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]

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.

[TheTruth101]

^
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.

Skipped this post through the thread. It seems like you say your not a man here, which means, and just I'm assuming here, your then a female member. If in that case, I take back where I said you are marked by me on this forum, well because frankly, it just sounds weird.

Anyway, remember that you hold no position as to what you voice, atheism. Simply because you have no logic behind your stance on atheism.

In other words, there is no reason behind your reasoning on atheism. So, the burden of proof is on you to a theist of why your belief in atheism.

Atheism is still a belief, and it is base on faith, simply because the universe have not been figured out yet to a complete, therefore, faith has to be involved logically for one to claim atheism. If the universe was figured out to a complete, then faith wouldnt be requird for atheism, however, we have ones that believe God do exist, therefore you have the burden of proof to of your stance on Gods non existence, since the universe is not complete in figuring out how everything works.

So the question is, how do you conclude gods non existence?

[EduChris]

...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...

Non-theism is a general term that applies to anyone who is not a theist.

Agnostic atheism is not a term that I use; however, it seems you are using it synonymously with weak atheism, or the belief that theism need not be the case.

Gnostic theism is also not a term that I use; however, it seems you are using it synonymously with strong atheism, or the belief that theism is not the objective reality.

...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...

The question you ask is a leading question, designed to imply (by omission of other alternatives) that there is some special danger inherent in "false religious beliefs" when in fact "false anti-religious beliefs" (and the holding of false beliefs in general, or the failure to hold true beliefs in general) are no less dangerous.

...So you're saying you just want to avoid the word "God" because you find it misleading?...

No, I use the most precise terminology available to me, so that others will not be so easily confused.

...there's no need to insist that others adopt your idiosyncratic terminology...

On this forum, people are constantly falling into the Leprechaun Fallacy--the unwillingness or the inability to recognize the critical distinction between contingency and non-contingency. My terminology helps to overcome this deficiency. If you are unwilling to address the arguments that I present, as I present them, then there is no point engaging in further dialog with you--for in fact you are not engaging my arguments at all.

..."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...

We have been over this already. We have the daily experience of not knowing today whether it will or will not rain tomorrow. And we have the daily experience of knowing whether it is or is not raining today (after having been ignorant yesterday). But we have absolutely no experience of non-theistic universes vs. theistic universes. We don't even know that a non-theistic universe is possible (and given my argument earlier, it seems impossible that a non-theistic universe could exist). So your analogy fails, and we have begun to simply repeat ourselves, which means it is time to end this discussion here.

[Danmark]

On this forum, people are constantly falling into the Leprechaun Fallacy--the unwillingness or the inability to recognize the critical distinction between contingency and non-contingency. My terminology helps to overcome this deficiency. If you are unwilling to address the arguments that I present, as I present them, then there is no point engaging in further dialog with you--for in fact you are not engaging my arguments at all.

The 'Leprechaun Fallacy' is not a logical fallacy at all, but a term of your own coinage.
You define your own particular 'leprechaun' as 'non contingent' while defining others' leprechauns as 'contingent.' Neat trick if you can get away with it. The fact that most theologians may agree to include in their definition of god 'non contingent' is irrelevant to the argument from the point of view of the non theologian.

The 'Leprechaun Fallacy' is an example of the 'Definition Fallacy,' a term I invented just now. The definition fallacy states 'I am right because I have defined my terms to make all arguments against me futile.'

[ndf8th]

I think Reality is right about this

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

Now proof seems to belong to the formal philosophy area?

Are religious traditions mainly about doing formal philosophy?
I agree that philosophy is a part of the Apologetics of faith
but the believers that I have met talks about a relation to a tradition
or some a relation to a living Christ Jesus. More like social and
psychological way to relate than to do formal academic philosophy to me.

One definition of weak atheism is something like
atheism lack of belief of the existence of gods.

If one really have to give proof? How can one give proof that one lack belief?
One can self report a subjective personal experience of lacking a belief
but self reporting is not a proof is it? it is a highly subjective opinion or view?

[EduChris]

...The 'Leprechaun Fallacy' is not a logical fallacy at all, but a term of your own coinage...

What I refer to as the "Leprechaun Fallacy" is actually an example of a category mistake in which "things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another."

...You define your own particular 'leprechaun' as 'non contingent' while defining others' leprechauns as 'contingent.' Neat trick if you can get away with it. The fact that most theologians may agree to include in their definition of god 'non contingent' is irrelevant to the argument from the point of view of the non theologian...

Proponents of contingent god(s) have long since lost any voice within academic philosophical discussions and within all major world theisms. Since no one seriously defends or promotes contingent god(s), we need to focus our discussions on non-contingent deity, which is the only tenable god-concept currently in use.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...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...

