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]

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.'

Interesting, if atheism has no burden of proof, no evidence, then we can dismiss it entirely by your own reasoning can we not?

And THAT is indeed the point.

Logic states that ALL claims must be supported or they are illogical.

There are several open threads at the moment that play out the Christian burden of support, and the best that can be rebutted is that it is not completely convincing ... an acknowledgement that is already on record when we Christians acknowledge the element of faith required to reach the conclusion, as in a leap from preponderance to certainty.

The opposite, from atheism, is not a compelling preponderance of the evidence case, its ... the claim that atheism has no burden of support, that it has no evidence and requires none.

Now, which one can be most easily and readily rejected in terms of logic?

That is the main point.

However, when the later point makers insist not just that they are logical, but in castigating the logic of their adversaries, it is indeed logical to assume that emotion is not just involved but paramount.

Claiming that the observations are 'personal' is indeed taking umbrage rather than offering an explanation as to how the concept is logical rather than emotional.

[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?

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?

The thesis would be the positive assertion. The antithesis would be the negation of that assertion. An argument and a counterargument. No? How does the recognition of a default position that bears no burden of proof "stop logical discourse in its tracks"?

[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?

The thesis would be the positive assertion. The antithesis would be the negation of that assertion. An argument and a counterargument. No? How does the recognition of a default position that bears no burden of proof "stop logical discourse in its tracks"?

You can indeed prove a negative, which is from the earlier, and apparently skipped post wherein I site a logician making the same point ... only further enhancing the discordance between atheism and its claims of logical standing. Professional logicians disagree ... with the atheist claims.

In fact, this claim is so oft fousted by atheists that I have a permanent solution readily available.

Here is the proof for you:

The only way an atheist can arrive at the conclusion that no evidence is required for their position is by completely ignoring the rules of logic and context.

We often take the atheists claim of rationality for granted, incorrectly, and assume that atheists are familiar enough with logic that their statements will not be deliberately illogical. Yet the constant demand for proof, coupled with the failure to lay out any of their own – despite the ‘logic’ of their claim is a continuous demonstration of the opposite of the supposed claim to rationality.


Here is why.

First, there is knowing what a logical argument is:

"One must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false)."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

For more, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/logic.html

The specific of the burden of proof lies in a portion of what is often highlighted by atheists but, equally often, completely ignored.

As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Yes, it is indeed true that this statement is a fallacy.

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

It is why most logical Christians could more accurately be quoted as saying:

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He MIGHT."

It is also why we list things like miracles, answered prayers, calling, and strong, patterns in the universe that indicate purpose rather than accident, and other circumstantial evidence to back up the claim as required by the burden of proof. We also acknowledge that the belief in God is not totally logical, that is requires faith - an exception required by the dictates of logic.

We are also aware of something called the middle ground fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...le-ground.html

It is listed on the same source, and applies directly to the 'in most cases' so often ignored by atheists who offer the burden of proof exemption to their claim.

It is best explained here:

"For example, in the philosophical debate between Theism and Atheism (to some, Strong atheism), theism posits that the nonexistence of God has not been demonstrated and therefore God must exist. This is a burden of proof fallacy. Atheism in turn points out this fallacy and claims that its position is therefore stronger. This is a fallacious defense. In actuality, both positions have a burden of proof, since the Law of the excluded middle does not apply in this scenario."

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/...l_fallacy).htm

Even honest atheists acknowledge this burden of proof.

"The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof� is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support� — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof."

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...denofproof.htm

For an even more thorough explanation:

The Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy (Burden of Proof Fallacy)

This fallacy can take two forms:
Form A: Proposition P has not been proven to be true, therefore P is false
Form B: Proposition P has not been proven to be false, therefore P is true
Context and subject matter make all the difference.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

"All other factors being equal, reasonable expectations can determine when an absence of apparent evidence constitutes a proposition as false. Here we ask how much evidence should we expect in relation to what we have. For example, if someone claims there is a gorilla in the room - the fact that we cannot see the gorilla, hear the gorilla, etc., is an absence of evidence that disproves this proposition. However, if someone says there is a mosquito in the room, then an absence of evidence (not seeing or hearing it) does not disprove the proposition because our reasonable expectations of evidence have changed. In more borderline cases, we should avoid dogmatic conclusions on both sides, for example:

“No one has ever proved that Bigfoot exists, so it must not exist.�
“No one has ever proved that the Bigfoot does not exist, so it must exist.�

Both sides here commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance in that they derive unwarranted certitude when a more reserved stance seems called for. The certitude on both sides is unwarranted for there seems to be no clear way of establishing how much evidence to expect relative to what we have, nor can this determination even be made until all of the appropriate areas where such evidence would be found have been adequately surveyed. A lesser degree of certitude, or even agnosticism, is warranted here."

