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]

StubbornOne,

Prove you're not a car thief. I have just burdened you with evidence.

My evidence is that I feel very strongly inside that you are guilty. You'll just have to take my word for it)

Where's your evidence to support the conclusion that you're innocent? The ball is in your court. Thank you.

(Entirely rhetorical just to make a point. I don't actually believe you're a car thief. I wouldn't know, so my null hypothesis is that you're actually not guilty until proven otherwise. That's logic.)

Its easy, run a back ground check.

Check my finances.

I am also a military officer in good standing, which precludes criminality.

I also hold a valid religious document that requires me to attest to my actions under oath in front of religious authorities.

You would not be convinced anyway ... evidence does not work for you, and we cannot arrive at any conclusions whatsoever?

Again, please familarize yourself with the argument from absurdity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

And my not being a car thief is relevant to your burden of proof how? Right its not. Its grasping at straws.

[stubbornone]

Strawman:

I expect BOTH sides to take on the burden of proof. Which part of ALL CLAIMS MUST BE SUPPORTED are you struggling with?

The fact is we have several open threads where thesis are doing just that, meeting their burden of proof.

In contrast, we have atheists not only dodging their burden of proof, but arrogantly thinking that everyone is too stupid to know what agnostic atheism is ... even AFTER they spell out their issues with it.

Your post is another step in that emotional, rather than evidence driven, state of atheism.

Your atheism rests not on proof, but upon emotion.

I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but your entire activity on this thread is about doing everything BUT that.

And that is indeed a problem with atheism, which puts in the same category as conspiracy.

Again, not all atheists do this, there are HONEST atheists who acknowledge that the evidence for God is inconclusive any they rely on what they think is the preponderance of the evidence in support of a conclusion.

The Walt Disney of atheism is claiming its not making any claims and has no evidence or preponderance at all and doesn't need it. Its illogical and simply asinine.

There is nothing in atheism that requires one to abandon logic. There is something in emotional hatred for other based solely on a faith choice that DOES.

You tell me which is more likely?

BTW - you just claimed that God was fictitious. A positive claim that REQUIRES support. Prove it.

or acknowledge that your atheism is merely meanness.

The only reason there are atheists is because there are people running around claiming there are invisible gods out there. I claimed leprechauns are fictitious as well, so what's your point? Am I to provide so called evidence for the non existence of every fictitious character writers have come up with over the last five thousand years? Who has the time for that?


No one is jumping up and down demanding I provide evidence for the non existence of leprechauns. People are however jumping up and down demanding I provide evidence for the non existence of invisible gods, go figure.

Once again, BOTH sides have a burden of proof.

Claiming God exists is not offensive, expect to the exceptionally thin skinned. And indeed, when it is followed up with the required burden of proof, there isn't much more to complain about period.

In contrast, here you claiming that God is fake is ridiculously rude terminology (one can assume your intent in merely to flame people), and then failing to back it up ...

which of course makes you victim of OTHER PEOPLE'S opinions?


Like I said, your atheism is clearly more emotional then logical.

[d.thomas]

Strawman:

I expect BOTH sides to take on the burden of proof. Which part of ALL CLAIMS MUST BE SUPPORTED are you struggling with?

The fact is we have several open threads where thesis are doing just that, meeting their burden of proof.

In contrast, we have atheists not only dodging their burden of proof, but arrogantly thinking that everyone is too stupid to know what agnostic atheism is ... even AFTER they spell out their issues with it.

Your post is another step in that emotional, rather than evidence driven, state of atheism.

Your atheism rests not on proof, but upon emotion.

I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but your entire activity on this thread is about doing everything BUT that.

And that is indeed a problem with atheism, which puts in the same category as conspiracy.

Again, not all atheists do this, there are HONEST atheists who acknowledge that the evidence for God is inconclusive any they rely on what they think is the preponderance of the evidence in support of a conclusion.

The Walt Disney of atheism is claiming its not making any claims and has no evidence or preponderance at all and doesn't need it. Its illogical and simply asinine.

