" burden of proof "

[traillius]

The burden of proof fallacy is often employed by atheists. The way they get around it being applied to them is either they say " A claim in favor of X existing assumes the burden of proof " or they say " I don’t make any assertions, I simply disagree with yours. "
Both are intellectually dishonest. In effect, disbelieving the existence of God is philosophically the same as believing the nonexistence of God. Thus atheists are making a specific claim of the nonexistence of God. Generally burden of proof applies equally to both sides of an argument. But in this case, burden of proof would dictate that atheists must prove their specific claim, because of an implicit challenge that we should accept their claim that nonexistence of God is actual. And, if they say their statement of belief in the nonexistence of God is not a challenge for us to accept their belief, then neither is our statement of belief in the existence of God a challenge(implicit or otherwise) for them to accept our belief. Saying " I believe " is not an implicit assertion that " you must believe "
whether the belief is in existence or nonexistence of anything is immaterial to burden of proof falling in all directions equally, or not at all, at least in matters of philosophy.

 

[traillius]

By the way, I occasionally, for a laugh, go to the Religion and Spirituality section of Yahoo Answers. Mostly, emotion rules over there. But for serious discussions, I find this forum to be infinitely more effective. Besides, most atheists over there would get torn to bits philosophically over here, and many theists wouldn’t be able to keep up. I even offered to debate the atheists from there in this forum. Shockingly they declined, giving reasons that they wouldn’t be able to express their views. They are partially right of course, since they resort to emotion, and can’t actually employ philosophy with any skill, most of them, aside from saying " your philosophy is flawed. " The real reason is they know they might be crushed in an actual argument. But hey to each their own.

 

[j1akey]

The burden of proof fallacy is often employed by atheists. The way they get around it being applied to them is either they say " A claim in favor of X existing assumes the burden of proof " or they say " I don’t make any assertions, I simply disagree with yours. "
Both are intellectually dishonest. In effect, disbelieving the existence of God is philosophically the same as believing the nonexistence of God. Thus atheists are making a specific claim of the nonexistence of God. Generally burden of proof applies equally to both sides of an argument. But in this case, burden of proof would dictate that atheists must prove their specific claim, because of an implicit challenge that we should accept their claim that nonexistence of God is actual. And, if they say their statement of belief in the nonexistence of God is not a challenge for us to accept their belief, then neither is our statement of belief in the existence of God a challenge(implicit or otherwise) for them to accept our belief. Saying " I believe " is not an implicit assertion that " you must believe "
whether the belief is in existence or nonexistence of anything is immaterial to burden of proof falling in all directions equally, or not at all, at least in matters of philosophy.

The person making the argument for the existance of anything fully shoulders the burden of proof. If you’re going to come up to me and say that X exists then you need to convince me of it, that is what the burden of proof means. There’s nothing intellectually dishonest about it.

If I say there’s a colony of humans living on Mars, you have every right to say that you don’t believe me until I present you with what you would consider acceptable proof of that colony.

The person making the claim has to present proof, it doesn’t matter what that claim is or whether it’s referring to god or anything else in the universe.

 

[Myqyl]

Interesting point.

Typically when an athiest says the burden of proof is on me, I say "Sure " Then I point to the universe and say “How’d that happen?” They usually say “random chance” or something similar, to which I say “Prove it ”

God bless

 

[j1akey]

Interesting point.

Typically when an athiest says the burden of proof is on me, I say "Sure " Then I point to the universe and say “How’d that happen?” They usually say “random chance” or something similar, to which I say “Prove it ”

God bless

I have yet to actually hear any atheist or agnostic say the universe happened from random chance. The answer I always hear is a simple “i don’t know”. Usually the random chance argument comes from some preacher telling everyone else that we say that even though we don’t and people believe it.

 

[_Locke]

traillius:

The burden of proof fallacy is often employed by atheists. The way they get around it being applied to them is either they say " A claim in favor of X existing assumes the burden of proof " or they say " I don’t make any assertions, I simply disagree with yours. "

The burden of proof fallacy is “the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa).” The atheist claim (as I see you putting it) is simply that God has not been proven to exist. It is not taking the additional step and claiming that God does not exist. Therefore, no fallacy.

traillius:

In effect, disbelieving the existence of God is philosophically the same as believing the nonexistence of God.

