" burden of proof "

[Moonstruck888]

If you want to go the formal academic route, then belief is the same as knowledge but it includes a little more, at least in a philosophical context.

Hardly. In academia, a belief is a belief until it makes predictions that can be verified or falsified.

The ancient Greek Fathers of Philosophy defined “Knowledge” as “justified, true, belief.” That’s philosophy 101 for you, specifically epistemology.

The ancients also burned people alive, nailed them to crosses and thought they could divine the future by poking around in the entrails of dead animals. I wouldn’t put much stock in what the ancients did.

You forgot to include philosophers.

You didn’t imagine that was an accident did you?

More accurately you should have said, “I believe everyone on Earth is an agnostic”. I would challenge this belief, and claim that you do not have “knowledge” (as I previously defined) of other people’s agnosticism. You have no justification for your belief that everyone is agnostic. What you meant to say is that “I am agnostic, and I assume everyone else is just like myself.”

I would say that if anyone who had ever lived could prove God existed as a matter of knowledge, he would have stepped forth and become the most famous and lauded man who ever lived. Since none have, it stands to reason that none can. That is because no one does know that God exists or doesn’t exist.

There is no philosophical proof for the existence of other minds, let alone other minds that are capable of beliefs.

We’re done. There is physical, verfiable proof of the existence of other minds. The Turing test is one example.

 

[Touchstone]

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. "

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding at work here. A positive assertion (“I believe a God exists”) is not just a “mirror image” of a negative proposition (“I do not believe a God exists”). As a starting point, we are agnostic, and must be, unless the matter is self evident (which is another appeal that theists sometimes make, curiously, that God is “self-evident”, but that’s another matter).

Agnosticism, or withholding of belief is NOT denial, and this is the “excluded middle” that is being overlooked here, from what I can see. It’s a position of non-commitment, a conservative stance, epistemically. If we do not want to be taken advantage and played for a fool, we adopt a conservative, skeptical stance, lest we trade our paycheck for a handful of magic beans, etc.

This applies to the atheist just as well. If I say “There is no God” I am making a positive claim about the existence of God. The burden is on my in my argument. As it happens, that’s not one of the heavier burdens to carry as arguments go, but nevertheless, the principle applies across the board – non-knowledge is our starting point for propositions that aren’t simply self-evident.

Both are intellectually dishonest. In effect, disbelieving the existence of God is philosophically the same as believing the nonexistence of God.

Here again there’s a subtle but crucial distinction that needs be kept in mind. These are NOT equivalent statements.

1. I do not believe a God exists.
2. I believe a God (or any god) does not exist.
3. is fully compatible with agnosticism, and does not deny that God exists, but rather states something else, that one does not have a belief in that God’s existence, regardless of whether God does or does not actually exist.
4. is positive claim towards God’s non-existence, and is incompatible with agnosticism. Here, the claimant carries a burden of proof.

Thus atheists are making a specific claim of the nonexistence of God. Generally burden of proof applies equally to both sides of an argument.

The principle applies to all, equally, but the burdens are quite different. A universal negative is a non-starter in terms of proof; there is no evidence that can establish the non-existence of a god in a universal evidence. The best that can be achieved is to note the conspicuous lack of evidence for such a god that we might reasonably expect to identify if such a god did exist. But all atheism is proper just a matter of intensity in one’s agnosticism, for it’s trivial to slice and dice an atheist’s arguments for epistemic certainty in the idea that God does NOT exist.

But that burden is not at all like the theist’s burden. Both are burdens to carry, but they couldn’t be more different. The theist on the other hand, has a proposition to establish through evidence and argument in a positive sense – this is a real entity and its reality is demonstrated by this, that, and oh, this bit over here…

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.

One cannot prove a universal negative. What an atheist carries is the burden of establish what we should expect to see in a “Godful” reality, and what we should expect to see in a godless reality, and then cite the evidence that argues for a “godless” reality as the actual one. Many forms of theism, like Catholicism, are perfectly unfalsifiable in principle, so there is no evidence or analysis that can work against it – it’s not accountable to evidence or analysis. But that’s a shortcoming of theism, not the critic’s argument.

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.

People are free to think what they want. This isn’t about coercion, but about thinking in a rigorous, precise and disciplined way about the world. No one’s obligated, but we can assess our own beliefs and those of others based on the integrity and coherence of the principles applied in coming to a stated 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.

