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.

[Star]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

• - Santa
  - Easter Bunny
  - Tooth Fairy
  - Big Foot
  - Ogopogo
  - Chupacabra
  - Satan
  - Allah
  - Angels
  - Ghosts
  - Demons

I am only going to do one, because, quite frankly, the tactic you are using is not just fallacious in the extreme, its also extraordinarily lazy in that it requires OTHERS to prove things for you rather than YOU conducting an inestigation and reaching a conclusion ... its merely a set up for an argument from absurdity, atheist baseball.

Santa claims to live in the North Pole, using the fascinating modern technology, we have mapped the North Pole, go underneath it with submarines, have air tracking control systems (both passive and active), and we have found time and again that it is parents rather than a mythical Santa that places presents under trees ... none of which detracts form the reality of a very Real Saint Nicholas upon which the more fanciful tale rests.

Ergo, its reasonable and logical to conclude that Santa is a myth.

It is even more interesting that the more fantastical claims of Santa are added merely to placate the 'secular' tendencies of atheism, who have no problem with Santa per sea ... save the utter inability to figure out why he is a myth?

Once again, if we are struggling to reach conclusions and apply logical standards to problem sets ... that is a problem for atheism.

Imagine for a second why billions would think God is quite real, but those same billions reject Santa. Now, what do you think billions of people grasp that perhaps you are not grasping that allows them, but not you, to make such a delineation?

Might this just be a fallacious appeal to the guilt by association fallacy? A desperate attempt to avoid the fact that NOTHING lead you to conclude that there is no God? And if NOTHING lead you to a conclusion ... then you don;t have one do you?

All you have is nihilism, spite for religion. And quite frankly, who cares about the emotional state of people lead by NOTHING to dislike religion?

The only fallacies in my posts are the ones I'm pointing out from others, or those I did intentionally to make a point, like when I asked you to prove there isn't a Santa (which BTW you failed at doing, of course, because it's unfalsifiable).

Your comment about me believing in Santa made me LOL.

Learning some old school Logic 101 will help.

“Usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.�

- Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370

[stubbornone]

.



No one mentions the burden of proof when applied to leprechauns or tooth fairies but mention the non belief in ancient invisible gods and all of a sudden people go absolutely nuts as if their world of make belief is going to crumble. This thread is nothing but entertaining for those that don't believe in Thor, Vishnu, Zeus, or any number of invisible gods, I can't name them all. Theists can't stand the fact that the burden of proof is on them because they have nothing.



.

That is because Leprechauns have been provably falsified.

Once again, we have a repeat of the guilt by association fallacy, wherein atheists compare God to any random false thing they can and declare the evidence identical ...

Except for the fact that some of the Gods you listed, for example, claimed to love on Mount Olympus, and ... well, in this fascinating modern age we love in, we know that this is false.

Even with all this information at our finger tips however, it doesn't prevent one from being obtuse and failing to actually conduct an investigation, comparing the claims ... its best to assume that the people who disagree with you are raving lunatics devoid of worth or intellect?

BTW - this is yet another standard claim from atheism. Simple propaganda.

By definition leprechauns are not falsifiable and neither are definitions of invisible gods. If you defined gods and leprechauns in falsifiable terms we could show for their existence or non existence. You are not very good at this.

Why add the personal remark: ' You are not very good at this'? How does that further the debate?

When several atheists are resorting to the guilt by association fallacy and rejecting the basic so science in order to reject this basic principle ... it worth pointing out that someone has to be very poor at the process indeed if they cannot figure out why Santa is a myth.

Again Dan, did I force atheists to adopt this fallacious bit of trite? Did I force them to claim that they have no burden of proof? Did I beat them over the head and MAKE them haughtily claim that their atheism was reasonable and everyone else was stupid?

But basic science, the very premises of logic claimed ... to notice their absence entirely from the 'logical' argumentation of atheism, thus devoid of ability to use them apparently, is ... unhelpful?

No Dan, its the point.

Rationalism is a set of standards. Logic is a set of standards. Scientific reasoning is a set of standards. All claimed by atheists, and all bereft of notice in the reasoning provided in support of a claim that these standards reject at face value: that atheism has no burden of proof.

I for one, at least giving atheists the benefit of the doubt, would like to see at least one atheist actually make and support a claim about the subject at hand:

There is no God because ...

We have no burden of proof because ... (something actually resting upon an evidenced position as I have routinely provided).

Instead I am getting fallacies and general hurt feelings reports, even as pointing out this emotional nature in atheism is rejected ... because atheism is so scientific and logical ... and it has no burden of proof, and is thus not logical, but pointing that out makes me angry, which is an emotion not logic, but I cannot be emotional because I am an atheist and am using logic ... which can be seen in the claim that I have no burden of proof, which ...

