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.

[Danmark]

...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.

I think it's in his first of his two volume: Systematic Theology where he tries to find a middle ground somehow between the god that is indistinguishable from the universe and a god who is a being.

Perhaps defining god as 'not less than personal' is an effort to do just that. But to me saying got is 'not less than personal' has little distinction from 'God is personal' or God has a personality.'

As usual I can't lay my hands on my books that I've most heavily annotated, but I found this on the web, and it approximates my memory of Tillich's argument:

Tillich says that God is being-as-being, or being-itself or the power of being. Hearing those phrases, any philosopher would conclude that God is the “universal essence�. Within traditional (scholastic) language, being-itself and universal essence are synonymous (and Tillich later says that universals are powers of being – see 1951: 254). But identification of God with the universal essence leads immediately to pantheism (which, for Tillich, is pagan).
Tillich has to pull himself back from this pantheism, and he does it by appealing to God’s transcendence: “It is as wrong to speak of God as the universal essence as it is to speak of him as existing. If God is understood as universal essence, as the form of all forms, he is identified with the unity and totality of finite potentialities, and therefore he has ceased to transcend them. He has poured all his creative power into a system of forms, and he is bound to these forms. This is what pantheism means.� http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswith ... l-tillich/

[stubbornone]

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.

When someone is deliberately misquoting, deliberately leaving out massive portions of evidence, skipping an entire argument to take issue with the phrase "willful ignorance" ... not only are they missing the point that such criticism is indeed aimed at an argument that is highly illogical and deeply misinformed about religion ... rather than the person.

Statements, pulling one of the lighter ones, like"

"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."

There is no reasoning behind your reason? Therefore atheism is relieved of all its logical requirements to support itself?

And here is the specific comment that I applied the moniker of willful ignorance too.

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.

The idea that, as there are several open threads discussing JUST that, that there are thousands of proofs dating back millenia, and you can't seem to find any? Nah, that isn't ignorance, its the highlight of intellectualism

So, atheists havw no burden of proof because when you point out the massive gaps in their logic they are victims of insults rather than their own poor reasoning.

Am I the only one seeing the highly emotional state of modern atheism in sharop contrast to the lack of logical reasoning?

[Danmark]

....
The idea that, as there are several open threads discussing JUST that, that there are thousands of proofs dating back millenia, and you can't seem to find any? Nah, that isn't ignorance, its the highlight of intellectualism

So, atheists havw no burden of proof because when you point out the massive gaps in their logic they are victims of insults rather than their own poor reasoning.

Am I the only one seeing the highly emotional state of modern atheism in sharop contrast to the lack of logical reasoning?

Would you agree that suggesting atheists are 'highly emotional' and 'lack logical reasoning' is a bit of an overstatement and overly personal?

We have discussed this before, and I don't believe you would apply either of those phrases to me personally.

As I've stated before, to me the simplest way of describing atheism is that it is a 'lack of belief in gods.' Stated another way it is the positive belief that the god of popular theism is unlikely. Those statements are neither emotional, nor illogical. Don't you agree?

[stubbornone]

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

That isn't weak atheism, that is the statement of the evidence available in support of your conclusion that there is no God.

Once again, it drives directly to the OP. Why does such a conclusion not require support?

#1 - would the opposite work? Would atheists stand by as Christians hurled nonsense about atheism and how unevidenced it was, and when the logical requirement to support our position arrived, we simply claimed ... "Sorry, I am merely a weak theist, I merely HAVE belief that Jesus was the Son of God and thus have no requirement to support such a claim you see." And how much worse, as several atheists have done here would it be if we followed it up with, "In fact, not only am I relieved of the burden of proof, but YOU have to prove to me, not an objective set of standards or consensus, that there is no God at all ... to a standard that I cannot define and basically and quickly turns into an argument from absurdity wherein I deny anything you list as fallacious or the product of an adled mind that denies at any cost."

I am guessing most atheists would not find those statements to be terribly logical. Ergo, why would you expect anyone to accept them when applied to atheism?