No, but so long as the understanding is “my ideas are worth considering” – and if they are not, one is just wasting everyone’s time – there is the demand for coherence and discipline in thinking that establishes the epistemic value of the claim. If you say something is true, it’s credible and influential in proportion to its warrant and analytical integrity. No one is obligated to follow, but that is the basis for its valuation, epistemically.

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

Hah. Maybe this is a tongue-in-cheek response, but if not, it’s a textbook case of the “argument from ignorance shift of burden of proof” fallacy. A stark example of a serious error in thinking, and shame to the person hearing that who accepts that kind of trick.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

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.

I see no such challenge. Rather, if we share an objective, extramental reality, we are bound to agreement fundamentally about propositions and statements about that reality which obtain objectively. When you say “unicorns are real”, the problem is NOT some perceived obligation to fall in line. The criticism you receive is for your benefit. This is how you identify and remedy your own errors. When I say “God does not exist”, it is not incumbent on you to agree. If you see the errors in that conclusion, and what goes into arriving at that conclusion, you are doing me a favor in pointing out the errors. And reminding me of my burdens of proof and holding me to it is a favor done. For the self is the easiest person for us to fool, and we are all dependent on others as the means of climbing (part way at least) out of our cave of subjectivity towards an objective perspective on ourselves and the world around us.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

For the self is the easiest person for us to fool, and we are all dependent on others as the means of climbing (part way at least) out of our cave of subjectivity towards an objective perspective on ourselves and the world around us.

Are you suggesting our knowledge of ourselves may be false? Or distorted in some way? Surely we do not imagine that we are thinking. If we deny our thoughts are real we undermine their validity. Everything we think would be worthless - including the thought “Everything we think is worthless”!

What you describe as “our cave of subjectivity” is the only certainty we have. Everything else is the result of inference. It does not follow that because our thoughts are subjective they are not also objective. A materialist may try to reduce them to electrical activity in the brain but it is a futile enterprise. He is using what is inferred to eliminate the source of the inference. He is reducing it to electrical activity. In other words he is asserting that electrical activity is interpreting electrical activity! How on earth did it acquire that magical power?

Our thoughts and perceptions are our primary data and our only guide to reality. If they are not real they are immediately suspect. If they consisted of nothing more than electrical activity surely they would be publicly accessible and no longer in a cave of subjectivity. The concept of unique, private and privileged access to our own experience would no longer be tenable. The notion of qualia would be superfluous. We would no longer have an individual identity. Our entire view of ourselves as distinct, autonomous, responsible entities with a right to life, liberty and happiness would be an illusion.

Fair enough, you may say. The truth does not always correspond to our preconceptions and habits of thought. Scientific discoveries are often at odds with common sense. Since everything is composed of the physical quanta of energy there is no need and no reason to postulate metaphysical and moral truths. There is no need and no reason to postulate anything at all - except the physical quanta of energy! But where does that leave you?Without the power to postulate or reason or reach any conclusions whatsoever…

 

[Touchstone]

Are you suggesting our knowledge of ourselves may be false? Or distorted in some way? Surely we do not imagine that we are thinking. If we deny our thoughts are real we undermine their validity. Everything we think would be worthless - including the thought “Everything we think is worthless”!

The idea that we are thinking is not false – it’s self-evident. The truth about what we are thinking is liable to error, though. And this can in many cases be remedied by consulting external sources. If we do a survey and find that out of 10,000 polled drivers, 75% of them think they are “far above average” drivers, we understand that somewhere in there, some substantial number of people are mistaken about their own skills as a driver with respect to the other drivers on the road. As humans, we have emotional and psychological dispositions toward various conceits and biases that can distort our understanding of the world, and ourselves.

Reaching out for objective anlaysis and critique is one way to identify our own errors and biases. It’s not skepticism that we think, it’s the acknowledgement that objective analysis can identify and help correct errors we entertain subjectively.

What you describe as “our cave of subjectivity” is the only certainty we have. Everything else is the result of inference. It does not follow that because our thoughts are subjective they are not also objective.

That’s precisely what subjective entails. Objective here means, “extra-mental, independent of the mind”. Subjective is precisely the negation of that – mental, produced by the mind.

