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.

[ndf8th]

I've been strong atheist all my life at least for 55 years
I thought that I knew what that meant. I saw no evidence for
a supernatural god.

Lack of belief is not the same as believing something doesn't exist.

this new definition of atheism did not exist when I grew up.
I heard about it first time around 1995 on internet.
It has still not made it into ordinary Dictionaries so
only atheists that are philosophy minded seems to know that definition.

So instead of us going courses can you maybe explain
what this lack of belief really means? to me it is no lack.

I am 100% sure of that all gods even the supernatural ones
are only existing as ideas in the minds of humans.

formally that may make me 100% atheist but I self identify as a
Religious Freethinker that see gods as different from the definitions.

[Star]

^
Sure, here's a good article. StubbornOne should really read this. It addresses his chronic confusion.

Understanding a Lack of Belief

The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

1) I believe Santa is coming to town
2) I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
3) That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

1) I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
2) I don't know that Santa is coming to town
3) I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief.

This often leads theists, which frequently are making a positive claim to knowledge about the existence of gods, to ask a question in which an atheist replies coloquially, "There are no gods." Understandably, from the perspective of the theist, the atheist has just made a claim to knowledge which can then be followed by a theist's request for proof. However, because the atheist's true meaning was in the context of belief and not knowledge, a misunderstanding is created. When the atheist states that the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist doesn't have anything to prove, the conversation declines. Because of the atheist's miscommunication, the theist now feels justified in their belief that the atheist is simply making claims to knowledge on faith, just like he/she is. On the other hand, the atheist gets increasingly frustrated that the theist does not understand where the burden of proof lies and feels justified in their belief that the theist is simply avoiding the question because they have no proof.

If some of this sounds like agnosticism to you, that is because it is. Agnosticism deals specifically with the realm of knowledge, whereas atheism is in the realm of belief. In this context, gnostic (not to be confused with the Gnosticism associated with early Christianity) simply means "with knowledge", while agnostic means "without knowledge". This lack of knowledge can either refer to the absence of the knowledge which is available, or to the notion that it is not possible to possess the knowledge. Since a label of gnostic or agnostic usually tells nothing about what a person believes, only if they have an unspecified knowledge, it is of limited use. Instead, labels related to belief (theism and atheism) are more common. Though the two types of labels are most descriptive when paired, the knowledge-based label is often absent. This is often either due to a poor understanding of the differences between the four labels, or because the belief-based label implies it as its default state.

Since generally atheists believe people are born without knowledge of the concept of gods, thus do not have an innate belief in any gods, the default atheist position is an agnostic-atheist. If an atheist then encounters a god belief and does not accept it, the person remains an agnostic-atheist. However, if the person encounters the god belief and then claims to have knowledge that the god truly does not exist, the person is a gnostic-atheist. Most gnostic-atheists are those that have either not seriously considered their position, have a poor understanding of the topic, are being intellectually dishonest, or are really agnostic-atheists. The last type understand the nuances of the issue but claim their knowledge is sufficient to warrant the gnostic label if they wish to use it, unless pressed with a strict definition of knowledge. This last group is often the cause of much of the confusion, since they commonly use the colloquial understanding of knowledge when making statements about the existence of gods. Unfortunately, the gnostic-atheist label is rarely used by gnostic-atheists due to an ironic lack of knowledge. Instead, these people ambiguously use the atheist label, which implies the default agnostic-atheism. This creates additional confusion as to what atheism is. Additionally, more confusion is introduced when the agnostic term is often mistakenly used instead of [agnostic-]atheist since the person intends to mean while they do not have the knowledge of the true answer, they do not hold a positive god belief either.

