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]

"Non-theist" is not a term I use myself so I am not sure exactly what is meant by it.

Non-theist just means not a theist. Atheism means without theism. Many people live their lives without theism, they are non-theists, or atheists.

[stubbornone]

"Non-theist" is not a term I use myself so I am not sure exactly what is meant by it.

Non-theist just means not a theist. Atheism means without theism. Many people live their lives without theism, they are non-theists, or atheists.

Which is a semantic term. In either case, they do not believe in God.

In fact, the term 'non'-theist is, IMO, simply an attempt to dodge the burden of proof. It is usually offered when atheists are cornered by their conflicting rationals:

#1 - That their conclusions are the result of evidence, logic, reason, science, etc.

#2 - That atheism is not a religion, has no faith, etc.

Unfortunately, many of the atheists who make these conflicting claims, also happen to be rather ... animosity driven in their views of religion. Rather than examine/explain their conflicting views ... we get the silly claim that the suddenly non-theist doesn't have to explain his position because he merely 'believes' there is no God. He's not actually claiming anything.

The term non-theist exists solely as a semantic point to allow a certain portion of the atheist population to retain their nihilistic views without evidence. Not much more to it then that.

THAT, would be one of the reasons I accept logic ... and had to leave atheism, because logical people can spell out their claim and support it.

[d.thomas]

"Non-theist" is not a term I use myself so I am not sure exactly what is meant by it.

Non-theist just means not a theist. Atheism means without theism. Many people live their lives without theism, they are non-theists, or atheists.

Which is a semantic term. In either case, they do not believe in God.

In fact, the term 'non'-theist is, IMO, simply an attempt to dodge the burden of proof. It is usually offered when atheists are cornered by their conflicting rationals:

#1 - That their conclusions are the result of evidence, logic, reason, science, etc.

#2 - That atheism is not a religion, has no faith, etc.

Unfortunately, many of the atheists who make these conflicting claims, also happen to be rather ... animosity driven in their views of religion. Rather than examine/explain their conflicting views ... we get the silly claim that the suddenly non-theist doesn't have to explain his position because he merely 'believes' there is no God. He's not actually claiming anything.

The term non-theist exists solely as a semantic point to allow a certain portion of the atheist population to retain their nihilistic views without evidence. Not much more to it then that.

THAT, would be one of the reasons I accept logic ... and had to leave atheism, because logical people can spell out their claim and support it.

Theists have yet to spell out their claim and support it which is why there are those that don't believe them. You seem to have a problem with that.

#2 - That atheism is not a religion, has no faith, etc.

Oh yeah, that's it, we atheists just can't get enough of that old time religion, we just can't stop doing whatever it is the religious do which is what exactly, getting up early on Sunday morning to put on our Sunday best and give money to the church? Sounds like a lot of fun.

In fact, the term 'non'-theist is, IMO, simply an attempt to dodge the burden of proof.

Atheists have no burden of proof, we just don't share in your beliefs, and we don't need a reason for not sharing in unsupported beliefs other than acknowledging that there is no good reason to do so.

[stubbornone]

"Non-theist" is not a term I use myself so I am not sure exactly what is meant by it.

Non-theist just means not a theist. Atheism means without theism. Many people live their lives without theism, they are non-theists, or atheists.

Which is a semantic term. In either case, they do not believe in God.

In fact, the term 'non'-theist is, IMO, simply an attempt to dodge the burden of proof. It is usually offered when atheists are cornered by their conflicting rationals:

#1 - That their conclusions are the result of evidence, logic, reason, science, etc.

#2 - That atheism is not a religion, has no faith, etc.

Unfortunately, many of the atheists who make these conflicting claims, also happen to be rather ... animosity driven in their views of religion. Rather than examine/explain their conflicting views ... we get the silly claim that the suddenly non-theist doesn't have to explain his position because he merely 'believes' there is no God. He's not actually claiming anything.

The term non-theist exists solely as a semantic point to allow a certain portion of the atheist population to retain their nihilistic views without evidence. Not much more to it then that.

THAT, would be one of the reasons I accept logic ... and had to leave atheism, because logical people can spell out their claim and support it.

