Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[SkepticThinker]

What are you talking about? If you are going to quote my arguments you are expected to respond to suchh argument.

It's annoying when you quote my comments only to make a rabdom and irrelevant claim.


The particular claim that I made is that it is unlikely (nearly impossible) for someone to die for a lie that he himself invented.

So ether agree or refute the argument , this has nothibg to do with indulgences relics nor anything like that.

You've never met my brother-in-law then, if you believe that.

 

[KWED]

Me: "Gnostic Atheists say that there is no God. Nevertheless, scientists have not come to this Atheism's claim.

I am a scientist and I have come to that conclusion.
However, you should be aware that science is not is the business of disproving unfalsifiable claims.

Are you smarter than scientists? Why doesn't science say there is no God?"

Science merely shows that there is no need for a god to explain what we know, not that there isn't one.

Me: Atheists make a lot of claims.

Wrong. Atheists make only one claim, that they reject the existence of gods. Any other claim relates to some other position, not atheism.

Does this phrase carry absolutely no meaning and no information? If it does, then they claim that there is no God. So, atheists do claim, and not only their Atheism claims. Atheists repeat the claims of Atheism.

You're not making any sense there.

If you don't like the atheists "No belief in God"....
It carries no information. It is just definition of Atheism, which is simply "No God". No new info is presented by "No belief in God".

I seem to remember we've been here before.
Atheism is simply a negative position on the existence of gods. That is all. Nothing more.

1. Most of humankind is perfectly sure, there is God. They even feel God and talk to God.

Ad pop fallacy.

2. Most of humankind is not crazy.

Debatable. However, most of humankind has been indoctrinated into a religion, which would explain their willingness to accept it, despite the evidence and arguments against.

This 1+2 is very strong evidence.

lol! No it isn't.

All theists are right in one dogma: There is God.

Two problems there.
1. If there is a god, most theists are wrong about which god.
2. There is no evidence for any god so they could all be wrong.

Some theists, like Einstein, are wrong that the God is not a personal god; but they are right that there is God. Polytheists are right that there is God, but wrong about His quantity.

So you think that believing in a false god is support for the claim that there is a real god?
You'll have to explain that one! It sounds like you are saying that belief in imaginary unicorns supports the claim that real mermaids exist, which is obvious nonsense.

 

[KWED]

It carries no information. It is just definition of Atheism, which is simply "No God". No new info is presented by "No belief in God".

What "new information" were you hoping for?

 

[KWED]

Atheists find their truth through science, and it seems to make them content and satisfied

Not necessarily.
Many scientists find that their knowledge of the universe excludes any need for gods, but there are also atheists with no scientific qualifications who simply don't find any claims about god convincing.

 

[KWED]

Simply put....burden of proof is the responsibility of an individual or party to prove an assertion or claim that they have made.

If one says a god does exist, thats their claim or assertion

If one says a god doesn't exist, thats their claim or assertion.

Being neither can be known or shown,, That's the way I look at it.

Atheism is a response to theism.
The theist claims that their version of god really does exist, so they have a burden of proof.
The atheist, in essence, simply says "I don't accept your claim", and so has no burden of proof.

 

[KWED]

Since your OP concerns gnostic atheists, your OP doesn't address 99.99% of the atheists on this board.

Sincerely,
An agnostic atheist.

*holds hand up*
Gnostic atheist, agnostic deist here.

 

[KWED]

1. Most of humankind is perfectly sure, there is God. They even feel God and talk to God.

They could all be wrong. Most of them definitely are.

2. Most of humankind is not crazy.

Most of humankind is pretty gullible, especially during childhood.

 

[KWED]

I would have been sure that you, as a scientist would hove realised that

What makes you think QFT is a "scientist"?

 

[KWED]

The problem is that the OP screwed up his title as shown in his OP (two different uses of OP there). His title should have been "The burden of proof is upon gnostic atheists". I would tend to agree with that.

Indeed. I am always happy to explain why certain specific gods of certain specific religions don't exist.
However, my position of generally rejecting the claims of all types of supernatural being does not hold any burden of proof as it simply rests on the lack of evidence or argument for those claims..

 

[KWED]

The rules are the same for atheists as religious people. In fact it applies to all claims as a "golden" rule.

The only difference is that many claims are not particularly important, like you might claim to own a cat. The burden of proof is still on you, but the majority of people, will accept it without demanding you to demonstrate it, because it is of very little importance, whether you do in fact own a cat or not.

It's not just a matter or importance. There is also the issue of previous knowledge/likelihood.
If someone can't find their keys, claims of them being misplaced will carry more weight than claims of them being stolen by elves. Any rational person will reject the elven hypothesis and continue looking down the back of the sofa and in pockets. No one will bring up the burden of proof.

 

[KWED]

If nothing else, that demonstrates that being slightly bonkers doesn't preclude one from using multiple straw men.

 

[KWED]

They must prove it.

No. They merely have to present reasonable evidence or rational argument to support their position.

 

[KWED]

In the case of God, there are many things that have no explanation , that that could be explained if God exists. … (the fine tuning of the universe would be an example)

Oh, so you have evidence that the universe is actually "fine tuned"? Or are you simply asserting it because it appears that way to you?
If it is the latter (which it is) then there is nothing that requires explanation.
You are also just invoking the God Of The Gaps. It is interesting that of the "many things" you claim requires a god in order to explain it, the best you could come up with is the appearance of fine tuning. Remember that only a few centuries ago, your list would have been much longer and contain actual observable events, but most of that list now has known, natural explanations.