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

Funny that I have long stated that conclusion regarding logic and the debate over God.

And as you can clearly see, based upon the full application of the rules of logic, rather then partical and deliberately non-contextual application thereof, the burden of proof is still a requirement for those claiming that God does not exist.

I hope that explanation is detailed enough to finally bury that pernicious atheist claim.


Or I suppose the claim that atheism has no burden of proof must just be taken on faith.

[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?

The thesis would be the positive assertion. The antithesis would be the negation of that assertion. An argument and a counterargument. No? How does the recognition of a default position that bears no burden of proof "stop logical discourse in its tracks"?

Because the reasons that atheists claim they have no burden of proof is because they claim they are not making any claims ... they have neither a thesis or an antithesis.

Now, who created this illogical conundrum from atheists? Me? Or Atheists seeking to avoid the burden of proof, and in doing so have turned the rules of logic on their head?

All so they can castigate others for the silliness of faith?

Perhaps there are logical issues with faith, but there are clearly larger logical issue with attempting to circumvent the rules of logic entirely simply to take issue with faith - for apparently no good reason when atheists use it themselves to reach their conclusions.

Odd.

But that is indeed the state of modern atheism and its public teachings.

[Danmark]

'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.'

Interesting, if atheism has no burden of proof, no evidence, then we can dismiss it entirely by your own reasoning can we not?

And THAT is indeed the point.

Logic states that ALL claims must be supported or they are illogical.

There are several open threads at the moment that play out the Christian burden of support, and the best that can be rebutted is that it is not completely convincing ... an acknowledgement that is already on record when we Christians acknowledge the element of faith required to reach the conclusion, as in a leap from preponderance to certainty.

The opposite, from atheism, is not a compelling preponderance of the evidence case, its ... the claim that atheism has no burden of support, that it has no evidence and requires none.

Now, which one can be most easily and readily rejected in terms of logic?

That is the main point.

However, when the later point makers insist not just that they are logical, but in castigating the logic of their adversaries, it is indeed logical to assume that emotion is not just involved but paramount.

Claiming that the observations are 'personal' is indeed taking umbrage rather than offering an explanation as to how the concept is logical rather than emotional.

Atheism, at least as I have defined it, is not so much a belief as it is the absence of belief. Atheism is what remains when one only accepts objective evidence.

I think your frustration comes from a failure to recognize this difference between 'soft' atheism and religious faith. I fully admit the former is much easier to 'prove' because it requires no proof. My kind of atheism is the default position after Centuries of science and objective observation.

Since I realize this is an unacceptable position to you, what label would you give to a belief system that is willing to accept only that which is proved by science and empirical observation; that accepts the natural and does not believe in the supernatural* with out competent evidence?

Another way to put this would be to say 'I accept god as a hypothetical construct if one can define 'god' in a way to make it a falsifiable belief.' If 'god' cannot be falsifiable than it can't even qualify as a hypothetical.
________________________
*Today's 'supernatural' could become tomorrows 'natural' upon sufficient evidence.

[Star]

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?

Speaking of reading up, you haven't addressed my last post. In fact, I noticed you complaining about how nobody responded to the point you made about how you can in fact prove a negative (sometimes), which isn't what the burden is. Here it is from last night...

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.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The thesis would be the positive assertion. The antithesis would be the negation of that assertion. An argument and a counterargument. No? How does the recognition of a default position that bears no burden of proof "stop logical discourse in its tracks"?

Because the reasons that atheists claim they have no burden of proof is because they claim they are not making any claims ... they have neither a thesis or an antithesis.