Nope. You might find this page informative. To take an example, do you believe I am wearing a yellow shirt? Your ignorance of what I am wearing should prevent you from denying this proposition the same way it prevents you from affirming it. As you can see, not believing that this proposition is true isn’t the same as believing the proposition is not true: not affirming that I am wearing a yellow shirt doesn’t entail denying that I am wearing a yellow shirt.

traillius:

Generally burden of proof applies equally to both sides of an argument.

Generally the burden of proof does not apply equally to both sides of an argument. "The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof. However, their respective burdens of proof will often be unequal or asymmetrical. " (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)

traillius:

Thus atheists are making a specific claim of the nonexistence of God.

Some atheists do, some atheists don’t. A common understanding of atheism is that it is a lack of belief in any gods. Here’s a good article on what atheism is.

traillius:

By the way, I occasionally, for a laugh, go to the Religion and Spirituality section of Yahoo Answers. Mostly, emotion rules over there. But for serious discussions, I find this forum to be infinitely more effective. Besides, most atheists over there would get torn to bits philosophically over here, and many theists wouldn’t be able to keep up. I even offered to debate the atheists from there in this forum. Shockingly they declined, giving reasons that they wouldn’t be able to express their views. They are partially right of course, since they resort to emotion, and can’t actually employ philosophy with any skill, most of them, aside from saying " your philosophy is flawed. " The real reason is they know they might be crushed in an actual argument. But hey to each their own.

Irrelevant.

 

[_Locke]

Typically when an athiest says the burden of proof is on me, I say "Sure " Then I point to the universe and say “How’d that happen?” They usually say “random chance” or something similar, to which I say “Prove it ”

I’m not sure what you mean by the universe “happening” but I’ll assume you mean “began”. I’ve never heard anyone (atheist or theist) say random chance; is this a straw man argument? I have heard a great number of atheists say they don’t know, which I think is the only honest answer at this point.

Furthermore, the statement “God did it” (which I’m presuming is your answer) does not explain anything, as well as being unsubstantiated by evidence.

 

[traillius]

how exactly do atheists view any statement of belief as an automatic implicit challenge. Apart from the actual words. " you should(must) believe," its a groundless conjecture to assume that statements of belief are a challenge. Unless one is in the habit of putting words into someone else’s mouth and thoughts in their brain.

 

[j1akey]

how exactly do atheists view any statement of belief as an automatic implicit challenge. Apart from the actual words. " you should(must) believe," its a groundless conjecture to assume that statements of belief are a challenge. Unless one is in the habit of putting words into someone else’s mouth and thoughts in their brain.

We don’t but you asked about the burden of proof so these are the answers you got.

 

[traillius]

some do, anyway. But I opened the door. Atheists lack of belief isn’t binding on me. Enjoy.

 

[_Locke]

how exactly do atheists view any statement of belief as an automatic implicit challenge. Apart from the actual words. " you should(must) believe," its a groundless conjecture to assume that statements of belief are a challenge. Unless one is in the habit of putting words into someone else’s mouth and thoughts in their brain.

So the original forum post was… rhetorical?

traillius:

some do, anyway. But I opened the door. Atheists lack of belief isn’t binding on me. Enjoy.

Have a nice night.

 

[Myqyl]

When I say “I believe in God” that is a statement of fact and not a challenge in any way.

When an athiest says “I don’t believe in God” (although most likely they’d use a lower case g) that is likewise a statement of fact and not a challenge.

When I say “God exists” the burden of proof lies on me, clearly…

When an athiest says “God doesn’t exist” the burden of proof lies just as clearily on his or her shoulders.

Personally I have no issue with assuming the burden of proof. So I’ll say it…

“God Exists!”

Why do athiests want to hide from the burden of proof?

God bless

 

[j1akey]

When I say “I believe in God” that is a statement of fact and not a challenge in any way.

When an athiest says “I don’t believe in God” (although most likely they’d use a lower case g) that is likewise a statement of fact and not a challenge.