Rhetorical question obviously, as a logical person clearly would not accept such things.

#2 - In relieving oneself of the burden of support using such a method, the resulting conclusion is almost ridiculously illogical. To call oneself atheist, which clearly rest upon the conclusion that there is no God, with no evidence leading to nothing ... its just down right silly.

The default logical position on anything is going to be, "I don't know," not, "I deny it until proven otherwise."

For example, question: Does dark matter consist of particles or massive planet like objects floating in deep space?

The default is, "I don't know." At such a point, one can then seek out information and educate themselves toward a conclusion, which they can then support.

If instead we denied dark matter entirely and claimed that this was the default position and generally avoided a discussion of the evidence related to the existence of dark matter ... one would conclude not that this was a 'logical' default, but that the person making the claim was engaged in wanton curmudgeoness and had no real intent of answering the question.

Instead, the goal appears to not be wrong rather than problem solving.

Again, the question is: why should any one accept such things when they flow out of atheism?

They should not.

Logic states that claims MUST be supported.

If you find yourself engaged in creative writing in order to avoid that burden of logic, rather than simply stating ... "I do not believe in God and here is why ...," then we have a clear logic problem.

It really is that simple.

[stubbornone]

....
The idea that, as there are several open threads discussing JUST that, that there are thousands of proofs dating back millenia, and you can't seem to find any? Nah, that isn't ignorance, its the highlight of intellectualism

So, atheists havw no burden of proof because when you point out the massive gaps in their logic they are victims of insults rather than their own poor reasoning.

Am I the only one seeing the highly emotional state of modern atheism in sharop contrast to the lack of logical reasoning?

Would you agree that suggesting atheists are 'highly emotional' and 'lack logical reasoning' is a bit of an overstatement and overly personal?

We have discussed this before, and I don't believe you would apply either of those phrases to me personally.

As I've stated before, to me the simplest way of describing atheism is that it is a 'lack of belief in gods.' Stated another way it is the positive belief that the god of popular theism is unlikely. Those statements are neither emotional, nor illogical. Don't you agree?

Not when said atheists are manufacturing absolutely ridiculous reasoning to avoid the burden of logic.

Not when said atheist is running around the forum comparing religious people to four year olds. And many other deliberately uncivil claims that clearly point to an emotional basis.

Not when said atheist is making claims that no one has ever attempted to support God with logic ... in several thousand years.

Once again Dan, not all atheists are good atheists. When you have MANY making claims like this:

" In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.

Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody."

http://atheists.org/religion

You tell me what 'logic' would compel someone to not just insult people based solely on a faith choice like that above? Like what we see routinely on this forum?

I don;t think assuming that, given the absence of logic in such statements - indeed the easily proven willful ignorance - its much of a stretch to assume that emotionalism rather than rationalism is behind the claims.

Would you not make the same thing about ardent Creationists who took all the evidence for evolution and dismissed it as strawmen and fallacy, that God creating everything is merely a belief that requires no support whatsoever is fine while claiming atheists are akin to four years? Might that appear to be emotional rather than logical to you?

Simpy put Dan, you are under no more compunction to support that brand of atheism than I am to defend the Westboro Baptist church. In fact, in sharp contrast, Christians are attempting to get the Westboro Baptist Church branded a hate group ... the Westboro Baptist Church of atheism?

Its worth noting that context matter Dan, and when atheists can turn around and belittle Christianity with impunity, they should expect to have their 'logical' positions examined .. and if found severely wanting, the conclusion of highly emotional illogic may sting, but its still accurate.

Indeed, how can anything claim to be logical when as we often see, and indeed see right here in this thread, that a person is attempting to claim they are making no claim in support of anything to be supported by nothing?

Illogical? Yes.

Emotional? If we are taking such leaps to avoid the clear burden of logic, then emotionalism is clearly a candidate. If we compare the comments about how stupid religion is to the person dodging the requirements of logic, it is not a suppositional stretch to see the ego at work in the situation.