A materialist may try to reduce them to electrical activity in the brain but it is a futile enterprise. He is using what is inferred to eliminate the source of the inference. He is reducing it to electrical activity. In other words he is asserting that electrical activity is interpreting electrical activity! How on earth did it acquire that magical power?

It’s the antithesis of magic. It’s just chemsitry and physics, working according to physical law. It couldn’t be any less magical than that. You’re apparently thinking that it must be somehow a work of magic for the mind to be… non-magical!

Our thoughts and perceptions are our primary data and our only guide to reality. If they are not real they are immediately suspect. If they consisted of nothing more than electrical activity surely they would be publicly accessible and no longer in a cave of subjectivity.

Even if there emerge machines which can read our minds, fMRI-style, subjectivity remains, so long as that mind relies on itself only. Objectivity is introduced to the degree that one subjects beliefs and ideas to other independent minds, or instruments and machinery which do not plausibly maintain the same biases and prejudices we do. One is subjective to the degree one has not deployed mechanisms to identify and correct one’s own personal biases and errors.

The concept of unique, private and privileged access to our own experience would no longer be tenable. The notion of qualia would be superfluous. We would no longer have an individual identity. Our entire view of ourselves as distinct, autonomous, responsible entities with a right to life, liberty and happiness would be an illusion.

Why? I don’t see that “mind reading”, should that become mechanized in some way, would change any of that. The mind is still biology, and integrated into the person as a whole. The mind is not divorced from the body. Emotions are triggered in gut (neurotransmitters), and these are a heavy influence on our thinking and cognition. That can’t be replicated without replicating the infrastructure it operates in. The individual is safe as an individual until such time as we can make a perfect clone right down to the quantum level – and that isn’t possible, in principle, by the dynamics of quantum physics. So don’t hold your breath, you’ve nothing to worry about any time soon.

Fair enough, you may say. The truth does not always correspond to our preconceptions and habits of thought. Scientific discoveries are often at odds with common sense. Since everything is composed of the physical quanta of energy there is no need and no reason to postulate metaphysical and moral truths. There is no need and no reason to postulate anything at all - except the physical quanta of energy! But where does that leave you?Without the power to postulate or reason or reach any conclusions whatsoever…

Moral convictions are important for survival. We are a social, gregarious specious. It’s not an option. We are wired, physically, to think and act in social terms, in moral terms. The reality of our physical reality, as being comprised of atoms making up molecules making up compounds, etc. doesn’t change that at all. It’s that very stuff that has been optimized by the environment to make reasoning and moral thinking an imperative for us.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

The idea that we are thinking is not false – it’s self-evident. The truth about what we are thinking is liable to error, though… As humans, we have emotional and psychological dispositions toward various conceits and biases that can distort our understanding of the world, and ourselves.

How can “we are thinking” be self-evident when “we” and “thinking” are equated with electrical activity? There seems no obvious connection between them.

Reaching out for objective analysis and critique is one way to identify our own errors and biases. It’s not skepticism that we think, it’s the acknowledgement that objective analysis can identify and help correct errors we entertain subjectively.

Do you mean that objective analysis and critique are a more reliable guide to reality than
subjective experience?

What you describe as “our cave of subjectivity” is the only certainty we have. Everything else is the result of inference. It does not follow that because our thoughts are subjective they are not also objective.

That’s precisely what subjective entails. Objective here means, “extra-mental, independent of the mind”. Subjective is precisely the negation of that – mental, produced by the mind.

It seems more logical to regard “objective” as the negation - given that our primary datum and sole certainty is subjective.

A materialist may try to reduce them to electrical activity in the brain but it is a futile enterprise. He is using what is inferred to eliminate the source of the inference. He is reducing it to electrical activity. In other words he is asserting that electrical activity is** interpreting**

electrical activity! How on earth did it acquire that magical power?

It’s the antithesis of magic. It’s just chemistry and physics, working according to physical law. It couldn’t be any less magical than that. You’re apparently thinking that it must be somehow a work of magic for the mind to be… non-magical!

Why use the term “mind” as if it is distinct from the physical activity of the brain?

Even if there emerge machines which can read our minds, fMRI-style, subjectivity remains, so long as that mind relies on itself only.

You are presupposing that the mind is an independent entity. Self-reliance is not a recognised feature of electrical activity.