Well yeah, that's because agnostic atheism doesn't make any positive claims, as I have argued extensively in this thread. You keep saying this is illogical, but why? What positive assertion does the agnostic atheist make that you think must be defended? You are talking about "claims of certitude" with regard to atheism, but I recognize none of these as claims that I have made - the essence of agnostic atheism is a lack of certainty. "Maybe gods exist, maybe they don't" is not a claim of certainty. I think you might be confusing agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism, or else conflating the two.

[Star]

Theists, let's try something different for a moment, and join me in a little exercise...

I'm an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in god. I make no claims about god's existence or lack thereof. I simply don't know. I don't even know if it's possible. After reviewing all the evidence, I'm still not convinced.

What evidence do you expect me to be burdened with?

[dianaiad]

Theists, let's try something different for a moment, and join me in a little exercise...

I'm an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in god. I make no claims about god's existence or lack thereof. I simply don't know. I don't even know if it's possible. After reviewing all the evidence, I'm still not convinced.

What evidence do you expect me to be burdened with?

You?

None.

But you are not, by any means, the sort of atheist we theist types get frustrated with.

I'll give you an example of the sort of thing we come across quite frequently; a script, if you will, of a typical exchange:

Atheist: there is no God. There's no evidence for a god, and I know that there isn't one.

Theist: That's quite a claim. Care to prove that there is no god?

Atheist: Not my problem. YOU have to prove that there IS one.

Theist; There is a difference between 'I don't believe in a god" and "I know that there isn't one." You said the latter. It's a claim. You prove it.

Atheist: atheism means nothing except a lack of belief in a deity or deities. I don't have to prove anything. There is no god.

Theist: (sigh).

Most of us theist types...at least, most who have encountered atheists on debate forums, anyway, are quite aware that there are two forms of atheism; 'soft' atheism is what all atheists CLAIM atheism is, when they get challenged on anything; a simple lack of belief in a deity or deities.

However, when you get to those who cross the line into 'strong' atheism, or a very positive declaration "THERE IS NO GOD!", then the burden of proof IS on that atheist.

I've never seen one admit it, though. Or rather, I've never seen a 'strong' atheist admit it.

[Danmark]

Theists, let's try something different for a moment, and join me in a little exercise...

I'm an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in god. I make no claims about god's existence or lack thereof. I simply don't know. I don't even know if it's possible. After reviewing all the evidence, I'm still not convinced.

What evidence do you expect me to be burdened with?

You?

None.

But you are not, by any means, the sort of atheist we theist types get frustrated with.

I'll give you an example of the sort of thing we come across quite frequently; a script, if you will, of a typical exchange:

Atheist: there is no God. There's no evidence for a god, and I know that there isn't one.

Theist: That's quite a claim. Care to prove that there is no god?

Atheist: Not my problem. YOU have to prove that there IS one.

Theist; There is a difference between 'I don't believe in a god" and "I know that there isn't one." You said the latter. It's a claim. You prove it.

Atheist: atheism means nothing except a lack of belief in a deity or deities. I don't have to prove anything. There is no god.

Theist: (sigh).

Most of us theist types...at least, most who have encountered atheists on debate forums, anyway, are quite aware that there are two forms of atheism; 'soft' atheism is what all atheists CLAIM atheism is, when they get challenged on anything; a simple lack of belief in a deity or deities.

However, when you get to those who cross the line into 'strong' atheism, or a very positive declaration "THERE IS NO GOD!", then the burden of proof IS on that atheist.

I've never seen one admit it, though. Or rather, I've never seen a 'strong' atheist admit it.

I have a simple formula. I'm a 'soft' atheist, but that is not the end of the matter. There is a large class of beliefs that simply do not fit with everything else we know about science; beliefs that require a belief in magic, the supernatural, or some process that science cannot verify.

Neither 'soft' atheists nor theists take a simple 'Gosh, I don't know' approach to 99.99% of these beliefs, but at best all agree these beliefs are unlikely at best.

This is where the old line comes in; 'We are both atheists. I just believe in one less ''god'' than you do.' In other words, it is fair for a 'soft' atheist to say I am not absolutely certain there is no god; I just think it unlikely. In that context I have no problem with saying I have no burden of proof. If they didn't already have the burden of proof as 'he who alleges,' the burden shifts to those who want to prove anything supernatural or magical.