If we ever find say a fresh stegosaurus bone, it would be reasonable to conclude that stegosauruses are still alive………………. No body would say “ohhh that’s a stegosaurus of the gaps argumnet” just because we don’t know how the fresh bones got there that doesn’t mean that there are living stegosaurus today. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, maybe there is an unknown natural mechanism that makes the bones look young , when in reality they are millions of years old.

But you have no "fresh stegosaurus bone". You only have a stick that looks a bit like a stegosaurus bone.

In other words the skeptic is expected to refute say the” FT argument for the existence of God”, ether by disproving one of the premises, or by showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow , or by providing a better alternative.

Au contraire. The religionist must first demonstrate that there actually is fine tuning, and for there to be "tuning" there has to be a "tuner". Furthermore, you need to show that the "tuning mechanism" requires sentience, agency and purpose.
So, off you go...

 

[KWED]

Granted, but when an argument is presented,

With theists, there is often no argument, merely assertion.

you are expect to ether
1 refute the argument

Which even most agnostic atheists seem quite capable of doing.

2 justify your atheism given that argument (perhaps by presented a better argument in favor of atheism)

The "Everything we have an explanation for happens by natural means, so to insist that the things we haven't yet explained must be caused by the supernatural is fundamentally flawed" is always a better answer than "the god that I am unable to demonstrate must have done it".

3 admit your ignorance, claim that “you don’t know” and become an agnostic

Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

4 accept the argument and become a theist
(or latest move a step towards theism)

What argument? "We don't know how it happened, so a god must have done it"?
Behave!
Also, even if there was a supernatural cause for the universe (which it pretty much all you have left), that does not mean that the cause requires or deserves worship. The versions of god proposed by most religions are petty, vindictive, sadistic tyrants. No one in their right mind would think them worthy of respect or admiration.

So, even assuming your argument, deism is the best you can hope for.

 

[leroy]

I'm not talking about claims made by you; I'm talking about any claim that has been - or could be - made by anyone.

For instance, you're a monotheist, right? Assuming you are, the existence of any god besides the one god you believe in would be incompatible with your belief system.

... so if you set your standard of evidence for a god wherever you like, someone else could take that standard and apply it to some other god who you argue doesn't exist. If the case for the existence of that god also clears your standard, then it's demonstrably too low.

Once the bar is raised to the point that only one exclusionary belief system passes it, we can have reasonable differences of opinion about where the bar ought to be, but I've never seen the bar for any religious belief system get anywhere near that point.

I've also never seen any indication that Christianity would be the one religion that would clear the bar if it were set high enough that only one religion cleared it.

Take miracle claims. The best-supported miracle claim that I've ever seen was the Ganesha milk "miracle": lots of independent observations all over the world, including lots of independent video... I've never seen a Christian miracle claim that even comes close to that claim in terms of establishing that the purported miracle ever happened.

... so unless you have evidence of that quality or better - i.e. many independent accounts and reliable, clear video or something even more compelling - for whatever claims you're selling, your miracle claim has no hope of winning against that.

Yes I do believe that the evidence for Christianity is better than the evidence for any other religion, specifically the evidence for the resurrection is better than the evidence for any other miracle.

So if you affirm the opposite (for example if you affirm that the evidence for” Gilgamesh milk is better”) we can have a discussion on that.

If you have an attitude of “I won’t affirm nor deny athing, I will keep my view vague and be skeptic just for the sake of skepticism, I am not interested in a conversation

 

[KWED]

Yes If my grandmother tells me that she had an unambiguous experience where she saw an “ape-man” with her own eyes, i would believe in big foot or at least I would move a step towards beliving in it-

Do you automatically believe all claims made by all people, or do you have an hierarchy of acceptance?
If the latter, would you put your granny above or below evolutionary biologists, zoologists, etc?

Or else, I would have to provide good reasons to think why my grandma was likely mistaken or lying.

You do realise that every person has the innate ability to experience delusions that seem absolutely real to them? This is a vitally important point in understanding stuff like miracles, visions and other claims of "religious evidence". Then there is pareidolia and the like.
What you would actually have to do is establish that your granny's experience was not a misunderstanding or delusion.

 

[leroy]

You've never met my brother-in-law then, if you believe that.

You've never met my brother-in-law then, if you believe that.

Your brother in law invented a lie and then was willing to go to prison and die in the name of that lie. (such that by admitting his life we would have avoided persecution?)…………..(or anything analogous to that?)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes I do believe that the evidence for Christianity is better than the evidence for any other religion, specifically the evidence for the resurrection is better than the evidence for any other miracle.

So if you affirm the opposite (for example if you affirm that the evidence for” Gilgamesh milk is better”) we can have a discussion on that.

If you have an attitude of “I won’t affirm nor deny athing, I will keep my view vague and be skeptic just for the sake of skepticism, I am not interested in a conversation

You don't know the difference between Ganesha and Gilgamesh, but you think you know enough about other religions to say that your religion's evidence is better than theirs?

Give me a break.

 

[KWED]

The Christian God is not a magician.

What about "wizard" then? He does have a beard like Dumbledore, after all.

He makes wonders, not damn magic.

And what is magic if not wondrous?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Christian God is not a magician.

No; "magician" usually implies "human."

Your god may meet some of the broader definitions of "fairy."

He makes wonders, not damn magic.

What's the difference between a miracle and magic? IMO, they're the exact same thing.