Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[KWED]

Despite all scientific development, the Mystery will never be resolved. Mystery of Nature will remain forever.
Hence, there can be wonderful God, who makes wonders.

Oh dear. You do realise that pretty much everything that was once "god's mystery" is now an understood process with a natural explanation?

Here's a challenge for you that I like to present in such circumstances.
Take a piece of paper and write down all the things that once had a scientific explanation but are now known to be caused by god.
I'll take a piece of paper (actually, several) and write down all the things that were once thought to be caused by gods but now have a scientific explanation.
I'll give you £1000 for everything on your list, if you give me £10 for everything on my list.
Do you accept?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?)

My brother-in-law will lie some more, continue lying and stand behind all the lies, just to cover up his initial lie.
I think he actually believes his lies are true. I'm sure there is a lot of saving face involved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I think "wizard" still implies human, though.

Probably the best label for a non-human magical being that sometimes takes human form would be "fairy."

 

[ChristineM]

What makes you think QFT is a "scientist"?

He keeps saying he is, he believes he is. Who am i to contact that?

 

[leroy]

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?

I have a hierchy

I don’t see why the opinion of evolutionary biologists, zoologists, etc., there is nothing that contradicts the existence of a big ape with big feet..

It depends on the testimony , if she says that she saw a distant shadow that moreless lookes like a big ape, her testimony won’t count much

If she directly saw the ape, and even played with it, her testimony would be much stronger

If other independent witnesses where there and testified the same thing then the testimony would be much stronger to a degree of nearly 100% certainty

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.

Its all about probabilities

1 the probability that there is a big ape in the forest (and my grand ma saw it)

2 vs the probability that she is having hallucinations.

It´s hard to put objective numbers to each of these probabilities, but at least intuitively one can tell which probability is higher.

If she saw an ape, played with him and other people saw the same thing, then 1 woudl be more likely than 2.

If she saw a distant shadow, that moreless looked like an ape, then 1 would seem more likely.

 

[KWED]

Look the correct use of words:
Police executes criminals, but criminals murder people.
Army executes enemies, but enemies murder people.

Depends on the context and who is doing the labelling.
The corrupt police in an authoritarian state murder people. The freedom fighters of the revolution are executing criminals.

God makes wonders, but satan makes magic.

So they both do the same thing but the label depends on your whose side you are on?
Fair enough.

 

[KWED]

Or how about Jennifer Cisowski (going back 20 years or so) who told investigators a "spirit" voice told her to harm the baby as a test of faith, according to court documents. "She said she knew that it was wrong to harm the baby, but that the 'spirit' voice assured her that the baby would be returned from the dead," the documents state. "Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones by the pool," she told investigators.

"She is told allegedly by these voices to throw her baby down on the ground and he will be healed," Bakkedahl said. "She was of the opinion it was God speaking to her."

Would you believe her, just because she said it? Or might you suspect something else?

This is an easy one for a religionist.
"We have lots of evidence that people have communicated with god. Some of them are revered by billions. It is beyond doubt. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to assume that god really did speak to her".

 

[KWED]

How do you know that ?
Do testimonies count as evidence?
Apppart from testimonies how do you know that any fossil from any stegosaurus have been found?

In science, people do not simply assert claims and the rest of the scientific community just accepts them without question. This could be where you are going so wrong, so often.
What happens is that the person making the discovery compiles and documents their evidence. This is then presented to others with similar or greater experience and knowledge in the field. They then study and test the evidence to see if the conclusions drawn are reasonable. If it is, the discovery is then presented to a wider audience, any of whom can also check it for accuracy. When other discoveries are similarly made that might impact the earlier study, that study is revisited in light of the new evidence.

TBH, it makes sense that you would think that science is based simply of the uncritical acceptance of unsupported claims, because that is how you arrive at your own worldview, it would seem.

 

[KWED]

How fo you know its authentic?
All you have are testimonies from people who claim that have studied the bones.
Do testimonies count as evidence?

This is supposed to be satire, yes?