Non-theism is a general term that applies to anyone who is not a theist.

Agnostic atheism is not a term that I use; however, it seems you are using it synonymously with weak atheism, or the belief that theism need not be the case.

Gnostic theism is also not a term that I use; however, it seems you are using it synonymously with strong atheism, or the belief that theism is not the objective reality.

Thanks. Now what about the second part of my request? What claims do you feel are being implicitly or explicitly made by those who hold each of the above positions? Specifically, what claims with regard to the existence of God are being made by each?

I am arguing that gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism differ in their clams with regard to the existence of God. Because of this I think that the umbrella term "non-theist" lacks the precision necessary for this discussion.

...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...

The question you ask is a leading question, designed to imply (by omission of other alternatives) that there is some special danger inherent in "false religious beliefs" when in fact "false anti-religious beliefs" (and the holding of false beliefs in general, or the failure to hold true beliefs in general) are no less dangerous.

I think you're forgetting the principle of charity here. If I was trying to imply that there was some special danger inherent in false religious beliefs not present in other false beliefs, why would I readily acknowledge that this is not the case? As it stands I think we agree that theism can lead to false religious beliefs, and that false religious beliefs can be considered a negative consequence of theism. To be clear, this is not to say that theism holds a monopoly on potentially false beliefs.

...So you're saying you just want to avoid the word "God" because you find it misleading?...

No, I use the most precise terminology available to me, so that others will not be so easily confused.

Right. Isn't that what I just said?

...there's no need to insist that others adopt your idiosyncratic terminology...

On this forum, people are constantly falling into the Leprechaun Fallacy--the unwillingness or the inability to recognize the critical distinction between contingency and non-contingency. My terminology helps to overcome this deficiency. If you are unwilling to address the arguments that I present, as I present them, then there is no point engaging in further dialog with you--for in fact you are not engaging my arguments at all.

If your "leprechaun fallacy" becomes relevant to this conversation, by all means point it out. Have I shown the slightest unwillingness to address the arguments that you present as you present them? I have explicitly accepted your definition of "God" for the purpose of this conversation and if I say anything that does not apply to your definition of "God" please point this out immediately so any misunderstanding can be corrected.

Remember the principle of charity.

..."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...

We have been over this already. We have the daily experience of not knowing today whether it will or will not rain tomorrow. And we have the daily experience of knowing whether it is or is not raining today (after having been ignorant yesterday).

This is the same red herring you introduced the first time, and you have still not responded to the objections raised when you first presented it. The question "is it going to rain tomorrow" has two possible answers. If you argue "it is going to rain tomorrow" you are making a positive assertion. If you argue "it is not going to rain tomorrow" you are making a positive assertion. If you state "it might rain tomorrow and it might not rain tomorrow" you are not making a positive assertion, you are acknowledging the full spectrum of possible conclusions. "Possibly x, possibly not-x" is not a positive assertion with regard to x. It is a statement that we do not know the answer to the question.

"Daily experience" is in no way relevant to whether or not acknowledging all possible answers is a positive assertion. That we do not know whether it will rain tomorrow is the premise of the question. We have no "daily experience" of whether or not it is going to rain on January 19, 2013. Daily experience is something you would take into account to answer the question. For example: it's been raining three days in a row, so I argue that it will rain tomorrow. You don't need to appeal to daily experience to know that I'm asking you a question with two possible answers. I could ask you this question on Mars and "it might rain tomorrow, it might not rain tomorrow" is still the default position and not a positive assertion.

But we have absolutely no experience of non-theistic universes vs. theistic universes. We don't even know that a non-theistic universe is possible (and given my argument earlier, it seems impossible that a non-theistic universe could exist). So your analogy fails, and we have begun to simply repeat ourselves, which means it is time to end this discussion here.

We don't know that a non-theistic universe is impossible any more than we know that a theistic universe is impossible. From the default position of agnostic atheism we don't know these things any more than we know whether or not it will rain tomorrow. We just know that there are two possible answers to the question of God's existence. It is most parsimonious to leave all the options on the table until we are able to eliminate them based on what we know. Saying that a non-theistic universe "seems" impossible to you is very different from saying that we know a non-theistic universe is impossible. The burden of proof is not on those who recognize our lack of knowledge and acknowledge all the possible answers of the question. Thus to demand evidence for the possibility of a non-theistic universe (outside of the context of soliciting counterarguments to the arguments made to support your own positive assertions with regard to God) is to commit the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

[Danmark]

...The 'Leprechaun Fallacy' is not a logical fallacy at all, but a term of your own coinage...

What I refer to as the "Leprechaun Fallacy" is actually an example of a category mistake in which "things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another."

