participants who don't understand this critical distinction.

So you're saying you just want to avoid the word "God" because you find it misleading? I think you have made sufficiently clear in this thread that you define "God" as "the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal." Further "corrections" are probably not necessary - if an issue of confusion actually arises, by all means point it out. In the mean time there's no need to insist that others adopt your idiosyncratic terminology.

...Ok, good. As someone who makes a positive assertion, the burden is upon you to provide evidence or arguments such as this to support your claims. As far as this thread is concerned, we can conclude that the agnostic atheist is under no such obligation as they make no positive assertions about God's existence. To ask for evidence against God's existence is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, but to put forth arguments like this and solicit counterarguments is perfectly acceptable...

Again, the non-theist does hold the view that theism need not be the case--else the (honest) non-theist would cease to be a non-theist. And the positive assertion that theism need not be the case must be defended. Of course, since there is no evidence that theism need not be the case, I can understand perfectly well why non-theists are so reluctant to even attempt to argue on behalf of their position.

"Theism need not be the case," that is, "God might exist or God might not exist" is not a positive assertion. "It might rain tomorrow, or it might not rain tomorrow" is not a positive assertion. We've been over this. Acknowledging all possible answers to a question is not a positive assertion. "Possibly x, possibly not-x" is not a positive assertion with regard to the nature of x. You continue to commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

...the pursuit of truth" does not give us license to jump to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, even if proof is unobtainable...

Where proof is unobtainable, and where no one can remain on the fence in actual daily life, it follows that one is entitled to tentatively adopt the view which enjoys the best support, even if that support is not absolutely conclusive.

Fortunately, it is entirely possible to live our lives day to day while remaining on the fence as an agnostic atheist so your point is moot. Or would you argue that I and other agnostic atheists are not alive?

...To assume personal agency could not have arisen out of impersonal consequences until evidence to the contrary is provided is to commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

We know that personal agency can arise from personal agency. We do not know (nor can we ever know) that personal agency can arise from strictly impersonal causation. This fact alone makes "personal agency" better supported than "strictly impersonal causation," which in turn places the burden of proof squarely on the non-theist.

No, this is you making an argument in favour of the existence of God. You are required to present arguments in favour of your positive claims and to solicit counterarguments. But simply presenting an argument for God's existence does not meet the burden of proof, and simply presenting an argument for God's existence certainly does not make the existence of God the default position. Again, the burden of proof is not met simply by having a slightly less poor argument than the alternative.

[micatala]

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??

/thread

I have no idea how this made it to this many pages lmao.

Tautology knows no end to the madness.

Moderator Comment


Both the d.thomas and the R34AL1ty posts here are unproductive one-liners.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[stubbornone]

@ EduChris

I would like you to define the following terms as you understand them so that I may better understand you:

- non-theism

- agnostic atheism

- gnostic atheism

It wouls also be useful for you to note what claims you feel are being implicitly or explicitly made by those who hold each of the above positions.

...Would you not consider the potential adoption of false religious beliefs to be a negative consequence?...

I see no reason to believe that the adoption of "false religious beliefs" is any worse than the adoption of "false secular beliefs." Moreover, if the adoption of "false religious beliefs" is to be counted as a potential negative consequence, then the failure to adopt "true religious beliefs" must also be counted as a potential negative consequence. In other words, it is not the "religious" or "secular" qualifiers that concern us; instead we are more concerned about truth vs. error.

So yes, you would consider the potential adoption of false religious beliefs to be a negative consequence? That other false beliefs adopted in other contexts may also lead to negative consequences is of course acknowledged but is neither here nor there with regard to the question I am asking you.

...What is the difference between these two statements?..."God exists"..."The logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal."...If you are going to insist upon such distinctions, please be specific as to what distinction you see. Why are these statements not equivalent...