Objectivity is introduced to the degree that one subjects beliefs and ideas to other independent minds, or instruments and machinery which do not plausibly maintain the same biases and prejudices we do.

Does independence amount to no more than having different biases and prejudices?

One is subjective to the degree one has not deployed mechanisms to identify and correct one’s own personal biases and errors.

Does the subjective self cease to exist when personal biases and errors have been eliminated?

The concept of unique, private and privileged access to our own experience would no longer be tenable. The notion of qualia would be superfluous. We would no longer have an individual identity. Our entire view of ourselves as distinct, autonomous, responsible entities with a right to life, liberty and happiness would be an illusion.

Why? I don’t see that “mind reading”, should that become mechanized in some way, would change any of that. The mind is still biology, and integrated into the person as a whole. The mind is not divorced from the body.

Why postulate the mind at all? Surely it is superfluous…

Emotions are triggered in gut (neurotransmitters), and these are a heavy influence on our thinking and cognition. That can’t be replicated without replicating the infrastructure it operates in. The individual is safe as an individual until such time as we can make a perfect clone right down to the quantum level – and that isn’t possible, in principle, by the dynamics of quantum physics. So don’t hold your breath, you’ve nothing to worry about any time soon.

According to the materialist neurotransmitters must be more than a heavy influence on our thinking and cognition: they **completely **determine thinking and cognition.

If everything is composed of the physical quanta of energy there is no need and no reason to postulate metaphysical and moral truths. There is no need and no reason to postulate anything at all - except the physical quanta of energy! But where does that leave you?Without the power to postulate or reason or reach any conclusions whatsoever…

Moral convictions are important for survival. We are a social, gregarious specious. It’s not an option. We are wired, physically, to think and act in social terms, in moral terms. The reality of our physical reality, as being comprised of atoms making up molecules making up compounds, etc. doesn’t change that at all. It’s that very stuff that has been optimized by the environment to make reasoning and moral thinking an imperative for us.

If moral convictions are no more than the way we are wired they cease to be moral! We are compelled to think, feel, make decisions and act in certain ways without having any control whatsoever over the activity inaccurately described as ours. Moral imperatives are reduced to physical imperatives. In fact all imperatives are no more than descriptions of the way physical objects - including human beings - are programmed. The element of choice is non-existent. Reasoning is simply electrical activity which refers to nothing but itself. Or, at a more basic level, atomic particles happen to be rearranging themselves for no reason or purpose whatsoever…

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Hardly. In academia, a belief is a belief until it makes predictions that can be verified or falsified.
The ancients also burned people alive, nailed them to crosses and thought they could divine the future by poking around in the entrails of dead animals. I wouldn’t put much stock in what the ancients did.

The ancients also invented “science”. By your logic we should throw that out too? I don’t understand how the atheists here just side step logic when it’s convenient. It’s almost as if they have an ax to grind…

“Justified true belief” is still accepted as a standard for most modern epistemology. If you don’t believe me type it into google.

I would say that if anyone who had ever lived could prove God existed as a matter of knowledge, he would have stepped forth and become the most famous and lauded man who ever lived. Since none have, it stands to reason that none can. That is because no one does know that God exists or doesn’t exist.

The most (in)famous man who ever lived was Jesus Christ. You make the fallacious assumption that everyone would be content with the knowledge that “God exists”. What if God demanded of his creation that they deny their most basic instincts?

The 12 apostles knew for a fact (that had knowlege of) that Jesus Christ was either God or a fraud.

There is no philosophical proof for the existence of other minds, let alone other minds that are capable of beliefs.

The key word is philosophical proof. You must have missed that.

 

[wanstronian]

No, the word is the word, and the definition holds.

Well, if you deny that words can have context, then your argument just evaporates.

Ears unused to the proper application of the English language will find it odd, but it is correct anyway.

Patronise me if you want, but I’m perfectly literate… but it’s becoming more obvious with each post that you are out of your depth here, and you’re backfilling with bluster.

I would state that I do not believe it exists and ask for proof.

If someone challenged it by saying that it is my faith I would have to correct them.

My faith involves God and his church. There is not room for a celestial teapot.

So you also rely on Special Pleading to support your non-argument?

Don’t you ever get tired of playing to the vocabulary?

I’m pointing out that context makes a difference. You deny this, which is why your pseudo-command of the English language is being rapidly exposed.