 

[Sheldon]

it is a strong indication that there is a God because all these people do not believe in God based upon no evidence.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy,

Nope, because I did not say or even imply that God exists because many or most people believe that God exists.

Yes you did, despite the appalling double negative, you are implying there must be evidence, because all these people would not otherwise believe in a deity. The semantic construction is awful I grant you, but the claim is clear, and the fallacy unequivocally there. I don't expect you to acknowledge it, as you never do, because your primary concern is to protect your beliefs, and you only care that you are rational if it helps you achieve that, so you use the word logic as rhetoric or as a soundbite, as in your claim "I have a sound grasp of logic". Which as is demonstrated here, is not the case. The only other alternative I can see is deliberate dishonesty, and I don't think that is the case.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, it is the fallacy of ad populum to say that God exists is true because many or most people believe that God exists.

However, a logical person would have to ask why most people in the world would believe in a nonexistent thing.

 

[Sheldon]

That is no straw man. Many atheists claim that the 93% of people in the world who believe in God are all crazy.

You didn't say many, you said atheists. I am an atheist, I have never said it, one counter example would be sufficient of r your claim to be false, ipso facto it is a straw man fallacy, and I am extremely dubious that many atheists make the claim as well. I will accept that some atheists resort to using that word as rhetoric on occasion, but your claim was clearly and unequivocally a straw man.

It is patently illogical to say they 93% of people in the world who are believers are ALL CRAZY as atheists claim that believers are.

How does repeating the fallacy help you establish your claim is rational? Again I am an atheist, and I don't make this claim, moreover I have only ever seen other atheists use it seldomly, and as rhetoric at that, not literally. In fact it is usually directed at a belief or claim, rather than the believer, on the odd occasions I have seen it made.

If 93% of people in the world who were crazy the world could not function at all.

93% of people could hold a belief I thought was "crazy", and they could function perfectly well. How much harm do flat earthers inflict on the rest of the world's populace?

 

[Sheldon]

How do you know that the guys in the musseum or someone else) used this methods to identy the fossil?

Science is self policing, anyone perpetrating a known fraud would be finished. Science also rewards scientists for falsifying claims and ideas at least as much as for validating them.

 

[Sheldon]

Your inability to follow conversations is perplexing.

Thanks for that, haven't laughed that hard in ages.

1 you presented an objection to the FT argument/that the argument makes an assumption

Ah good you finally acknowledge that, progress of a sort.

2 I replied by saying that the "assumption " is not necessary for the argument (the argument woukd still work even if you dont make such assumption)

Yes, you replied with a flat denial, but still no objective evidence that the universe requires a deity to fine tune it. Or anything else come to that, only the assumption that these parameters are highly improbable, despite the fact we have only one universe to examine. Like finding a blue flower, and claiming something must have made it blue, as it is too improbable for it to be blue without inexplicable magic.

So it is your turn to reply under those lines , you are expected to refute my rebuttal

I have no idea what "under those lines means", and your expectations are entirely irrelevant to me and to any debate. I don't believe your unevidenced assumption that the universe needs a deity to fine tune it, or needs anything to fine tune it. It is your claim, so I don't have to do anything, as the burden of proof is entirely yours. If you find bare assumptions compelling argument that is up to you, if it is not a bare assumption then why haven't [resented any objective evidence that a deity was needed to fine tune the universe, or that anything is needed come to that? You haven't even offered a rational argument for the assumption. Just because something "seems" improbable to use, means nothing, and if you had read the entire paper I linked you'd know that, so I suspect you didn't even read it.

or to admit that I succeeded in responding

You want to me acknowledge that you managed to respond to a post, with a bare denial, seriously? Ok you responded to my post, where I pointed out the conclusion of your argument, namely that a deity or something was needed to fine tune the universe, is pure unevidenced assumption.

Happy?

 

[leroy]

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.

That’s my point, you are not interested in a conversation , you what to focus on vocabulary and spelling.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Its still the same.

There are countless of evidence of people misplacing their keys or losing them varies places, it is not exactly difficult to gather a lot of prove for. Therefore we prefer looking these places first. However there are not so many examples that elves were involved. But should some make the claim that elves stole them, the burden of prove is still on that person.

