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.

[TheTruth101]

"So only now that you left atheism you expect atheists to take on the burden of proof. I tell you what,


-- explain how you know leprechauns don't exist and you will have all the so called evidence you need to know why atheists don't concern themselves with invisible gods --



anymore than they concern themselves with any other fictitious imaginary character read of in books."

I think I see what you are saying, but I am not quite convinced.
atheists, agnostic/atheists, jesus myth theorists- the ones oblivious to invisible irish leprechaun gods have posted 97,556,087, 023 posts in 4 days!

"StubbornOne, whether you like it or not, that means that in the first instance it is up to the theists to provide credible evidence to suppor that claim. Unless and until they do, the atheists are completely correct in adopting the stance that whatever is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."



remember stubbornone, he loves you and love isn't test tube tidy, ready for scientists to pick apart. some hope to reduce him to nothing more than that and to endless arguments that never lead anywhere. consider this, too. jesus myth theorists cannot prove conclusively with verifiable, repeatable evidence (their fallback mantra) that they love their children. can't be done. some things just don't yield to the limits of scientific testing, you know? (you know what's funny? they know he's real. no doubt. they know better than most who acknowledge his divinity.)

it is good to know that these polished, perfect, disinterested, superior in every way, always a joy and polite, believers in nothing, don't post 989,812,089,327,442 times in 5 days, ain't it?

Are you guys so ignorant as to not seeing the burden of proof atheists are claiming.

Evidence, that's their burden of proof for atheism, that's what their claiming as their burden of proof.

Atheists are so ignorant they don't even realize it.

[ytrewq]

StubbornOne wrote:

And what pray tell should we do about people who are driven to run around claiming that people are stupid based solely on their faith choice?

My approach. Make your point clearly that it is inappropriate to go around calling other people stupid, though there is nothing wrong with thinking that people's ideas are silly provided evidence is given to show they are. Make your point a few times at most, for repeatedly hammering the same point over and over turns people off.

Beyond that, turn the other cheek, and lead by example in your own postings, as Jesus would have done. For example, a theist posting in this thread stated that Atheists are so ignorant, they don't even realize it. Honestly, I don't feel the slightest annoyance at statements like that. Not worth responding too, my friend. I am very comfortable to have others judge my ignorance or otherwise on the basis of my postings.

Perhaps my approach is not right for you, but it works for me. What do you think? Is the above approach worth a try?



Concerning the 'Burden of Proof' incurred by theists and atheists, there is nothing I can add to my previous postings. I realize that for the most part we were/are in agreement, and that your comments placed after my postings were not so much aimed at me, as certain other atheists. Anyway, I stand by my postings in this thread, and if you have any specific disagreement re parts of my postings, then let me know exactly which part you disagree with, and I'm certainly happy to discuss.

Cheers, Ytrewq

[McCulloch]

Guess you missed the part about which section you are debating in?

Christianity and Apologetics

Whoops ...

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.
2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.
3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.
4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.
5. Please avoid "preaching" and using the forum as simply a way to blast people with the gospel message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.
6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists.
7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.

Apologetics (from Greek [font=Georgia]ἀπολογία[/font], "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. The Apologetic forum is not a Christian forum per se, but a forum for Christians to defend their position with reason, logic and evidence.

[McCulloch]

Atheists are so ignorant they don't even realize it.

I disagree with the part in bold. As an atheist, yes, I am ignorant of God. I don't know God. I don't even know what you mean precisely when you use the word God. I realize my ignorance completely. I fully admit my ignorance. I do not know about God.

Please use these forums to provide for me real valid, objective, evidence based knowledge about this thing you call God. Prove to me that what you say about God is true. If you say nothing about God, or share with me my ignorance of God, then you have no burden of proof. However, if you make any assertions about God: God exists, God loves, God became human, God condemns sin, God creates or created, God knows, God revealed, then you have the burden of proof for whatever assertions you make.

[TheTruth101]

StubbornOne wrote:

And what pray tell should we do about people who are driven to run around claiming that people are stupid based solely on their faith choice?

My approach. Make your point clearly that it is inappropriate to go around calling other people stupid, though there is nothing wrong with thinking that people's ideas are silly provided evidence is given to show they are. Make your point a few times at most, for repeatedly hammering the same point over and over turns people off.

Beyond that, turn the other cheek, and lead by example in your own postings, as Jesus would have done. For example, a theist posting in this thread stated that Atheists are so ignorant, they don't even realize it. Honestly, I don't feel the slightest annoyance at statements like that. Not worth responding too, my friend. I am very comfortable to have others judge my ignorance or otherwise on the basis of my postings.