Well, you see the circular logic. That is problem for atheists. Noticing that many are not very good at applying the logic they claim to be masters of, indeed often lord over people, is the argument.

There is an alternative: Don't claim your position is logical if you are not using logic. Pretty simple.

It appears that you and d.thomas are trading personal remarks. To what purpose?
As I've mentioned before to you, you seem to read much into posts that was not intended, including emotions.

I'm resolving to do a better job of ignoring posts that don't rigorously stick to the argument and avoid the personal.

No Thomas is trading personal remarks, and I am pointing out how those personal remarks support my position that atheist claims that there is no burden of proof for them are highly emotional rather than logical.

The lack of science, and the very personal barns you note ... are of course not emotions, eh?

Interesting Dan.

Now would you like to make a case as to why I should accept that the rules of logic do not apply to atheism?

Or why I should take your personal opinion about the exchange between Thomas and I as gospel?

If they claim science and fail to use it ... if they resort to petty insults, even as someone claims their position is clearly emotional ... well, which is it?

BTW - If I compared atheists to a bunch of four year olds, would you say that is science or emotion?

Just remember, if you call it the later, you are getting personal ...

[stubbornone]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

• - Santa
  - Easter Bunny
  - Tooth Fairy
  - Big Foot
  - Ogopogo
  - Chupacabra
  - Satan
  - Allah
  - Angels
  - Ghosts
  - Demons

I am only going to do one, because, quite frankly, the tactic you are using is not just fallacious in the extreme, its also extraordinarily lazy in that it requires OTHERS to prove things for you rather than YOU conducting an inestigation and reaching a conclusion ... its merely a set up for an argument from absurdity, atheist baseball.

Santa claims to live in the North Pole, using the fascinating modern technology, we have mapped the North Pole, go underneath it with submarines, have air tracking control systems (both passive and active), and we have found time and again that it is parents rather than a mythical Santa that places presents under trees ... none of which detracts form the reality of a very Real Saint Nicholas upon which the more fanciful tale rests.

Ergo, its reasonable and logical to conclude that Santa is a myth.

It is even more interesting that the more fantastical claims of Santa are added merely to placate the 'secular' tendencies of atheism, who have no problem with Santa per sea ... save the utter inability to figure out why he is a myth?

Once again, if we are struggling to reach conclusions and apply logical standards to problem sets ... that is a problem for atheism.

Imagine for a second why billions would think God is quite real, but those same billions reject Santa. Now, what do you think billions of people grasp that perhaps you are not grasping that allows them, but not you, to make such a delineation?

Might this just be a fallacious appeal to the guilt by association fallacy? A desperate attempt to avoid the fact that NOTHING lead you to conclude that there is no God? And if NOTHING lead you to a conclusion ... then you don;t have one do you?

All you have is nihilism, spite for religion. And quite frankly, who cares about the emotional state of people lead by NOTHING to dislike religion?

The only fallacies in my posts are the ones I'm pointing out from others, or those I did intentionally do it to make a point, like when I asked you to prove there isn't a Santa (which BTW you failed at doing, of course, because he's unfalsifiable.).

Learning some old school Logic 101 will help.

“Usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.�

- Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370

Once again, here is the proof for you AGAIN - please read it as your concerns have ALREADY been addressed.

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.

So, atheists are using logic because they claim others are not, and deliberately ignore repeatedly provided proofs using logic ... which of course only atheists know anything about?

You asked me to falsify Santa, I did .. and now you are claiming that I am the one who rejects logic because you FINALLY quoted ONE rule of logic? One that is already been address in a proof right here on this thread?

That is indeed the logic of modern atheism.

[d.thomas]

The total absence of logic, reasoning, or science, in favor of overt emotionalism and making the person the subject of the argument.

Giving me your unsolicited opinion about my status as a theist does nothing to explain why you have no burden of proof, and if anything, only highlights the latent emotionalism of your position.

That clear enough for you?

I can't prove leprechauns don't exist, nor can I prove that an invisible god, with the help and advice of leprechauns, did not create the entire universe. I can't believe that a god acted alone, that is why I believe in leprechauns as much as I do in invisible gods. Prove me wrong.

[stubbornone]

The total absence of logic, reasoning, or science, in favor of overt emotionalism and making the person the subject of the argument.

Giving me your unsolicited opinion about my status as a theist does nothing to explain why you have no burden of proof, and if anything, only highlights the latent emotionalism of your position.

That clear enough for you?