Again, if someone comes into a CHRISTIAN debate forum, should they not expect their claims to be examined? And when found wanting? Well, what did they expect?

[Danmark]

....
The idea that, as there are several open threads discussing JUST that, that there are thousands of proofs dating back millenia, and you can't seem to find any? Nah, that isn't ignorance, its the highlight of intellectualism

So, atheists havw no burden of proof because when you point out the massive gaps in their logic they are victims of insults rather than their own poor reasoning.

Am I the only one seeing the highly emotional state of modern atheism in sharop contrast to the lack of logical reasoning?

Would you agree that suggesting atheists are 'highly emotional' and 'lack logical reasoning' is a bit of an overstatement and overly personal?

We have discussed this before, and I don't believe you would apply either of those phrases to me personally.

As I've stated before, to me the simplest way of describing atheism is that it is a 'lack of belief in gods.' Stated another way it is the positive belief that the god of popular theism is unlikely. Those statements are neither emotional, nor illogical. Don't you agree?

Not when said atheists are manufacturing absolutely ridiculous reasoning to avoid the burden of logic.

Not when said atheist is running around the forum comparing religious people to four year olds. And many other deliberately uncivil claims that clearly point to an emotional basis.

Not when said atheist is making claims that no one has ever attempted to support God with logic ... in several thousand years.

Once again Dan, not all atheists are good atheists. When you have MANY making claims like this:

" In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.

Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody."

http://atheists.org/religion

You tell me what 'logic' would compel someone to not just insult people based solely on a faith choice like that above? Like what we see routinely on this forum?

I don;t think assuming that, given the absence of logic in such statements - indeed the easily proven willful ignorance - its much of a stretch to assume that emotionalism rather than rationalism is behind the claims.

Would you not make the same thing about ardent Creationists who took all the evidence for evolution and dismissed it as strawmen and fallacy, that God creating everything is merely a belief that requires no support whatsoever is fine while claiming atheists are akin to four years? Might that appear to be emotional rather than logical to you?

Simpy put Dan, you are under no more compunction to support that brand of atheism than I am to defend the Westboro Baptist church. In fact, in sharp contrast, Christians are attempting to get the Westboro Baptist Church branded a hate group ... the Westboro Baptist Church of atheism?

Its worth noting that context matter Dan, and when atheists can turn around and belittle Christianity with impunity, they should expect to have their 'logical' positions examined .. and if found severely wanting, the conclusion of highly emotional illogic may sting, but its still accurate.

Indeed, how can anything claim to be logical when as we often see, and indeed see right here in this thread, that a person is attempting to claim they are making no claim in support of anything to be supported by nothing?

Illogical? Yes.

Emotional? If we are taking such leaps to avoid the clear burden of logic, then emotionalism is clearly a candidate. If we compare the comments about how stupid religion is to the person dodging the requirements of logic, it is not a suppositional stretch to see the ego at work in the situation.

Again, if someone comes into a CHRISTIAN debate forum, should they not expect their claims to be examined? And when found wanting? Well, what did they expect?

I don't believe you addressed the specific questions I asked. Couldn't we agree that there are extremists among those who drape themselves in any label?

What do we accomplish, but to demonize entire groups, by taking an extremist position and treating it is if it is representative?

I've noticed an odd thing that sometimes happens to me. Almost unbidden some insight occurs to me about a passage of scripture or a factual argument re: the Christian faith, and I suddenly realize as if anew that the basic tenets of traditional orthodox Christianity is hopelessly false. What is odd is the emotion that follows is one of sadness, mainly sympathetic sadness for those who so passionately believe.
It's not smugness or a sense of gloating or anything but genuine sympathy for those whose whole lives seem to revolve around a false belief.

This is one of the reasons I've made my atheism public. In one respect it is not altogether different from one who wants to share the gospel message out of concern for his fellowman as opposed to one who wants to cudgel others with his beliefs.

Disclaimer: as high as I would like to keep my motives, I confess to a certain pull towards ridicule. I have had varied success in restraining this impulse.