Perhaps my approach is not right for you, but it works for me. What do you think? Is the above approach worth a try?



Concerning the 'Burden of Proof' incurred by theists and atheists, there is nothing I can add to my previous postings. I realize that for the most part we were/are in agreement, and that your comments placed after my postings were not so much aimed at me, as certain other atheists. Anyway, I stand by my postings in this thread, and if you have any specific disagreement re parts of my postings, then let me know exactly which part you disagree with, and I'm certainly happy to discuss.

Cheers, Ytrewq

Well, sorry but the truth is, (the bold part) you did respond to it by saying you are not annoyed by it, and you were annoyed by it by mentioning you weren't annoyed by it.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Okay, then why is agnostic atheism the “default position.� Why not agnostic theism?

Agnostic atheism seems to be saying that there may or may not be a God, but then living as if there is no God.

Agnostic theism would then be saying that there may or may not be a God, but living as if there is a God.

Both positions meet their own burden of proof. Since both positions only make claims about what I believe and not about anything outside of me, claiming to hold the position is sufficient proof that it is indeed what I believe.

I can see no reason why either of these should be the “default position� other than personal preference.

If we don't know whether or not something exists the default position cannot be the assumption of existence, because this is a positive assertion that must be supported. The lack of an assumption either way is by definition atheism.

---

This is not a "Christian forum" except in the sense that Christianity is one of the main topics of discussion. It is not a forum specially geared towards Christians or the promotion of Christianity or anything of the sort.

The purpose of this site is to engage in civil debates on anything pertaining to Christianity and religious issues between people of different persuasions. Everyone of any belief system is welcome to participate, this includes, but is not limited to, atheists, agnostics, deists, theists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, Taoists, and Hindus.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4

Guess you missed the part about which section you are debating in?

Christianity and Apologetics

Whoops ...

"Christianity and Apologetics" is a subforum on the website whose purpose I have just cited. I suggest you read up on the rules and purpose of this forum to correct the misapprehension you appear to be working under. If you would be more comfortable posting on a "Christian forum", I can offer some suggestions:

http://carm.org/forums
http://www.christianforums.com/

[Danmark]

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.

Its amazing how the emotional accuse others of being emotional....

Actually it is not amazing at all. The phenomenon of psychological projection is well known.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
[emphasis applied]
_ Wikipedia

Even school children have long recognized this phenomenon if not the mechanism itself, let alone the name. 'I know you are but what am I?' '... what you say bounces of me and sticks on you' are but a couple of childish examples.

It's one more reason for all of us to think carefully before engaging in personal remarks.

[Goat]

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.

Under traditional definitions, agnosticism could be called the position that God might or might not exist. Why are you throwing on the word “atheism� after the word agnostic?

I use the term agnostic atheism to differentiate it from gnostic atheism, which does make a positive claim. Atheism is the default position, but only in the sense of lacking belief (agnostic atheism), not in the sense of God being nonexistent (gnostic atheism).

Agnosticism is, by the way, a positive claim. It is just a claim about my intellectual state, not about the reality outside of me.

Sure. The point is that it is not a positive claim with regard to the existence of God.

Okay, then why is agnostic atheism the “default position.� Why not agnostic theism?

Agnostic atheism seems to be saying that there may or may not be a God, but then living as if there is no God.

Agnostic theism would then be saying that there may or may not be a God, but living as if there is a God.

Both positions meet their own burden of proof. Since both positions only make claims about what I believe and not about anything outside of me, claiming to hold the position is sufficient proof that it is indeed what I believe.

I can see no reason why either of these should be the “default position� other than personal preference.

Of course, this leaves us little to debate. We become ships passing in the night. The atheist only says, “I do not believe in God.� The theist only says, “I do believe in God.� Both statements are equally true.

Until we are willing to make a claim about something beyond our own personal thoughts, there is essentially nothing to debate.

It is far more rational to take the 'it's not there' approach.. with everything. I do not believe in little green men from alpha centauri, because I have no evidence of little green men from Alpha Centauri. I not believe in ghosts, devils, demons, etc etc, because I lack evidence for those things. I don't see why I should make a special category for a deity, just because ..

[stubbornone]

StubbornOne wrote:

And what pray tell should we do about people who are driven to run around claiming that people are stupid based solely on their faith choice?