The issue is clarity. For example, we can talk about whether unicorns exist, but we cannot talk about whether unicorns are logically necessary, since unicorns (to the extent they are written about in fairy tales) are always presented as contingent entities. Educated people, of course, implicitly understand the difference between contingent and non-contingent entities, but here on this forum we must keep the distinction boldly in view for the sake of the uneducated participants who don't understand this critical distinction.

So you're saying you just want to avoid the word "God" because you find it misleading? I think you have made sufficiently clear in this thread that you define "God" as "the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal." Further "corrections" are probably not necessary - if an issue of confusion actually arises, by all means point it out. In the mean time there's no need to insist that others adopt your idiosyncratic terminology.

...Ok, good. As someone who makes a positive assertion, the burden is upon you to provide evidence or arguments such as this to support your claims. As far as this thread is concerned, we can conclude that the agnostic atheist is under no such obligation as they make no positive assertions about God's existence. To ask for evidence against God's existence is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, but to put forth arguments like this and solicit counterarguments is perfectly acceptable...

Again, the non-theist does hold the view that theism need not be the case--else the (honest) non-theist would cease to be a non-theist. And the positive assertion that theism need not be the case must be defended. Of course, since there is no evidence that theism need not be the case, I can understand perfectly well why non-theists are so reluctant to even attempt to argue on behalf of their position.

"Theism need not be the case," that is, "God might exist or God might not exist" is not a positive assertion. "It might rain tomorrow, or it might not rain tomorrow" is not a positive assertion. We've been over this. Acknowledging all possible answers to a question is not a positive assertion. "Possibly x, possibly not-x" is not a positive assertion with regard to the nature of x. You continue to commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

...the pursuit of truth" does not give us license to jump to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, even if proof is unobtainable...

Where proof is unobtainable, and where no one can remain on the fence in actual daily life, it follows that one is entitled to tentatively adopt the view which enjoys the best support, even if that support is not absolutely conclusive.

Fortunately, it is entirely possible to live our lives day to day while remaining on the fence as an agnostic atheist so your point is moot. Or would you argue that I and other agnostic atheists are not alive?

...To assume personal agency could not have arisen out of impersonal consequences until evidence to the contrary is provided is to commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

We know that personal agency can arise from personal agency. We do not know (nor can we ever know) that personal agency can arise from strictly impersonal causation. This fact alone makes "personal agency" better supported than "strictly impersonal causation," which in turn places the burden of proof squarely on the non-theist.

No, this is you making an argument in favour of the existence of God. You are required to present arguments in favour of your positive claims and to solicit counterarguments. But simply presenting an argument for God's existence does not meet the burden of proof, and simply presenting an argument for God's existence certainly does not make the existence of God the default position. Again, the burden of proof is not met simply by having a slightly less poor argument than the alternative.

All of them have ONE thing in common ... NONE believes in God.

Why? Apparently we are supposed to guess?

S atheism has no burden of proof if an atheist magically claims he is a Gnostic atheist?

[d.thomas]

...You say actual arguments are what counts but we haven't come across one yet for the existence of ancient invisible gods out there.

Can you see a distinction between arguing for "the existence of ancient invisible gods out there," which I have never done, and arguing that "the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is best viewed as not-less-than-personal"? If you are unwilling to recognize the distinction, then you are not arguing with me, but rather with your own strawman concoctions.

Call your god what you will, the fact of the matter is is that there are no facts. I would require conclusions drawn from evidence in order for me to even begin to consider formulating a belief that theism is more than just a notion, so the burden of proof is obviously on you, meanwhile I will continue to live without any notions of theism, just as I do for leprechauns and tooth fairies.

[d.thomas]

edit

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

All of them have ONE thing in common ... NONE believes in God.

Why? Apparently we are supposed to guess?

S atheism has no burden of proof if an atheist magically claims he is a Gnostic atheist?

No, the gnostic atheist most definitely has the burden of proof as they make the claim that God does not exist. The agnostic atheist does not hold the burden of proof as they make no claims as to the existence or nonexistence of God. "Non-theist" is not a term I use myself so I am not sure exactly what is meant by it.