[stubbornone]

....
The idea that, as there are several open threads discussing JUST that, that there are thousands of proofs dating back millenia, and you can't seem to find any? Nah, that isn't ignorance, its the highlight of intellectualism

So, atheists havw no burden of proof because when you point out the massive gaps in their logic they are victims of insults rather than their own poor reasoning.

Am I the only one seeing the highly emotional state of modern atheism in sharop contrast to the lack of logical reasoning?

Would you agree that suggesting atheists are 'highly emotional' and 'lack logical reasoning' is a bit of an overstatement and overly personal?

We have discussed this before, and I don't believe you would apply either of those phrases to me personally.

As I've stated before, to me the simplest way of describing atheism is that it is a 'lack of belief in gods.' Stated another way it is the positive belief that the god of popular theism is unlikely. Those statements are neither emotional, nor illogical. Don't you agree?

Not when said atheists are manufacturing absolutely ridiculous reasoning to avoid the burden of logic.

Not when said atheist is running around the forum comparing religious people to four year olds. And many other deliberately uncivil claims that clearly point to an emotional basis.

Not when said atheist is making claims that no one has ever attempted to support God with logic ... in several thousand years.

Once again Dan, not all atheists are good atheists. When you have MANY making claims like this:

" In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.

Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody."

http://atheists.org/religion

You tell me what 'logic' would compel someone to not just insult people based solely on a faith choice like that above? Like what we see routinely on this forum?

I don;t think assuming that, given the absence of logic in such statements - indeed the easily proven willful ignorance - its much of a stretch to assume that emotionalism rather than rationalism is behind the claims.

Would you not make the same thing about ardent Creationists who took all the evidence for evolution and dismissed it as strawmen and fallacy, that God creating everything is merely a belief that requires no support whatsoever is fine while claiming atheists are akin to four years? Might that appear to be emotional rather than logical to you?

Simpy put Dan, you are under no more compunction to support that brand of atheism than I am to defend the Westboro Baptist church. In fact, in sharp contrast, Christians are attempting to get the Westboro Baptist Church branded a hate group ... the Westboro Baptist Church of atheism?

Its worth noting that context matter Dan, and when atheists can turn around and belittle Christianity with impunity, they should expect to have their 'logical' positions examined .. and if found severely wanting, the conclusion of highly emotional illogic may sting, but its still accurate.

Indeed, how can anything claim to be logical when as we often see, and indeed see right here in this thread, that a person is attempting to claim they are making no claim in support of anything to be supported by nothing?

Illogical? Yes.

Emotional? If we are taking such leaps to avoid the clear burden of logic, then emotionalism is clearly a candidate. If we compare the comments about how stupid religion is to the person dodging the requirements of logic, it is not a suppositional stretch to see the ego at work in the situation.

Again, if someone comes into a CHRISTIAN debate forum, should they not expect their claims to be examined? And when found wanting? Well, what did they expect?

I don't believe you addressed the specific questions I asked. Couldn't we agree that there are extremists among those who drape themselves in any label?

What do we accomplish, but to demonize entire groups, by taking an extremist position and treating it is if it is representative?

I've noticed an odd thing that sometimes happens to me. Almost unbidden some insight occurs to me about a passage of scripture or a factual argument re: the Christian faith, and I suddenly realize as if anew that the basic tenets of traditional orthodox Christianity is hopelessly false. What is odd is the emotion that follows is one of sadness, mainly sympathetic sadness for those who so passionately believe.
It's not smugness or a sense of gloating or anything but genuine sympathy for those whose whole lives seem to revolve around a false belief.

This is one of the reasons I've made my atheism public. In one respect it is not altogether different from one who wants to share the gospel message out of concern for his fellowman as opposed to one who wants to cudgel others with his beliefs.

Disclaimer: as high as I would like to keep my motives, I confess to a certain pull towards ridicule. I have had varied success in restraining this impulse.

I believe we already are.

The problem is that, while confronting the extremists in atheism and proving their 'logic' is emotional, you seem to take umbrage at the effort.