Really, you just admitted the word is what I say it is yet keep insisting you do not have to account for it. It is readily obvious what people mean when the word faith is used. Yet you wish to claim atheists are special and have different definitions for words. That simply does not fly.

I conceded - as from the start - that there is more than one definition of faith. My ‘faith’ that God doesn’t exist is the same as your ‘faith’ that Zeus doesn’t exist.

And you are positive there is no God.

As positive as you are that there is no Zeus.

The phrase is not “I have no faith in…” the phrase is “I have faith in…”

You’ve never heard the expression, “I have no faith in…?” No wonder your argument is so flawed!

In your case, “I have faith that God does not exist.”

Yes - if in your case, “I have faith that Zeus does not exist.”

Else you end up making a positive statement either about your intelligence or about God instead of a positive about your faith.

Which is fine, because I don’t have faith that there is no God, I have belief. That is the more correct word to use. But you’re twisting the definitions for the sole purpose of avoiding having to justify your own irrational faith in superstition. You’ve already admitted that this is your motivation!

You make me laugh.

I have a coworker here that is a real louse. The man cannot get the job done, and has no work ethic at all. And yes, I have expressed faith in his ability to screw up the task at hand on many occasions.

It seems that your entire argument is based on semantic manipulation and improper transposition of opposing argument, driven by a desire to be right.

No, atheists are not special. They do not get to decide what words mean to them.

Yet for some reason you do!

There is no special vocabulary to cater to their beliefs.

Nor is one needed.

Without more information on these flying cats it would be difficult to answer.

One may well challenge the faith and find that the person believes a cat can fly as far as it can be thrown. And they would be right.

However, if we are speaking of their ability to fly under their own power; then we could say that the one that disbelieves this does not have faith, they have direct knowledge.

Cats cannot fly of their own power. This can be readily tested and proven. Faith is not involved; direct knowledge is.

Actually, it can’t be readily tested and proven. It can be discounted on the basis of probability. Exactly the same process used by rational people to discount the existence of gods and other supernatural phenomena.

You cannot have direct knowledge that God does not exist, therefore this belief is faith.

You cannot have direct knowledge that Zeus does not exist, therefore this belief is faith.

Despite claiming it is flawed, you seem singularly unwilling to explain why my Zeus analogy is incorrect. Why is that? As if I didn’t know…

If someone wishes to claim their belief concerning God is not faith, they need to cough up evidence to prove this.

Yawn… The justification is that there is no evidence for his existence, and that his existence would be a phenomenen so incredible that to believe it without evidence would be foolish.

The theist belief states that God created the universe and everything in it.

All of these other qualities simply follow as a logical progression of the premise that God is ultimately in control of the creation.

The atheist need simply make the claim that it is not so, but without direct knowledge of it is still practicing faith.

And once again - the two ‘faiths’ are not the same. Your faith is justifiable only if you provide evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of your claim. My belief is justifiable purely by pointing out that your claim is incredible, and that it has no supporting evidence.

Atheists are not special.

They have to follow the same rules as anyone else.

And we do, demonstrably.

You wish to claim atheism is not a faith, fine. But provide the proof or direct knowledge thereof.

When you understand why your belief in no Zeus is not appropriately called a faith, you will understand why my belief in no gods isn’t either.

I don’t much care whether you think I have faith or belief - the important point is that I can deliver on my burden of proof; the theist is unable to deliver on his.

I can’t help you any more - your argument crumbles under the weight of its own fallacy.

 

[vz71]

Well, if you deny that words can have context, then your argument just evaporates.

The context has been clear from the start of this conversation.
You well knew the context I was utilizing and the definitions thereof.
And yet…here we are.
It would seem you are quite content to claim atheists have a special quality that allows them to ignore both context and proper definition.

So you also rely on Special Pleading to support your non-argument?

For a non-argument, you do seem to spend a great deal of time and effort.
Perhaps the argument is more persuasive then you would have the audience believe.

I conceded - as from the start - that there is more than one definition of faith. My ‘faith’ that God doesn’t exist is the same as your ‘faith’ that Zeus doesn’t exist.

Yes, it may very well be.
But my faith concerning Zeus is not in question nor has it ever been part of the question.