While the line is relatively clear-cut in terms of the default atheist position, the theistic view of the default theist position varies greatly. Even within the Abrahamic religions, there is a great deal of diversity of thought regarding innate knowledge and belief. A very common theistic view that is also most apt for confusion during discussions with atheists is that a person is born with the belief/knowledge/both of their god(s), with this claim to knowledge instead being supported by the concept of faith. Not only does this understanding of knowledge differ from the atheist, but it places the default theistic position to be gnostic-theism, the opposite of the default atheist position. The result is the theist not only using a different understanding of what constitutes knowledge than the atheist, but also assuming the atheist is coming from the gnostic perspective. Due to this misunderstanding, many conversations do not get past this point.

Four common statements can illustrate each of these perspectives:

1) Gnostic-Theist/Theist: I KNOW there is a god.
2) Agnostic-Theist: I won't pretend to KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is a god.
3) Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].
4) Gnostic-Atheist: I KNOW there are NO gods.

You are now equipped with a good understanding of what an atheist is (and is not). During discussions, be sure that everyone is on the same page in terms of which category each person belongs in -- and even which definition of "god" will be used. If your arguments are not even directed at what the person actually believes/doesn't believe, you're wasting your time. [Gnostic-]theists should know that if they want to debate with an [agnostic-]atheist, asking the atheist to prove that gods don't exist does nothing but make the theist look clueless. This also holds for gnostic-atheists asking agnostic-theists to prove gods exist -- though I hope by this point in the reading, the gnostic-atheists would no longer consider themselves gnostic.

http://www.lackofbelief.com/

[ndf8th]

Thanks for that link.
Being as confused as I am
I guess it takes weeks or months
for me to even read it.

Too abstract way to describe things in it.

Thanks anyway. I copy it and place it on my HD
in case it disappear from internet.

Just a check of logic Why should I trust in the writer of that text?

How do I know he or she knows what they write about?

[dianaiad]

^

I'm better off being an atheist?

But you said I'll fry in eternal Hell for being an atheist.

Oh, if some people could just make some sense, even if it's just once.

Well, the difference is, an Atheist will be in a higher level of hell than your kind.(Assuming one is a Good Samaritan). You are at the bottom of the bottom. (And yes, there is such a thing called levels of hell).

refer to Dante's Inferno.

Dante Alighieri wrote scripture, did he? That's news to me...and it would have been news to him, as well.

[Danmark]

Well, the difference is, an Atheist will be in a higher level of hell than your kind.(Assuming one is a Good Samaritan). You are at the bottom of the bottom. (And yes, there is such a thing called levels of hell).

refer to Dante's Inferno.

Dante Alighieri wrote scripture, did he? That's news to me...and it would have been news to him, as well.

Dante just hasn't been voted into the canon yet. Not sure why. He seems to have all the requisite qualifications. I suspect it's a Mormon plot. They want to persevere their standing as having a proprietary claim on the first of the latter day revelations.

[Danmark]

I'm with Bertrand Russell:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
Garvey, Brian (2010). "Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, and the atheist’s teapot". Ars Disputandi 10: 9–22.

To that I would simply add Occam's Razor which suggests that the simpler theory with fewer assertions (e.g. a universe with no supernatural beings) should be the starting point in the discussion rather than the more complex theory until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power.

Adding a supernatural being has no explanatory power whatsoever.

I am genuinely puzzled that some theists are so very much up in arms about atheism and the burden of proof. We are really discussing two completely different epistemologies; the evidence of science and that of personal revelation.

Just as atheists must resign themselves to the religious claim of divine personal revelation, the theist must accept the atheist only accepts scientific evidence. The difficulties come when the theist insists his claim on scientific evidence for god is just as good as the atheists reliance on science.

[ndf8th]

Adding a supernatural being has no explanatory power whatsoever.

depends on the view point.
suppose you have a social/psychological
and political views on religious traditions and God
then the claim that God lives in Heaven and that
both God and the heaven is supernatural and that
humans have a "soul" or spirit that also is supernatural
that allow the believers to say to each other.