There is nothing in atheism that requires one to abandon logic. There is something in emotional hatred for other based solely on a faith choice that DOES.

You tell me which is more likely?

BTW - you just claimed that God was fictitious. A positive claim that REQUIRES support. Prove it.

or acknowledge that your atheism is merely meanness.

The only reason there are atheists is because there are people running around claiming there are invisible gods out there. I claimed leprechauns are fictitious as well, so what's your point? Am I to provide so called evidence for the non existence of every fictitious character writers have come up with over the last five thousand years? Who has the time for that?


No one is jumping up and down demanding I provide evidence for the non existence of leprechauns. People are however jumping up and down demanding I provide evidence for the non existence of invisible gods, go figure.

Once again, BOTH sides have a burden of proof.

Claiming God exists is not offensive, expect to the exceptionally thin skinned. And indeed, when it is followed up with the required burden of proof, there isn't much more to complain about period.

In contrast, here you claiming that God is fake is ridiculously rude terminology (one can assume your intent in merely to flame people), and then failing to back it up ...

which of course makes you victim of OTHER PEOPLE'S opinions?


Like I said, your atheism is clearly more emotional then logical.

Where did I say claiming God exists is offensive? I don't begrudge you your fantasy. I'm happy for you, whatever gets you through the night as they say. I just don't share in your fantasy and you seem to have a problem with that.



I don't do god and I don't bowl, but the people that do god demand I explain something to them, those that bowl demand nothing of me, go figure, it must be a Christian thing.

[d.thomas]

edit

[Star]

Its easy, run a back ground check.

Check my finances.

I am also a military officer in good standing, which precludes criminality.

I also hold a valid religious document that requires me to attest to my actions under oath in front of religious authorities.

None of this can technically prove your innocence. Also, if you're saddled with the burden, that implies that YOU have to provide me the documents you listed (which of course is ridiculous). Not even a court will find you innocent; they'll find you "not guilty". This subtle difference is what seems to be so confusing to some people.

In my world of logic and reason, the null hypothesis would be that you're not a car thief. The alternative hypothesis would be that you are. Due to lack of evidence, we would reject the alternative and accept the null. But the null can still never be proven. Makes sense, right?

You would not be convinced anyway ... evidence does not work for you, and we cannot arrive at any conclusions whatsoever?

Again, please familarize yourself with the argument from absurdity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

This indicates to me that you're not getting the point I'm making. Of course it's absurd. This was a fictitious exercise shifting the burden of proof to demonstrate to you how absurd it is, and thus, why we don't do it. Again, please familiarize yourself with the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

If I don't know whether or not there's a god, I don't have to prove anything. Undecideds have no burden. Gnostic atheists and gnostic theists, however, do. They're the ones running around making positive assertions. This burden is a simple concept, and I'm surprised I'm still defending it.

[d.thomas]

Its easy, run a back ground check.

Check my finances.

I am also a military officer in good standing, which precludes criminality.

I also hold a valid religious document that requires me to attest to my actions under oath in front of religious authorities.

None of that can prove your innocent. Also, if you're saddled with the burden, that implies that YOU have to provide me the documents you listed (which of course is ridiculous). Not even a court will find you innocent; they'll find you "not guilty". This subtle difference is what seems to be so confusing to some people.

In my world of logic and reason, the null hypothesis would be that you're not a car thief. The alternative hypothesis would be that you are. Due to lack of evidence, we would reject the alternative and accept the null. But the null can still never be proven. Makes sense, right?

You would not be convinced anyway ... evidence does not work for you, and we cannot arrive at any conclusions whatsoever?

Again, please familarize yourself with the argument from absurdity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

This indicates to me that you're not getting the point I'm making. Of course it's absurd. This was a fictitious exercise shifting the burden of proof to demonstrate to you how absurd it is, and thus, why we don't do it. Again, please familiarize yourself with the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

If I don't know whether or not there's a god, I don't have to prove anything. Undecideds have no burden. Gnostic atheists and gnostic theists, however, do. They're the ones running around making positive assertions. This burden is a simple concept, and I'm surprised I'm still defending it.

