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.

[stubbornone]

^
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.

You can indeed prove a negative.

"But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove
a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a
negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law
of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true
and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore,
you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the
empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare
you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable
negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not
the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a
negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you
can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove
it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh."

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph ... gative.pdf

And we aren't in court, we are talking about logic.

But heh, even in court, when the police come and say, "Well, we have all this evidence against him ..." I guess the best response would be to claim you have no burden of proof? That the police just don't get how crime actually works? How the presentation of evidence was so dreadfully out of touch with your opinion that you decided to ignore it?

Well, see how that goes for you.

[Star]

You can indeed prove a negative.

I know, but that's not what you said. You said negatives have a burden, too. I don't have to prove I'm not black, but I can.

And we aren't in court, we are talking about logic.

Burden of proof, default position of non-belief, and the often associated null hypothesis is Logic 101. At my university students learn about it (either in parts or in full) in philosophy, law, English (essay writing), even business statistics courses. I had to learn it just for computer science. Courts depend on that logic to avoid coming to incorrect conclusions, and so do many other information workers.

But heh, even in court, when the police come and say, "Well, we have all this evidence against him ..." I guess the best response would be to claim you have no burden of proof? That the police just don't get how crime actually works? How the presentation of evidence was so dreadfully out of touch with your opinion that you decided to ignore it?

Right, they have to prove you guilty. You don't prove you're innocent. Responding to allegations against you that are backed by evidence, however, should result in you and your lawyer discussing whether you should testify in your own defense, which is a calculated risk. You don't actually have to say anything.

The analogy here would be us atheists refuting theist "evidence" which we do all the time.

[TheTruth101]

You can indeed prove a negative.

I know, but that's not what you said. You said negatives have a burden, too. I don't have to prove I'm not black, but I can.

And we aren't in court, we are talking about logic.

Burden of proof, default position of non-belief, and the often associated null hypothesis is Logic 101. At my university students learn about it (either in parts or in full) in philosophy, law, English (essay writing), even business statistics courses. I had to learn it just for computer science. Courts depend on that logic to avoid coming to incorrect conclusions, and so do many other information workers.

But heh, even in court, when the police come and say, "Well, we have all this evidence against him ..." I guess the best response would be to claim you have no burden of proof? That the police just don't get how crime actually works? How the presentation of evidence was so dreadfully out of touch with your opinion that you decided to ignore it?

Right, they have to prove you guilty. You don't prove you're innocent. Responding to allegations against you that are backed by evidence, however, should result in you and your lawyer discussing whether you should testify in your own defense, which is a calculated risk. You don't actually have to say anything.

The analogy here would be us atheists refuting theist "evidence" which we do all the time.

Now you attempt to sell out your whole school to have a voice in your non-logic?
It's not your schools fault that you are lost, it is thatvyouvare dealing with members that are smarter and know of life more then you. In other words, welcome to the big league, and the debate goes on.

First, everything that you are addressing is a explanation of your school. Who cares about your university, stick to the topic.

Second,if and when you believe in anything you have the burden of proof to back it up. In other words, when you voice your opinion in anything, then we want to hear the reasons why you voice such idea. When you don't have the reasons behind it, then by all means, you shouldn't hold such voice or idea. And from what I've seen, your reasoning behind atheism holds no merit anymore because ovr and over members of this forum proved you wrong.

Third, a lot of excuses are being voiced out, blaming your school, then crying for help to other members on another thread, then when confronted you assort to trolling with one liners and it goes in circles with you.

Four, I have no idea why you brought up your university again. Its weird.

Five, i have no idea why you keep saying 'we' since you yourself have no reasoning behind your stance on atheism. Which realy means you are lost here, again.

Six, burden of proof of atheism lies within you because you are dealing with ones that believe in God, and to us, it is the reality. Whereas to you, it is not. But, the difference is, we've proved your wrong, and we've proved why God exists, but yet, you fail to realize this again, then goes to talking about your school, which again, this time is double weird.

Will post later, don't have time right now.

[Star]

^ Congratulations on counting to six.

This is a very long post that is almost entirely directed at me (and my school too apparently) as opposed to the point I'm making. As my nutty cousin might ask, "You mad bro?"

Have a good night "Truth101"

[TheTruth101]

^ Congratulations on counting to six.

This is a very long post that is almost entirely directed at me (and my school too apparently) as opposed to the point I'm making. As my nutty cousin might ask, "You mad bro?"

Have a good night "Truth101"

Says the one who acts cool and thinks saying ' you mad bro' is a comeback. Thus, thinking emotional expression is an uncool thing when a minute ago, was in tears reaching out to the atheists on this forum.

Ofcourse its directed at you, I quoted you. Look at the post.

Another post by you that does not address anything on the subject but rather, is another cryout of how you 'feel'.

Your marked on this forum by me. Be ready for a stimulating debate as to anything you say.
In other words, since it seems like you represent your whole school now(lol), your school will be no more.

[Star]

Your marked on this forum by me. Be ready for a stimulating debate as to anything you say.
In other words, since it seems like you represent your whole school now(lol), your school will be no more.

This sounds like a threat towards my school.

The stimulating debate part sounds better. Whenever you're ready to be stimulating, please let me know.

[TheTruth101]

Your marked on this forum by me. Be ready for a stimulating debate as to anything you say.
In other words, since it seems like you represent your whole school now(lol), your school will be no more.

This sounds like a threat towards my school.

The stimulating debate part sounds better. Whenever you're ready to be stimulating, please let me know.

Enough with your school, who cares about your school. Again, one fails to grasp the concept.

Didn't you say your off to bed a minute ago? Emotional, much?

Again, the post where I quoted you, refer to number two. Argument is given already. How did you get into a college with your reading ability?

[Star]

Your marked on this forum by me. Be ready for a stimulating debate as to anything you say.
In other words, since it seems like you represent your whole school now(lol), your school will be no more.

This sounds like a threat towards my school.

The stimulating debate part sounds better. Whenever you're ready to be stimulating, please let me know.

Enough with your school, who cares about your school. Again, one fails to grasp the concept.

Didn't you say your off to bed a minute ago? Emotional, much?

Again, the post where I quoted you, refer to number two. Argument is given already. How did you get into a college with your reading ability?

I'm still waiting for the stimulating part. This is just more obsessing over my school. I'll check back tomorrow and see how you're feeling. Night.

[TheTruth101]

Your marked on this forum by me. Be ready for a stimulating debate as to anything you say.
In other words, since it seems like you represent your whole school now(lol), your school will be no more.

This sounds like a threat towards my school.

The stimulating debate part sounds better. Whenever you're ready to be stimulating, please let me know.

Enough with your school, who cares about your school. Again, one fails to grasp the concept.

Didn't you say your off to bed a minute ago? Emotional, much?

Again, the post where I quoted you, refer to number two. Argument is given already. How did you get into a college with your reading ability?

I'm still waiting for the stimulating part. This is just more obsessing over my school. I'll check back tomorrow and see how you're feeling. Night.

No need to check on how I feel tommorow or even a day after tommorow.Get ready for a stimulating debate on your upcoming posts, as in, care to post any of your own theories on this forum? Or, even a proper opinion which has some depth?

[d.thomas]

We call this willful ignorance.

Ad hominem, not worth responding to.



ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.