God is eternal and God's Kingdom in Heaven is eternal
and our soul/spirit is eternal and if we follow God's rules
and trust in him then we can live with God in Heaven for eternity
but if we disobey God then he most likely don't let us in.

They have set up it that way using the idea about
the supernatural being to explain how one can be saved.

So from a philosophical perspective it may be as you say.
Or from a Science perspective but from their wishful thinking
they need to find views that gives them hope for a better life.

I guess that is a kind of genetic fallacy seen from phil.
But I am into psychology and social group dynamics
and AFAIK that is the best explanation I have heard.

[Danmark]

Adding a supernatural being has no explanatory power whatsoever.

depends on the view point.

From the point of view of explaining the universe scientifically.
I accept that the religious add personal revelation by themselves or others as a way of knowing. But it isn't science. And tho' I can appreciate the beauty and mystery of other traditions, when it comes to explaining nature and existence, I'm sticking with science until something more accurate comes along.

[dianaiad]

Well, the difference is, an Atheist will be in a higher level of hell than your kind.(Assuming one is a Good Samaritan). You are at the bottom of the bottom. (And yes, there is such a thing called levels of hell).

refer to Dante's Inferno.

Dante Alighieri wrote scripture, did he? That's news to me...and it would have been news to him, as well.

Dante just hasn't been voted into the canon yet. Not sure why. He seems to have all the requisite qualifications. I suspect it's a Mormon plot. They want to persevere their standing as having a proprietary claim on the first of the latter day revelations.

Oh.

Dear.

You caught us.

I think I'm going to have to push the hidden button on my burn phone and call in the black helicopters.

If I can find the phone.
If I can remember where the button is.
If I can remember the code word.

Ah...never mind.

[d.thomas]

Theists are asking things of atheists such as burden of proof as if atheists care about solving little god problems that theists are dealing with. If theists can't bear the burden of proof then why go to atheists for help?

You deliberately sought out and joined a Christian debate forum, and then went to the Chriatianity and Apologetics session (which is odd, because you and several other atheists are pretending that there is no evidence for God and have never hard of Apologetics) and are now feigning disinterest?

You don;t care about God so you have no burden of proof?

But you went out of your way to join a Christian debate forum?

Yeah, for entertainment purposes, is that not why everybody comes here, to amuse themselves?

Yep, lots of people deliberately seek out religious venues to ... not care in the slightest. Most bored people would just use X-box, go to a bar, go for a run, read, write, call parents, but I guess a few religious people out there will, in their free time, seek out atheist web sites because they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in atheism?

In short, you are clearly looking for an excuse. Its about not being wrong at any cost, and the only sacrifice that is made in place of pride is ... honor.

I'm interested in debating theists, but why would I be interested in a god? If theists are so interested in gods then they can figure a gods' existence out for themselves, why they want to put the burden of proof onto those that don't do god is what I find interesting.

I am in agreement with Truth on this one. I want to talk to theists, who are clearly interested in God, which will naturally be the subject on a Christian debate forum in the Apologetic section no less, because ... I have no interest in God whatsoever?

Tell me, is conceeding a point this difficult, does the entire intellectual stability of atheism hang on your insistence that atheism doesn't have a burden of proof because YOU personally, which apparently embodies ALL of atheism , aren't interested?

Take yourself out of the debate about atheism, which is something that logical people attempt to do anyway, and gives us a reason why atheism has no burden of proof.

Well, gosh, I sure do like talking to theists in about Apologetics, which is the evidence for God, but not to talk about God ... silliness.

Of course you're in agreement with Truth. Insult me because I don't do gods, and you wonder why I find theists interesting. Theists claim there are invisible ancient gods out there, do you ever wonder how that sounds to someone that doesn't share in that belief? On top of that apparently there are false gods and false religions but any given believer has no doubt that theirs is the true one.

What would evidence for the non existence of an invisible entity look like to you? Is that why you believe, because no one has presented you with evidence for the non existence of something that is invisible and untestable?