I can't prove leprechauns don't exist, nor can I prove that an invisible god, with the help and advice of leprechauns, did not create the entire universe. I can't believe that a god acted alone, that is why I believe in leprechauns as much as I do in invisible gods. Prove me wrong.

I just did. Again, this is evidence of atheist avoidance rather than atheist logic.

As you regularly state to us - who cares what you believe? This is a debate forum, and he who makes the better argument wins.

When you resort to, "Well, I cannot accept that ..." You lose.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

One is left wondering why atheists struggle with the idea of falsifiablity, and why agnosticism, not atheism, is the default position when the inability to falsify is reached.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Did you miss my post?

Yes they are.

One cannot answer a question with BOTH MAYBE and NO. Indeed the two schools of thought have entirely different philosophical schools of support.

This is just another example of atheists changing definitions to avoid their burden of proof.

Agnosticism posits, in its intellectual form, that given the evidential state, that God is unknowable. Neither Yes nor No.

What is the ONE THING THAT ALL ATHEISTS HAVE IN COMMON: They believe there is no God. A No.

Now how can Maybe also be no?

I'm getting the impression that you didn't bother to read the post I linked to? Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive because they are not answers to the same question. They are positions with regard to two different questions.

Do you know whether God exists? If you answer "yes" you are a gnostic. If you answer "no" you are an agnostic.

Do you believe in God? If you answer "yes" you are a theist. If you answer "no" you are an atheist.

Here again is a visual representation of this concept:

You have concluded there is no God, either logic lead your there or it did not.

This is a strawman argument. I have concluded no such thing.

[d.thomas]

The total absence of logic, reasoning, or science, in favor of overt emotionalism and making the person the subject of the argument.

Giving me your unsolicited opinion about my status as a theist does nothing to explain why you have no burden of proof, and if anything, only highlights the latent emotionalism of your position.

That clear enough for you?

I can't prove leprechauns don't exist, nor can I prove that an invisible god, with the help and advice of leprechauns, did not create the entire universe. I can't believe that a god acted alone, that is why I believe in leprechauns as much as I do in invisible gods. Prove me wrong.

I just did. Again, this is evidence of atheist avoidance rather than atheist logic.

As you regularly state to us - who cares what you believe? This is a debate forum, and he who makes the better argument wins.

When you resort to, "Well, I cannot accept that ..." You lose.

You haven't proved me wrong, all you have done is make unsupported claims about invisible gods existing out there. Claiming invisible gods exist and then telling those that don't believe you to prove you wrong is a silly little game that you play, but it's OK because what else is there for a theist to do? I sure don't expect a theist to provide evidence anytime soon, fallacious arguments, yes, but not actual evidence.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 227:

Atheism is not claiming that it disagrees, its claiming the opposite.

Let's test that. If one say, "I don't think there is a God," and I say, "Well, I disagree, but I don;t have to explain why because I am merely disagreeing with you and have no burden of proof."

What's problematic here, in terms of debate, is the statement, "I don't think there is a God". That's an assertion of sorts, but by using "don't think", the claimant is clearly not presenting his position as a statement of fact.

I propose the statement be changed to a positive assertion, "There are no gods."

Then if we isolate the rest of it...

"Well, I disagree, but I don't have to explain why because I am merely disagreeing with you and have no burden of proof."

Pretty much, but I still see semantical errors...

"I don't have to explain..." is what I find so problematical, so let's just pare it down to...

"Well, I disagree."

Here then the disagreeor has at least a couple options...

Step right up and show the claimant wrong. Or ask the claimant for evidence for his previous, "There are no gods" statement.

I propose the honorable claimant would then often choose from the following options, if not some they come up with themself:

A- Fess up as to the nature of his claims by letting us all know that's what he really really believes, that's what he's been taught, or any of a myriad of justifications that are not overt "evidence", "proof", or whatever like term we wish to apply.

"Well that's my opinion". Perfectly acceptable response, though it risks not being a convincing set of circumstances to the one we're setting out to have think we've done set out and found the truth for him.

B- Present evidence in support thereof. I know that'n seems just obvious'ner all get out, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen it fly right past some. Right past. Shortstop close.

3) Apologize for having fouled up so badly they can see it from space. Here we'll reference the many times I've sat on this site, red-faced, a-pulling up my own britches.

There's no need for all the histrionics and the carryin' on about such as, "That's all you ever do is ask me to prove it, and you never talk to us, so I'll tell you what claims you're making so I can't knock that strawman down like Ali did Williams and it ain't fair that here, on a debate site of all places, you'd do just that!"


He who makes the claim oughta clean up after it.


Joey: there are NO GODS.