Theists have yet to spell out their claim and support it which is why there are those that don't believe them. You seem to have a problem with that.

We call this willful ignorance. There are several open threads where exactly what you ask for is indeed happening. I myself have pitched dozens on many different forums, and you are claiming that no one in 2+ thousand years has ever offered up a proof of God?

No?

The real issue is that the best we can do is preponderance, at least in terms of 'scientific' evidence, strongly suggestive if you will, but the final leap must be of faith.

Just like yours.

Only your is complete logic and reason, requires no faith at all ... and therein lies the conundrum that lead the worst of atheism to create the 'non-theist'.

#2 - That atheism is not a religion, has no faith, etc.

Oh yeah, that's it, we atheists just can't get enough of that old time religion, we just can't stop doing whatever it is the religious do which is what exactly, getting up early on Sunday morning to put on our Sunday best and give money to the church? Sounds like a lot of fun.

I was unaware that all religions get up on Sundays? This would be another example of an argument from absurdity.

Rather than address actual points and build a case, we respond with the ridiculous and clear strawmen.

In fact, the term 'non'-theist is, IMO, simply an attempt to dodge the burden of proof.

Atheists have no burden of proof, we just don't share in your beliefs, and we don't need a reason for not sharing in unsupported beliefs other than acknowledging that there is no good reason to do so.[/quote]

You claim there is no God. That requires a burden of proof.

Muslims disagree with my faith, they can tell me why in terms that are understandable and respectable. They acknowledge the rules of both civility and logic.

So do Buddhists.

Taoists.

Hindu.

Even Scientologists.

Not however ... atheists, who insist that there faith is not even a faith but cannot give us the facts to prove it isn't a faith.

As I have claimed many times, when people adhere to something so clearly at odds with facts and logic, the reason is emotional, not logical. You reasons for 'disagreement' are clearly your own, and they do not relieve the logical burden of someone to support the claims that they make.

[Star]

You claim there is no God. That requires a burden of proof.

You saying he does doesn't make it so. In actuality, I see no such claims. Ask "Truth101" about the man with straws.

Muslims disagree with my faith, they can tell me why in terms that are understandable and respectable. They acknowledge the rules of both civility and logic.

Not all Muslims. Some of them will kill you.

Not however ... atheists, who insist that there faith is not even a faith but cannot give us the facts to prove it isn't a faith.

I suppose, if after more than 160 posts, you still don't get the default position of disbelief/null, you never will. It's really unfortunate that such a simple logical concept cannot be grasped by some people.

[TheTruth101]

You claim there is no God. That requires a burden of proof.

You saying he does doesn't make it so. In actuality, I see no such claims. Ask "Truth101" about the man with straws.

Muslims disagree with my faith, they can tell me why in terms that are understandable and respectable. They acknowledge the rules of both civility and logic.

Not all Muslims. Some of them will kill you.

Not however ... atheists, who insist that there faith is not even a faith but cannot give us the facts to prove it isn't a faith.

I suppose, if after more than 160 posts, you still don't get the default position of disbelief/null, you never will. It's really unfortunate that such a simple logical concept cannot be grasped by some people.

Concept coming from if its invisible, it simply dosent exist. So, oxygen and wind do not exist. Ok, gotcha.

[Star]

Concept coming from if its invisible, it simply dosent exist. So, oxygen and wind do not exist. Ok, gotcha.

Huh? Please do try making some coherent sense..

I said nothing of the sort. Not even close.

[TheTruth101]

Concept coming from if its invisible, it simply dosent exist. So, oxygen and wind do not exist. Ok, gotcha.

Huh? Please do try making some coherent sense..

I said nothing of the sort. Not even close.

Well, I figure evolution have been debunked through our exchange of posts on another thread, and I believe big bang have been stated as just a detailed explanation of the bible verse, Genesis 1.1 and 1.2.

So, what's left, you can't see so you can't believe. Refer to my prior post in regarding the answer to this.

Maybe I should edit this post.

[stubbornone]

You claim there is no God. That requires a burden of proof.