Atheists don't have a burden of proof, it's like asking that one proves the books in the fiction section of the library contain fiction, that's not how it's done.

[Danmark]

I also hold a valid religious document that requires me to attest to my actions under oath in front of religious authorities.

None of this can technically prove your innocence. Also, if you're saddled with the burden, that implies that YOU have to provide me the documents you listed (which of course is ridiculous). Not even a court will find you innocent; they'll find you "not guilty". This subtle difference is what seems to be so confusing to some people.

And I hold a Credential of Ministry which allows me to officiate at your wedding. All you two have to do is get the marriage license, and I will be happy to perform the ceremony. I'll waive my standard fee. Naturally I would expect my expenses to be paid.

Yours,
the Very Right Reverend

[Star]

Its easy, run a back ground check.

Check my finances.

I am also a military officer in good standing, which precludes criminality.

I also hold a valid religious document that requires me to attest to my actions under oath in front of religious authorities.

None of that can prove your innocent. Also, if you're saddled with the burden, that implies that YOU have to provide me the documents you listed (which of course is ridiculous). Not even a court will find you innocent; they'll find you "not guilty". This subtle difference is what seems to be so confusing to some people.

In my world of logic and reason, the null hypothesis would be that you're not a car thief. The alternative hypothesis would be that you are. Due to lack of evidence, we would reject the alternative and accept the null. But the null can still never be proven. Makes sense, right?

You would not be convinced anyway ... evidence does not work for you, and we cannot arrive at any conclusions whatsoever?

Again, please familarize yourself with the argument from absurdity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

This indicates to me that you're not getting the point I'm making. Of course it's absurd. This was a fictitious exercise shifting the burden of proof to demonstrate to you how absurd it is, and thus, why we don't do it. Again, please familiarize yourself with the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

If I don't know whether or not there's a god, I don't have to prove anything. Undecideds have no burden. Gnostic atheists and gnostic theists, however, do. They're the ones running around making positive assertions. This burden is a simple concept, and I'm surprised I'm still defending it.

Atheists don't have a burden of proof, it's like asking that one proves the books in the fiction section of the library contain fiction, that's not how it's done.

Most atheists don't, but gnostic atheists do.

Anything "gnostic" does. Unlike us agnostics, they claim to know and make positive assertions.

Of course, god's existence is unfalsifiable like leprechauns, so any gnostic atheist attempting to prove god doesn't exist is indulging in an exercise of futility, which is why I think we don't see much of them, fortunately. The fallacy of trying to falsify an unfalsifiable negative unfairly tarnishes our image, because of course people like StubbornOne and Gadarene lump all us non-theists into the same category and employ guilty-by-association tactics.

[d.thomas]

Its easy, run a back ground check.

Check my finances.

I am also a military officer in good standing, which precludes criminality.

I also hold a valid religious document that requires me to attest to my actions under oath in front of religious authorities.

None of that can prove your innocent. Also, if you're saddled with the burden, that implies that YOU have to provide me the documents you listed (which of course is ridiculous). Not even a court will find you innocent; they'll find you "not guilty". This subtle difference is what seems to be so confusing to some people.

In my world of logic and reason, the null hypothesis would be that you're not a car thief. The alternative hypothesis would be that you are. Due to lack of evidence, we would reject the alternative and accept the null. But the null can still never be proven. Makes sense, right?

You would not be convinced anyway ... evidence does not work for you, and we cannot arrive at any conclusions whatsoever?

Again, please familarize yourself with the argument from absurdity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

This indicates to me that you're not getting the point I'm making. Of course it's absurd. This was a fictitious exercise shifting the burden of proof to demonstrate to you how absurd it is, and thus, why we don't do it. Again, please familiarize yourself with the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

If I don't know whether or not there's a god, I don't have to prove anything. Undecideds have no burden. Gnostic atheists and gnostic theists, however, do. They're the ones running around making positive assertions. This burden is a simple concept, and I'm surprised I'm still defending it.

