• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

Y

Yorutenchi

Member
q konn said:
Atheism, /theoretically/, would use the same parameters to determine the best available option, or meta-option, regarding the existence of deities, or even broader ideas concerning theism, in all it's variations. So, no, there is no more burden of proof on theists to back up their beliefs ie ''claims'', in this context.
Click to expand...
Yes there are. No situation absolves the burden of proof.
In this thread, ''theism''. Contextually for this argument, 'G-d' was the subject of the debate. So, G-d, or, my statement that G-d exists, vs. the statement, that deity does not exist. The original post/s/ also included, ''other beings'', and the user offered some examples which I believe are arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Whatever your claim is would be what you are required to support. I have claims that I must support or take back. There is no assertion without proper support. That is fallacious. Do you propose that god exists?
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Quagmire said:
Going to side with q konn on this one.

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


And:



I would add to that to say that just because someone is asking for validation of a negative claim, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that they're advocating for it's opposite:

Bob the mechanic: What's wrong with this car?

Bill the mechanic: The carburetors aren't getting any gas.

Bob the mechanic: What makes you think the carburetors aren't getting any gas?

Bill the mechanic: Well, what makes you think that they are?

(that cars probably not going to get fixed anytime soon)
Click to expand...
Come on. This is silly. I clearly said "in this context", where the original claim is unfalsifiable.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Yorutenchi said:
Yes there are. No situation absolves the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Great, so you can prove that G-d does not exist?
Whatever your claim is would be what you are required to support. I have claims that I must support or take back. There is no assertion without proper support. That is fallacious. Do you propose that god exists?
Click to expand...
Required to support does not mean 'prove'. Merely because I cannot ''prove' that deity exists, neither takes the burden of proof off of the declarative position that deity does not exist, nor does it prove that deity does not exist.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
Great, so you can prove that G-d does not exist?

Required to support does not mean 'prove'. Merely because I cannot ''prove' that deity exists, neither takes the burden of proof off of the declarative position that deity does not exist.
Click to expand...
We are assuming that both claims are being made, correct?
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
Great, so you can prove that G-d does not exist?

Required to support does not mean 'prove'. Merely because I cannot ''prove' that deity exists, neither takes the burden of proof off of the declarative position that deity does not exist, or prove that deity does not exist.
Click to expand...
Why would you ask if he can prove that God does not exist?
 
Quagmire

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
leibowde84 said:
Come on. This is silly. I clearly said "in this context", where the original claim is unfalsifiable.
Click to expand...

Again:
wiki said:
]When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Again: it shouldn't be assumed that someone asking for validation of a negative claim (falsifiable or not) is automatically obligated to prove the opposite.

If I make the claim: "Genghis Khan never thought about puppies", I think a reasonable response would be "How do you know that".

If I turned around and said, "Hey, you can't prove a negative. Prove to me that he did think about puppies", now that would be silly.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
Why would you ask if he can prove that God does not exist?
Click to expand...

Lol you will notice that each time I have asked for the other user to prove that deity exists, it is because they have set the parameters for the argument to necessitate that proposal. The idea that theism has more of a ''burden of proof'', than an opposite declarative statement, causes the ''problem'', that you are encountering. Your system for determining burden of proof is incorrect, because it ignores inference from evidence, and logic.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Quagmire said:
Again: (emphasis mine)

Again: it shouldn't be assumed that someone asking for validation of a negative claim (falsifiable or not) is automatically obligated to prove the opposite.

If I make the claim: "Genghis Khan never thought about puppies", I think a reasonable response would be "How do you know that".

If I turned around and said, "Hey, you can't prove a negative. Prove to me that he did think about puppies", now that would be silly.
Click to expand...
But he made the initial claim.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
Lol you will notice that each time I have asked for the other user to prove that deity exists, it is because they have set the parameters for the argument to necessitate that proposal. The idea that theism has more of a ''burden of proof'', than an opposite declarative statement, causes the ''problem'', that you are encountering. Your system for determining burden of proof is incorrect, because it ignores inference from evidence, and logic.
Click to expand...
Well, it is indisputable that the claim "God exists" must have preceded the claim "God does not exist". You can't dispute the existence of a concept that doesn't exist.
 
Quagmire

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
leibowde84 said:
Sorry, I have been dealing with this guy dodging all day. I believe it started with his claim that God exists (I believe that God exists). Then he was asked to support that claim.
Click to expand...

Looks like it started here: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...-militant-atheists.179971/page-2#post-4428163

leibowde84 said:
Well, it is indisputable that the claim "God exists" must have preceded the claim "God does not exist". You can't dispute the existence of a concept that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Thing is those aren't our only two options. There's also "I don't know". And really, advocates of either of the other two options are entitled to assume neutrallity for the sake of argument.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
here is the initial post that then caused me to ask the user for proof that deity does not exist.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with this argument. He said that because you shouldn't apply rules that may or may not exist on others simply because you believe they do exist. Belief as to what God's will is is not knowledge of God's will in actuality.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
What do you disagree with in the article and why? I admit the name is silly, but the article definitely makes a valid point. And, they used the qualifier "militant", so doesn't that support our argument?
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Whose argument?

The name just caused confusion that is all I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top