Which is fine, because I don’t have faith that there is no God, I have belief. That is the more correct word to use. But you’re twisting the definitions for the sole purpose of avoiding having to justify your own irrational faith in superstition. You’ve already admitted that this is your motivation!

Your belief is based upon nothing.
Your claim of non-evidence is logically flawed.
And thus, your belief is a faith.

Actually, it can’t be readily tested and proven. It can be discounted on the basis of probability. Exactly the same process used by rational people to discount the existence of gods and other supernatural phenomena.

So let me get this straight.
You believe that it is possible for cats to fly under their own power and believe it a statement of faith that someone claims otherwise?
I should remind you that disbelief in flying cats is observable, testable, and repeatable.
None of those qualities accompanies any type of disbelief in God.

You cannot have direct knowledge that Zeus does not exist, therefore this belief is faith.

Perhaps, but my faith is not in question, and is off topic.
The object of question here is your claim that atheism is not a faith.

Despite claiming it is flawed, you seem singularly unwilling to explain why my Zeus analogy is incorrect. Why is that? As if I didn’t know…

Because Zeus is a red herring to the subject at hand.
“As if you didn’t know…” indeed, how dishonest of you to continue pushing the topic when you well know.
So tell us, what else are you being deceiptful about?

And once again - the two ‘faiths’ are not the same. Your faith is justifiable only if you provide evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of your claim. My belief is justifiable purely by pointing out that your claim is incredible, and that it has no supporting evidence.

But that is not what the atheist claim.
The atheist claim is very specific, “there is no god.”
I thought you understood atheism better then this.

And we do, demonstrably.

But you do not.
You demonstrate lack of evidence for other claims, but do not at any point provide evidence for your own.

I don’t much care whether you think I have faith or belief - the important point is that I can deliver on my burden of proof;

Then do so.
Provide the proof that God does not exist.
And remember, you must have evidence of your own, not simply evidence that other claims are false.

the theist is unable to deliver on his.

Right, now let us get past the false dichotomy you are setting up and move to the meat of the issue. Where is the proof that you promised?

 

[wanstronian]

The context has been clear from the start of this conversation.
You well knew the context I was utilizing and the definitions thereof.
And yet…here we are.
It would seem you are quite content to claim atheists have a special quality that allows them to ignore both context and proper definition.

For a non-argument, you do seem to spend a great deal of time and effort.
Perhaps the argument is more persuasive then you would have the audience believe.

Yes, it may very well be.
But my faith concerning Zeus is not in question nor has it ever been part of the question.

Your belief is based upon nothing.
Your claim of non-evidence is logically flawed.
And thus, your belief is a faith.

So let me get this straight.
You believe that it is possible for cats to fly under their own power and believe it a statement of faith that someone claims otherwise?
I should remind you that disbelief in flying cats is observable, testable, and repeatable.
None of those qualities accompanies any type of disbelief in God.

Perhaps, but my faith is not in question, and is off topic.
The object of question here is your claim that atheism is not a faith.

Because Zeus is a red herring to the subject at hand.
“As if you didn’t know…” indeed, how dishonest of you to continue pushing the topic when you well know.
So tell us, what else are you being deceiptful about?

But that is not what the atheist claim.
The atheist claim is very specific, “there is no god.”
I thought you understood atheism better then this.

But you do not.
You demonstrate lack of evidence for other claims, but do not at any point provide evidence for your own.

Then do so.
Provide the proof that God does not exist.
And remember, you must have evidence of your own, not simply evidence that other claims are false.


Right, now let us get past the false dichotomy you are setting up and move to the meat of the issue. Where is the proof that you promised?

1. You do not understand (or are intentionally misrepresenting) atheism. Your entire argument is against a straw man.
2. The burden of proof for “no gods” is easily met.
3. The burden of proof for “God” has never been met.
4. You are unable to recognise a valid analogy (Zeus) and its relevance.
5. You are apparently unable to answer the question re: Zeus.
6. You have admitted your motivation for trying to force this issue is to avoid having to justify your belief in God.

So you lose. Goodbye.

 

[vz71]

1. You do not understand (or are intentionally misrepresenting) atheism. Your entire argument is against a straw man.

Actually, all I have argued is that it is a faith.
Thus far you have been unable to answer it with any more then pleas to change the context and definition of the words in use.