Atheists don't have a burden of proof, it's like asking that one proves the books in the fiction section of the library contain fiction, that's not how it's done.

Most atheists don't, but gnostic atheists do.

Anything "gnostic" does. Unlike us agnostics, they claim to know and make positive assertions.

Of course, god's existence is unfalsifiable like leprechauns, so any gnostic atheist attempting to prove god doesn't exist is indulging in an exercise of futility, which is why I think we don't see much of them, fortunately. The fallacy of trying to falsify an unfalsifiable negative unfairly tarnishes our image, because of course people like StubbornOne and Gadarene lump all us non-theists into the same category and employ guilty-by-association tactics.

To suggest that something described in unfalsifiable terms does not exist is not unreasonable. Leprechauns are described in unfalsifiable terms so stating that they don't exist is a given, but suggest that gods described in unfalsifiable terms don't exist and all hell breaks loose, theists go into fits of rage and then tell atheists that it's atheists that are emotional over the non existence of their invisible god, go figure.

[stubbornone]

Strawman:

I expect BOTH sides to take on the burden of proof. Which part of ALL CLAIMS MUST BE SUPPORTED are you struggling with?

The fact is we have several open threads where thesis are doing just that, meeting their burden of proof.

In contrast, we have atheists not only dodging their burden of proof, but arrogantly thinking that everyone is too stupid to know what agnostic atheism is ... even AFTER they spell out their issues with it.

Your post is another step in that emotional, rather than evidence driven, state of atheism.

Your atheism rests not on proof, but upon emotion.

I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but your entire activity on this thread is about doing everything BUT that.

And that is indeed a problem with atheism, which puts in the same category as conspiracy.

Again, not all atheists do this, there are HONEST atheists who acknowledge that the evidence for God is inconclusive any they rely on what they think is the preponderance of the evidence in support of a conclusion.

The Walt Disney of atheism is claiming its not making any claims and has no evidence or preponderance at all and doesn't need it. Its illogical and simply asinine.

There is nothing in atheism that requires one to abandon logic. There is something in emotional hatred for other based solely on a faith choice that DOES.

You tell me which is more likely?

BTW - you just claimed that God was fictitious. A positive claim that REQUIRES support. Prove it.

or acknowledge that your atheism is merely meanness.

The only reason there are atheists is because there are people running around claiming there are invisible gods out there. I claimed leprechauns are fictitious as well, so what's your point? Am I to provide so called evidence for the non existence of every fictitious character writers have come up with over the last five thousand years? Who has the time for that?


No one is jumping up and down demanding I provide evidence for the non existence of leprechauns. People are however jumping up and down demanding I provide evidence for the non existence of invisible gods, go figure.

Once again, BOTH sides have a burden of proof.

Claiming God exists is not offensive, expect to the exceptionally thin skinned. And indeed, when it is followed up with the required burden of proof, there isn't much more to complain about period.

In contrast, here you claiming that God is fake is ridiculously rude terminology (one can assume your intent in merely to flame people), and then failing to back it up ...

which of course makes you victim of OTHER PEOPLE'S opinions?


Like I said, your atheism is clearly more emotional then logical.

Where did I say claiming God exists is offensive? I don't begrudge you your fantasy. I'm happy for you, whatever gets you through the night as they say. I just don't share in your fantasy and you seem to have a problem with that.

Once again, if you cannot figure out how running around claiming God is fantasy andfailing to support it ... On a Christian debate forum, indicating you are going out of your way to rub your opinion in other people'd faith, then you are simple lost to your emotions.

You seem to enjoy lording your OPINION over people, but your repated claims of fantasy coupled with a failure to back it up is exactly the point of this thread ...

...and exactly the reason that so few people trust atheists. Simply put, what you are doing is not honest.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Str ... alues.html

I don't do god and I don't bowl, but the people that do god demand I explain something to them, those that bowl demand nothing of me, go figure, it must be a Christian thing.

Agh, so in the rest of your free time you spend all of your time in a bowling alley running around telling everyone that you don't bowl? Ludicrous.

And THIS is apparently why atheists have no burden of proof?