You saying he does doesn't make it so. In actuality, I see no such claims. Ask "Truth101" about the man with straws.

Muslims disagree with my faith, they can tell me why in terms that are understandable and respectable. They acknowledge the rules of both civility and logic.

Not all Muslims. Some of them will kill you.

Not however ... atheists, who insist that there faith is not even a faith but cannot give us the facts to prove it isn't a faith.

I suppose, if after more than 160 posts, you still don't get the default position of disbelief/null, you never will. It's really unfortunate that such a simple logical concept cannot be grasped by some people.

Do you know what strawmen are?

Its taking a claim that is made and turning it into something that is not made ... generally, when people leave off significant portions of someone else's claims ... that would be a good sign of a strawman.

The random definitions of atheism, wherein we get the following claims:

#1 - Atheism is rational, reasonable, evidence driven, scientific, etc.

#2 - Atheism has no faith component.

That should be enough RIGHT THEN and there to kick in the LOGICAL burden of supporting such claims.

Now we get further irrational excuses and personal pot shots to boot (which is typical of the more conspiratorial minded atheists out there)

a. 'there is no good reason to believe', er ... because I say so.

Which manages to encapsulate thousands of years of history and presentation, of ideology that BILLIONS find to have merit, and tosses in in a single statement as if such one liners are the height of 'science' and 'evidence'?

b. No one has ever made a compelling case for God.

Which just manages to pretend that there has never been a debate on the subject .. ever. Or willful ignorance.

c. We don't have a burden of proof, er ... but we are still logical.

Other than the claim that you have no burden of proof, what do you have? What you have is a dodge, one meant to avoid the contradictions in your faith choice. Why? Because the haughty derision that drives such an open and contemptuous contradiction, if acknowledged, would be highly embarrassing ... and pride prevents that when all our argumentation is aimed at finding shortcomings in others ... to find them in ourselves? Scary.

d. You don;t understand atheism?

Everyone understand atheism just fine. Its the lack of belief in Gods, as several atheists right here on this forum have routinely spelled out ... USUALLY IN LARGE BOLDED LETTERS TOO BOOT. Now all of the sudden, atheism, when confronted with the LOGICAL need to support its claims, is merely the lack of belief in God and thus has no burden of proof?

So, atheism is utter ignorance then? With no knowledge one way or another of evidence for God, you simply have not taken a position and merely lack belief? Atheism is thus willful stupidity on the subject? And you think that advocating this while claiming that people do not know anything of atheism would be an intelligent argument?

So we have come full circle have we not?

Atheism begins as a rational choice, science, evidence, etc. and we end up with atheism no claiming anything at all, not requiring the any evidence, because its merely complete ignorance that claims nothing and thus has NO trail of reason or logic that lead to no conclusions whatsoever.

Oh, people understand quite well what that kind of atheism is. The funny part if that these kinds of atheists hate ardent Biblical Creationists who deny evolution ... deny it with the same passion that you deny God. Odd, isn't it?

BTW - I am a combat veteran. I fought with Muslim Soldiers on many occasions. Is your atheist sensibility shocked at the reality that there are criminals in the Islamic world? Just like ours? Does it shock you that there are men and women of honor in the Islamic world who will stand up to them?

Well, so much for the 'reasoned' faith choice.

[Star]

^
I started to skim this post, saw he still didn't understand -- as evident by the assertion that atheists have the burden to prove they're not faith-based -- and stopped reading.

Anyone who thinks the burden means a requirement to prove a negative, obviously still doesn't understand. Until we grasp this basic concept, the rest of the conversation revolving around it is pointless.

The person making the POSITIVE claim has the burden of proof.

I don't have the burden to prove I'm not guilty in a court of law. I don't have to prove I don't drive a Nissan Altima. I don't have to prove I don't live in Vancouver BC. I don't have to prove I'm not a man. See the theme here? These are all negatives.

If you were ever charged with a crime, and they presumed you guilty until proven innocent, and it was your job to prove you're not guilty, and not the other way around, you'd change your tune quickly. Suddenly that burden of a positive claim wouldn't seem so illogical after all.