My approach. Make your point clearly that it is inappropriate to go around calling other people stupid, though there is nothing wrong with thinking that people's ideas are silly provided evidence is given to show they are. Make your point a few times at most, for repeatedly hammering the same point over and over turns people off.

Beyond that, turn the other cheek, and lead by example in your own postings, as Jesus would have done. For example, a theist posting in this thread stated that Atheists are so ignorant, they don't even realize it. Honestly, I don't feel the slightest annoyance at statements like that. Not worth responding too, my friend. I am very comfortable to have others judge my ignorance or otherwise on the basis of my postings.

Perhaps my approach is not right for you, but it works for me. What do you think? Is the above approach worth a try?



Concerning the 'Burden of Proof' incurred by theists and atheists, there is nothing I can add to my previous postings. I realize that for the most part we were/are in agreement, and that your comments placed after my postings were not so much aimed at me, as certain other atheists. Anyway, I stand by my postings in this thread, and if you have any specific disagreement re parts of my postings, then let me know exactly which part you disagree with, and I'm certainly happy to discuss.

Cheers, Ytrewq

Its a debate forum Y. And calling something illogical whenit is clearly illogical is only an insult when the person has embedded the illogic so deeply in themselves that having it exposed hurts.

So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sister[a] sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. 4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.� (Luke 17:3-4)

So, I do appreciate, rather than offering up a proof as to why atheists apparently get to abandon logic and this their burden or proof, we instead get a cheap attempt at spiritual abuse.

Seriously, you stood up to me on a DEBATE FORUM, therefore you are violating Jesus's teachings? Tell me Y, since this doesn't bother you in the slightest, why is the repeated claim that religion is all fantasy, without support, not ignorant? Why, when someone is ALSO claiming that their position is the result of evidence, are they relieved of their requirement to produce such evidence?

Which, BTW,this only adds to the criticism that the position of failing to support a position is illogical.

It really is that simple, and it should be an easy point to acknowledge. Atheists who claim evidence but fail to produce it are not driven by evidence ... just like any other claim out there.

Cheers.

[stubbornone]

Okay, then why is agnostic atheism the “default position.� Why not agnostic theism?

Agnostic atheism seems to be saying that there may or may not be a God, but then living as if there is no God.

Agnostic theism would then be saying that there may or may not be a God, but living as if there is a God.

Both positions meet their own burden of proof. Since both positions only make claims about what I believe and not about anything outside of me, claiming to hold the position is sufficient proof that it is indeed what I believe.

I can see no reason why either of these should be the “default position� other than personal preference.

If we don't know whether or not something exists the default position cannot be the assumption of existence, because this is a positive assertion that must be supported. The lack of an assumption either way is by definition atheism.

---

This is not a "Christian forum" except in the sense that Christianity is one of the main topics of discussion. It is not a forum specially geared towards Christians or the promotion of Christianity or anything of the sort.

The purpose of this site is to engage in civil debates on anything pertaining to Christianity and religious issues between people of different persuasions. Everyone of any belief system is welcome to participate, this includes, but is not limited to, atheists, agnostics, deists, theists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, Taoists, and Hindus.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4

Guess you missed the part about which section you are debating in?

Christianity and Apologetics

Whoops ...

"Christianity and Apologetics" is a subforum on the website whose purpose I have just cited. I suggest you read up on the rules and purpose of this forum to correct the misapprehension you appear to be working under. If you would be more comfortable posting on a "Christian forum", I can offer some suggestions:

http://carm.org/forums
http://www.christianforums.com/

You ar ein the Christianity and Apologetics Section of a Website where Christianity is clearly in the forefront, ergo, you claim that you are disinterested in God ... espcially as you appear to have a working knowledge of other Christian forums, knowledge the disinterested would not posses would they.

In short, IMO, this is more about the ego of never conceeding a point. You are not disinterested in God, and even if you were, you'd still have a burden of proof.

Quite simple.

BTW - I noticed you skipped this earlier, a comment tactic in atheists whose main goal is never to be wrong:

" Welcome to DebatingChristianity.com. This forum aims to be the most civil and engaging debate forum on Christianity and religion for people of all persuasions."

That is the opening line BTW, so you came to a religion forum where Christianity in particular would be discussed ... because you have no interest in God. And apparently, you missed the open line of the rules that ALL participants are required to read, and instead dug down and found the portions of inclusion by deliberately ignoring the FIRST sentence - the thesis - the point?

I am not sure what atheists call that, but in my faith, we call it a lie of omission.