...You define your own particular 'leprechaun' as 'non contingent' while defining others' leprechauns as 'contingent.' Neat trick if you can get away with it. The fact that most theologians may agree to include in their definition of god 'non contingent' is irrelevant to the argument from the point of view of the non theologian...

Proponents of contingent god(s) have long since lost any voice within academic philosophical discussions and within all major world theisms. Since no one seriously defends or promotes contingent god(s), we need to focus our discussions on non-contingent deity, which is the only tenable god-concept currently in use.

I was having just a bit of fun. And I agree, the only 'god' worth talking about is the non contingent variety.

I assume you would agree that there is no logical problem with my defining the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster [may His Pasta be praised] as non contingent. Or a leprechaun's for that matter?

However, I also agree that adding almost anything to the name or definition of a non contingent god detracts from or weakens the concept.
Thus adding the phrase 'not less than personal' to the description is, if not weakening, at least somewhat arbitrary.

Isn't this a debate among theologians, that in adding 'not less than personal' to the definition of 'non contingent' we are making that god into a 'being' as opposed to 'the very ground of being [Tillich]?

That is a dilemma is it not? On the one hand a god who is non contingent merges with the universe or all existence itself, whereas a god that is not less than personal becomes a mere being.

[JoeyKnothead]

Regarding burdens and proofs and all that carryin' on...

"There's a God 'up there'!".

Burdened.

"I don't believe you."

Not burdened.

"There ain't no God 'up there, y'all's just being silly'!"

Burdened.

"I don't believe you."

Not burdened.

"I don't know if there's a God's 'up there' or not."

Not burdened.


Unfortunately it seems, some theists feel a compelling need to equate a non-belief, or a disbelief, as some sort of burdened argument, where such a condition is better left as a burden upon the one who sets out to make a claim.

This atheist is of the mind that there are no gods. I then carry a burden. That burden should not befall my atheist brethren who merely lack belief in a god or gods.

Them's the facts. I can't help it, but there they are.


I propose that our theist friends who wish to declare what atheists believe, or to declare that atheists have some burden to bear, should, instead of ignoring the arguments of the very atheists who make positive atheistic claims, stop declaring folks "uncivil" and get on with the debating.

There's no need to tell someone who lacks your belief that they have a burden. They're not claiming anymore'n they think a given claimant may well have been slung clean clear of the porch.


Alas, it would seem that by declaring any argumentation an effort at "incivility", or by declaring any atheist who actually presents the "ain't no Gods" argument as "uncivil", the god concept is held safe and sound against any arguments the theist may find discomforting, aka, "uncivil".

How might a theist ever have honor, ever have credibility, when he ignores the very folks he's so hell-bent to declare oughta support the claims the theist seems so ready to debate? What the heck is that all about?

"You're mean, so I'll just ignore you and declare what parts of what you declare to be wrong, but I for dang sure won't even contemplate engaging you on a debate of the stuff it is I'm saying you oughta be a-debating on" is, if only to me, an effect of the god concept at work.

Where confounded, god; where ignorant, god; where anything 'cause I need me a settled mind about all this, god. (no nefarity involved, just a need for psychological comfort)


To declare what the atheist position is, while ignoring those atheists who actually present a positive claim to that regard, indicates, if only to me, that dooficity has so encroached upon an individual, as to make any claim or argument they present against those they so steadfastly ignore, to be the height of religious or intellectual arrogance.

And don't it beat all, here we've got us a "scholar" a-doin' it!

And then to have the unmitigated gall to declare others "uneducated", but don't it beat all, any disagreement is ignored, or merely swept away with the sweep of a hand, well that oughta set us all to wondering if we ain't got us about the most uneducated "scholar" that ever walked the planet.

"Atheists have a position, it's just I refuse to argue against those few atheists who actually hold the position I'm so prepared to argue against."


I propose if folks are upset that others ain't meeting them a burden, maybe they oughta not over-burden their own self.

[EduChris]

...adding almost anything to the name or definition of a non contingent god detracts from or weakens the concept...Thus adding the phrase 'not less than personal' to the description is, if not weakening, at least somewhat arbitrary...

The not-less-than-personal is hardly arbitrary; rather, it is the sole factor that differentiates theists from non-theists.

...That is a dilemma is it not? On the one hand a god who is non contingent merges with the universe or all existence itself, whereas a god that is not less than personal becomes a mere being.

I do not see any dilemma here. If God is not-less-than-personal, and if God is the source of all contingent possibilities, then why should God not be able to create something which is other than God, yet still capable of relating to God? I've only read one of Tillich's books, but I never got the sense that Tillich was advocating a "Ground of Being" which was less than personal.