1. The burden of proof for “no gods” is easily met.

Really? Then prove it. On its own merits, without referencing other faiths.

1. The burden of proof for “God” has never been met.

But that is not in discussion.
And in fact, there is already acceptance by both theists and atheists that it is a faith.
Absolute proof is not necessary.

1. You are unable to recognise a valid analogy (Zeus) and its relevance.

I have recognized it for what it is, a red herring.

1. You are apparently unable to answer the question re: Zeus.

I have answered it. You just do not wish to accept that the analogy you are attempting to draw simply does not work.

1. You have admitted your motivation for trying to force this issue is to avoid having to justify your belief in God.

Nope, never said it nor implied it.
My motivation was the question concerning who precisely has the burden of proof.
The answer is that it belongs to the one making the assertion.
You asserted that atheism is not a faith, therefore you must prove that.
Thus far, you have complained a great deal but have yet to offer up one iota of evidence that atheism is anything more then a faith.

So you lose. Goodbye.

You failed to answer a single argument and yet you claim I lose.

Oh well, what can one expect from such a distorted view of reality.

 

[wanstronian]

Nope, never said it nor implied it.

You’re right here actually, that was the OP. I got confused. Apologies, my mistake.

All my other points hold.

You failed to answer a single argument and yet you claim I lose.

Well, actually I’ve answered them all. Unlike you, who is still avoiding the Zeus analogy.

This is really pointless. Your argument is weak, and pretending it is strong gets us nowhere.

Oh well, what can one expect from such a distorted view of reality.

Wishful thinking won’t help you either. I’m done here, unless you can offer a real argument.

 

[vz71]

Well, actually I’ve answered them all. Unlike you, who is still avoiding the Zeus analogy.

In this thread you have repeatedly claimed proof of your beliefs.
And I have asked you to provide it each time.
You have yet to.

This is really pointless. Your argument is weak, and pretending it is strong gets us nowhere.

Then it must be even more aggrevating that you perceived a weak argument but cannot refute it.
This is what many call deceptively simple.

Wishful thinking won’t help you either. I’m done here, unless you can offer a real argument.

Of course you are done.
You have claimed you can prove God does not exist and cannot keep your word.
I need provide no further argument then your own words.

1. The burden of proof for “no gods” is easily met.

I don’t much care whether you think I have faith or belief - the important point is that I can deliver on my burden of proof; the theist is unable to deliver on his

.

So where is this proof you so boldly spoke of?
Surely you have some proof somewhere to help ease the weight of your own words…right?

 

[Moonstruck888]

four separate variations on the principle of the uncaused cause have already proven the existence of the creator. These are philosophically accurate, and unassailable, unless one resorts to some illogical disagreement on humanistic objectionary grounds. Even then, the proof is still solid. As all should agree, humanistic objections aren’t accurate or logical enough to disprove any philosophical argument. ( not liking a belief is not sufficient to disprove the belief )

If they are so unasailable then by all means bring them on. Let’s see them.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The ancients also invented “science”. By your logic we should throw that out too? I don’t understand how the atheists here just side step logic when it’s convenient. It’s almost as if they have an ax to grind…

Actually, modern science is a comparatively recent invention, around five hundred years old. Some earlier philosophers almost got it, but the scientific method as we know it today is a product of the last millennium.

“Justified true belief” is still accepted as a standard for most modern epistemology. If you don’t believe me type it into google.

I don’t doubt your sincerity, and I don’t doubt your statement on the standards of modern epistimology, it’s just that I don’t accept on face value epistemological arguments that have not been ratified by scientific testing.

The most (in)famous man who ever lived was Jesus Christ. You make the fallacious assumption that everyone would be content with the knowledge that “God exists”. What if God demanded of his creation that they deny their most basic instincts?

Then he is perverse and wicked and not worthy of worship.

The key word is philosophical proof. You must have missed that.

I accept that other minds exist on face value. In order for any contrived artifice to be be able to fool me into thinking it was a mind, it would need to exhibit consciousness and self awareness.

You philosophers irritate me with your incessant hair splitting, pedancy and false dichotomies, therefore you are.