When I say “God exists” the burden of proof lies on me, clearly…

When an athiest says “God doesn’t exist” the burden of proof lies just as clearily on his or her shoulders.

Personally I have no issue with assuming the burden of proof. So I’ll say it…

“God Exists!”

Why do athiests want to hide from the burden of proof?

God bless

Because you can’t prove a negative and to ask someone to do so is rediculous and a false argument, just like I can’t prove that flying pink unicorns don’t exist, and juset like you can’t prove that any other gods don’t exist either. However, I can say flying pink unicorns probably don’t exist and people don’t get in my face about it.

If I said “prove to me that other gods don’t exist” could you do it? Of course not. The burden of proof is on me to to prove they exists in the first place, I just can’t push it off to you to prove a negative because I can’t prove the positive.

 

[AntiTheist]

Now, when any claim is made, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. If there is not sufficient evidence to accept the claim, the rational position is to not accept the claim until such time as sufficience evidence is available.

For example, if a Hindu claims that “Shiva exists,” then it is up to him to provide evidence of this claim. I don’t have to disprove it – I simply don’t accept his claim until he’s able to demonstrate it. And since his “evidence” will consist of nothing but his own warm and fuzzy feelings when he prays and the “spiritual experiences” of others and a bunch of old legends – in short, observations about the world inside his head, not the world outside of it, which is the world in which this “Shiva” guy supposedly exists – he does not have sufficient evidence.

You know that this is true. Do you believe in Bigfoot? No, I’m not comparing your god to Bigfoot – I’m comparing standards of evidence.

Can you disprove Bigfoot absolutely? No? Then why don’t you accept that he exists? The fact of the matter is that there is no good evidence that Bigfoot exists, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to support the claim, the rational position is not to accept it.

 

[tonyrey]

Because you can’t prove a negative and to ask someone to do so is rediculous and a false argument, just like I can’t prove that flying pink unicorns don’t exist, and juset like you can’t prove that any other gods don’t exist either. .

How do you explain the fact that atheists are constantly stating that the amount of evil in the world proves that God does not exist?

 

[AntiTheist]

How do you explain the fact that atheists are constantly stating that the amount of evil in the world proves that God does not exist?

There are a lot of atheists who have a poor command of arguments against the existence of gods.

 

[j1akey]

How do you explain the fact that atheists are constantly stating that the amount of evil in the world proves that God does not exist?

I don’t know, ask an atheist who says that, which isn’t me.

Honestly though I get the feeling that when an atheist says that I think they might be trying to be sarcastic. I’ve never used that one because personally I think it’s a stupid argument to make in the first place.

 

[tonyrey]

Now, when any claim is made, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. If there is not sufficient evidence to accept the claim, the rational position is to not accept the claim until such time as sufficience evidence is available.

In a democratic society the view of the majority is regarded as significant and not to be ignored. Since the vast majority of people in the world are theists the onus is on the minority of atheists to justify their position. Theists also have to justify theirs. To hold or reject any view which affects society without giving any reason is not only unreasonable but unfair…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know, ask an atheist who says that, which isn’t me.

Honestly though I get the feeling that when an atheist says that I think it’s kind of a sarcatic argument. I’ve never used that one because personally I think it’s a stupid argument to make in the first place.

You are mistaken. Entire books have been written on the subject - which is not as straightforward as you think.If you voice that opinion often enough an atheist will tell you you’re stupid to think the argument is stupid! I obviously have no vested interest in promoting their view but I think it’s unreasonable to dismiss their argument without investigating it…

 

[AntiTheist]

Since the vast majority of people in the world are theists the onus is on the minority of atheists to justify their position.

Well, putting aside for a moment your bizarre conflation of procedural democracy and logic, I just did justify the atheist position quite adequately.

The atheist position is that there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.

The justification for this position is the correct observation that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any god. If you think there is sufficient evidence, feel free to present it. If you’re just going to hoot and holler and repeat irrelevant things, like, “Science cannot explain free will!!!” as if it had anything to do with the case you’re trying to make, don’t bother.

Glad to see you’ve cut out those ridiculous smiley faces, by the way.