Challenger: I challenge you to show you speak truth!

Joey: Well, about that, ya know how folks carry on, but I'll show how it's the best conclusion to be had.

Challenger: A'ight then.... go!

Joey: The this and that and the wherefores and the whatnots and all that and that's my evidence for my conclusion right there.

Challenger: I don't believe you.

Joey: Old lady didn't either, but don't get onto her too much about it, it's just she's the sweetest little thing you'll ever know, but don't tell her I said that, 'cause she might think I was a-calling her a sissy.

Never in this exchange did I dare burden my challenger, and nowhere have I been upset he didn't accept my claim. Never did I ask the challenger to "prove" his disagreement. Never did I even need to ask the challenger to support an argument against me.

'Cause I'm proud, but I ain't gonna get onto someone just 'cause they don't believe a word I say. I've been married, I know how it works.

What I would get onto 'em about though, is making claims and getting their wheels bent when someone challenges 'em, on this, the premiere site for religious debate on the whole danged interwebs.

If I can't show I've got the best of it, it don't hafta be another's fault I couldn't convince 'em. Even if they don't understand the argument. Then we all just kinda look at 'em with that look there like we give to some folks, where we love 'em just the same, but we're a bit disappointed in 'em.

Disagreement or challenging is not a claim, it's an attempt to find out if another claim has any air in its tires.


He who makes the claim oughta clean up after it.

(edit 'cause just call me red-faced pulling britches up boy)

[bjs]

There are setting in which only one side has a burden of proof. In a high school debate club or in a legal courtroom there is a set burden of proof for one side.

In an adult discussion everyone has a burden of proof.

I think we all like the idea of only the other guy having a burden of proof. That way I can make wild attacks without worrying about my own position being able to stand up to the same criticisms.

If we are going to have a serious debate about anything of importance then we all need to abandon that approach. We must each accept the burden of proof or we will never be able to move forward.

Hi. I'm the Emperor of Saturn and I am writing this message to you from my space yacht. Prove me wrong.

It seems to me that it has long been accepted that in "adult discussions" the person making the positive assertion bears the burden of proof. It seems silly to me in an adult discussion that you would be expected to provide evidence that I am not the Emperor of Saturn. You disagree?

I wrote, “In an adult discussion everyone has a burden of proof.�

That means no one – not theist, not non-theist, not the Emperor of Saturn – can just say, “Prove me wrong.�

That doesn't sound like "everyone" has the burden of proof. That sounds like only the person who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. Do you agree? If so perhaps I am only objecting due to a semantic confusion.

I think where we would disagree is that atheism makes any positive claims. I do not find that it does.

This thread really took off since last I looked this site, but I still wanted to respond to your post – though I imagine this response could get lost in the busyness.

I don’t understand what you mean in saying that atheism makes not positive claims. Every word in the English language represents something – makes some kind of positive claim. If a word does not claim anything then it ceases to be a word and is just a meaningless sound. What do you mean by saying that atheism does not make any positive claim?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

There are setting in which only one side has a burden of proof. In a high school debate club or in a legal courtroom there is a set burden of proof for one side.

In an adult discussion everyone has a burden of proof.

I think we all like the idea of only the other guy having a burden of proof. That way I can make wild attacks without worrying about my own position being able to stand up to the same criticisms.

If we are going to have a serious debate about anything of importance then we all need to abandon that approach. We must each accept the burden of proof or we will never be able to move forward.

Hi. I'm the Emperor of Saturn and I am writing this message to you from my space yacht. Prove me wrong.

It seems to me that it has long been accepted that in "adult discussions" the person making the positive assertion bears the burden of proof. It seems silly to me in an adult discussion that you would be expected to provide evidence that I am not the Emperor of Saturn. You disagree?

I wrote, “In an adult discussion everyone has a burden of proof.�

That means no one – not theist, not non-theist, not the Emperor of Saturn – can just say, “Prove me wrong.�

That doesn't sound like "everyone" has the burden of proof. That sounds like only the person who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. Do you agree? If so perhaps I am only objecting due to a semantic confusion.

I think where we would disagree is that atheism makes any positive claims. I do not find that it does.

This thread really took off since last I looked this site, but I still wanted to respond to your post – though I imagine this response could get lost in the busyness.

I don’t understand what you mean in saying that atheism makes not positive claims. Every word in the English language represents something – makes some kind of positive claim. If a word does not claim anything then it ceases to be a word and is just a meaningless sound. What do you mean by saying that atheism does not make any positive claim?

To be precise, agnostic atheism does not make any claims. It is the position that God might or might not exist, which is not a positive claim.