I would ask you instead to take a look at the posters, and specifically their argumentation, that I am taking issue with ...

Specifically, in this case, that atheism has no burden of proof. Such a concept is highly illogical, and indeed stops logical discourse (like the Hegelian dialectic) in its tracks.

What else can it be other than a combination of ignorance and emotionalism?

A reminder, as a former atheist, one who has made many of the same arguments, I know that in my heart all the pomposity of intellect that I built around my atheism was really just an excuse to cover the anger I felt toward God.

Ergo, when I see highly ridiculous story telling when we have an objective set of rules, logic, I see the same lame excuses I once hurled myself. I would posit that I am, if not uniquely qualified, then certainly knowledgeable in the reasoning that drives this kind of illogic.

But you know what else? There were Christians who stood up to my anger management issue that I called atheism, and the result was ... dealing with the anger rather than lashing out.

It begins with accountability.

Again, not all atheists are like this, there are indeed honest atheists out there. However, an honest atheist can acknowledge the evidential state of the God question as inconclusive, and make a preponderance of the evidence case ... indeed many have.

So why do we have several atheists out here avoiding that rather logical pace and discussion?

One would do well to assume that those clearly rejecting logic in argumentation are not being driven by logic.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Specifically, in this case, that atheism has no burden of proof. Such a concept is highly illogical, and indeed stops logical discourse (like the Hegelian dialectic) in its tracks.

How so?

[stubbornone]

Specifically, in this case, that atheism has no burden of proof. Such a concept is highly illogical, and indeed stops logical discourse (like the Hegelian dialectic) in its tracks.

How so?

There are several posts already about that exact concept within the previous few posts. Please read up rather than asking me to repeat the entire argument again for you.

Indeed, we can probably begin with the question: do you know what the Hegelian dialectic is? How is operates?

And when one side isn't making a claim, has neither thesis or antithesis, how that dialectic works?

[Danmark]

The problem is that, while confronting the extremists in atheism and proving their 'logic' is emotional, you seem to take umbrage at the effort.

I would ask you instead to take a look at the posters, and specifically their argumentation, that I am taking issue with ...

Specifically, in this case, that atheism has no burden of proof. Such a concept is highly illogical, and indeed stops logical discourse (like the Hegelian dialectic) in its tracks.

What else can it be other than a combination of ignorance and emotionalism?

A reminder, as a former atheist, one who has made many of the same arguments, I know that in my heart all the pomposity of intellect that I built around my atheism was really just an excuse to cover the anger I felt toward God.

Ergo, when I see highly ridiculous story telling when we have an objective set of rules, logic, I see the same lame excuses I once hurled myself. I would posit that I am, if not uniquely qualified, then certainly knowledgeable in the reasoning that drives this kind of illogic.

But you know what else? There were Christians who stood up to my anger management issue that I called atheism, and the result was ... dealing with the anger rather than lashing out.

It begins with accountability.

Again, not all atheists are like this, there are indeed honest atheists out there. However, an honest atheist can acknowledge the evidential state of the God question as inconclusive, and make a preponderance of the evidence case ... indeed many have.

So why do we have several atheists out here avoiding that rather logical pace and discussion?

One would do well to assume that those clearly rejecting logic in argumentation are not being driven by logic.

'Umbrage', like 'beauty' is frequently in the 'eye of the beholder.'
I think that one of the areas in which we differ is in how inclusively we apply the term 'illogical.'

For example, the Hitchens quote in my current sig:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence� seems perfectly logical to me. Do you find it illogical?

One of the reasons some are attracted to science, to agnosticism, to 'soft' atheism is that they all are logical positions from which one needs nothing but objective experience to maintain one's position.

Christianity requires a leap of faith* that is entirely different from the reasonable assumptions of science that are based on repeated objective experience and repeated experiments and observations.
______________________________
I am aware of the fallacy of equivocation that is used by those with religious faith to make the false claim that we all have 'faith,' thus putting subjective faith in the same category as scientific conclusion based on a colloquial definition of 'faith.'