So the principle is the same, regardless of what the claim is. But a lot of things seems so obvious that we don't regard them as needing a burden of proof, but in fact the all do, if we want to go to the extremes. But again, a lot of claims such as someone losing their keys, is not especially important to anyone, besides the person themselves, so we don't really demand a prove for such statement but merely take it on face value, or simply accept that it is not really worth spending a lot of time on trying to figure out if they did in fact lose them or are simply lying about it.

But a claim of whether a God exist or not, one would have to say could be pretty impactful on how we see ourselves.

 

[KWED]

Its still the same.

There are countless of evidence of people misplacing their keys or losing them varies places, it is not exactly difficult to gather a lot of prove for. Therefore we prefer looking these places first. However there are not so many examples that elves were involved. But should some make the claim that elves stole them, the burden of prove is still on that person.

So the principle is the same, regardless of what the claim is. But a lot of things seems so obvious that we don't regard them as needing a burden of proof, but in fact the all do, if we want to go to the extremes. But again, a lot of claims such as someone losing their keys, is not especially important to anyone, besides the person themselves, so we don't really demand a prove for such statement but merely take it on face value, or simply accept that it is not really worth spending a lot of time on trying to figure out if they did in fact lose them or are simply lying about it.

But a claim of whether a God exist or not, one would have to say could be pretty impactful on how we see ourselves.

The burden of proof for many things is assumed through experience and probability. They could be the keys to prevent a nuclear launch, so the importance is huge. When an aide says "They could have been stolen by elves", no one wonders whether the elf sceptics need to prove that rogue elves are unlikely to be the cause. It is immediately dismissed as unworthy of consideration not because the issue at hand isn't important, but because no one thinks that it is even remotely likely.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

This is your claim vebratim:

Lies are also unlikely , early Christians where persecuted and died in the name of the resurrection, (this means that they were not trying to fool anyone, they honestly believed in the resurrection) besides this wouldn’t explain the empty tomb ether.

The early church might have lied, the original claim might have been a lie, the people who wrote it first might have lied, and not one of them need necessarily have died to defend that lie. Though even if they did, this doesn't rule out the possibility that they lied, as they might have believed it, but faked the claim. Your facile reasoning is simply not compelling at all.

Though again the most compelling reason your claim is absurd nonsense, is that lies are pretty commonplace, especially among the devoutly religious, and so your claim they are less likely than a supernatural event, that no one has ever demonstrated any objective evidence is even possible, and which is contradicted by known scientific facts, and which at it's core appeals unfalsifiable inexplicable magic, which by definition has no explanatory powers whatsoever, is risible.

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

Do stop with these false dichotomy fallacies, apart from being irrational, they are pretty jejune since one can disbelieve any subjective claim without refuting it, to claim otherwise is an argument ad ignorantiam fallacy. That said, of course indulgences and relics are relevant, since they demonstrate a willing propensity for people to both hold a genuine religious belief, and to lie when making claims about it. Your claim is simply wrong, on any number of levels.

 

[leroy]

Science is self policing, anyone perpetrating a known fraud would be finished. Science also rewards scientists for falsifying claims and ideas at least as much as for validating them.

Science is self policing

Evidence for that claim please…………….. but I wont accept testimonies nor assertions as evidence.

 

[leroy]

This is your claim vebratim:



The early church might have lied, the original claim might have been a lie, the people who wrote it first might have lied, and not one of them need necessarily have died to defend that lie. Though even if they did, this doesn't rule out the possibility that they lied, as they might have believed it, but faked the claim. Your facile reasoning is simply not compelling at all.



Of course it does, since they demonstrate a willing propensity for people to both hold a genuine religious belief, and to lie when making claims about it. Your claim is simply wrong, on any number of levels.

Ok All I said is that it is improbable (nearly impossible) for someone to invent a lie, and then be willing to die for that lie. (When by admitting that it was a lie he would have avoided persecution prison and death)

Would you affirm the opposite? Or is it another case where you don’t afirm nor deny anthing?