I’ll leave the philosophical proof to the philosophers, and get on with interacting with the other minds that I fully accept the existence of.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Actually, modern science is a comparatively recent invention, around five hundred years old. Some earlier philosophers almost got it, but the scientific method as we know it today is a product of the last millennium.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs here but I meant “science” as you would find it in an etymology dictionary. Logic is a “science” and was referred to as such by Greek philosophers. So is geometry, etc. It’s actually impossible to divorce the word “science” from epistemology in any sort of technical sense of the word.

I don’t doubt your sincerity, and I don’t doubt your statement on the standards of modern epistimology, it’s just that I don’t accept on face value epistemological arguments that have not been ratified by scientific testing.

What I said above. Also if you are interested in epistemology/ philosophy from a “scientific” (in your sense of the word) perspective. I think you might enjoy reading Karl Popper. I find it odd that you don’t accept “on face value” what I am trying to describe about knowledge itself, but you DO accept “on face value” that I have a consciousness or mind. It’s a contradiction within the confines of the science of logic. You could subject the hypothesis, “the person I am dialoguing with on CAF has a brain” to scientific testing, but not “that person has a mind”, or the hypothesis that “scientific testing is required for belief”.

Then he is perverse and wicked and not worthy of worship.

The question at hand in the context of our discussion was “Does God exist?”, not “If He does exist, is He worthy of worship?”. You made the claim that “if someone could prove the existence of God, they would be lauded, praised, etc becoming the most famous person to ever exist throughout the history of our species” or something like that. I pointed out that the most famous “person” throughout the history of our species (who also claimed to be God and has quite a following I’m told) is Jesus Christ. I then tried to demonstrate that the value of proving the existence of God is not somehow intrinsic, and if someone were to accomplish such a feat, it would not necessarily, from the perspective of logic, be laudable.

I accept that other minds exist on face value. In order for any contrived artifice to be be able to fool me into thinking it was a mind, it would need to exhibit consciousness and self awareness.

I don’t think your position is consistent, even if you find what I am telling you to be slightly ridiculous but you can fully expect to come to a philosophy forum on the internet and become irritated by people in a discipline who frequently discuss whether or not a “tree” is actually a “tree” if you are not in that same discipline yourself.

Hope all is well with you my friend.

 

[NotReligous]

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.

I 100% agree.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Maybe I’m splitting hairs here but I meant “science” as you would find it in an etymology dictionary. Logic is a “science” and was referred to as such by Greek philosophers. So is geometry, etc. It’s actually impossible to divorce the word “science” from epistemology in any sort of technical sense of the word.

J’adoube.

The modern scientific method is five hundred years old or thereabouts.

What I said above. Also if you are interested in epistemology/ philosophy from a “scientific” (in your sense of the word) perspective.

I’m not. The philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as a maths degree is to a billiards player.

The question at hand in the context of our discussion was “Does God exist?”, not “If He does exist, is He worthy of worship?”. You made the claim that “if someone could prove the existence of God, they would be lauded, praised, etc becoming the most famous person to ever exist throughout the history of our species” or something like that. I pointed out that the most famous “person” throughout the history of our species (who also claimed to be God and has quite a following I’m told) is Jesus Christ. I then tried to demonstrate that the value of proving the existence of God is not somehow intrinsic, and if someone were to accomplish such a feat, it would not necessarily, from the perspective of logic, be laudable.

Jesus Christ claimed to be God, that much is true. What he failed to do was prove that he was God.

I don’t think your position is consistent, even if you find what I am telling you to be slightly ridiculous but you can fully expect to come to a philosophy forum on the internet and become irritated by people in a discipline who frequently discuss whether or not a “tree” is actually a “tree” if you are not in that same discipline yourself.

I interact with other human minds every day and their observations are consistent with my own observations on what it is to be a mind. Therefore, I don’t consider your claim to be in possession of a mind at large to be an extraordinary one. I know minds exist.

On the otherhand. I have never encountered a deity nor seen any viable evidence of one, so I regard deistic and theistic claims with a healthy does of skepticism.

Hope all is well with you my friend.

Likewise.

 

[Leela]

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.

Hi Antitheist,

I don’t think I have a burden of proof simply upon claiming “I believe in bigfoot.” Such a burden to justify our beliefs to others only arises when we try to get someone else to do something based on our beliefs. For example, if I said, “we need to raise taxes to support environmental protections for bigfoot habitats,” I’ll need to justify my belief that bigfoot exists, and that I know where he lives

Best,
Leela.