Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Most atheists do not claim to own a cat. Most atheists do not claim that there is no God. They have a lack of belief of gods in general and may be able to refute specific versions of god.

 

[Nimos]

Most atheists do not claim to own a cat. Most atheists do not claim that there is no God. They have a lack of belief of gods in general and may be able to refute specific versions of god.

Yes, but he is referring to Gnostic atheists. Atheists that will claim that "no God exist", the burden of proof is on them. The rest of us, that are simply not convinced that a God exist, does not hold the burden of proof, because we made no claim, we are simply not convinced by the lack of evidence.

A religious person, is just as entitled asking for evidence and proof about there not being a God as an atheist is asking a religious person making similar claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A religious person, is just as entitled asking for evidence and proof about there not being a God as an atheist is asking a religious person making similar claim.

I don't think that's true.

With no evidence either way, concluding that there are no gods is much more reasonable than concluding that gods exist.

... and in that situation, concluding that some gods exist and some gods don't is almost certainly bonkers.

 

[PureX]

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

Actually, it does. At least it includes every atheist that claims that they can't accept the existence of a God that they can't know to exist by objective, evidential proof. That's a very 'gnostic' position if ever there was one. And pretty much every atheist I've ever encountered makes this claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Me: "Gnostic Atheists say that there is no God. Nevertheless, scientists have not come to this Atheism's claim. Are you smarter than scientists? Why doesn't science say there is no God?"

Could you link a peer reviewed scientific paper, claiming there are no ghosts? Or mermaids, how about unicorns? How about all the thousands of deities you don't believe exist, where are all the scientific papers denying they exist?

This tired old canard is absurd enough, but the sophistry of the title is truly dishonest, given that on here when polled most atheists specifically asserted their atheism is not a belief, but just the lack of absence of belief that no deity or deities exist.

The fact is that you can demonstrate any objective evidence for your deity, or for all the deities you deny exist. Physician heal thyself...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Polytheists are right that there is God, but wrong about His quantity.

Just saw your edit.

Interesting that you bring up polytheists, because establishing that there's exactly one god and that no gods beyond that first one exist has all the problems you're complaining about with atheists, plus a few extra problems of its own.

 

[Sheldon]

Most of humankind is perfectly sure, there is God.

Most of mankind once believed the world was flat, and at the centre of the universe, so the number of people who believe something tells nothing about the validity of the belief, this is an argumentum ad populum fallacy, ipso facto it is irrational.

Incidentally there are thousands of deities humans have imagined are real, so theists are not an homogenous group, that share a belief, again this is pure sophistry.

 

[Sheldon]

There is God. Some theists, like Einstein, are wrong that the God is not a personal god;

Einstein wasn't a theist, if you're going to make an appeal to authority fallacy you might at least get the most basic facts right.

 

[Sheldon]

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".

How much new information to mankind has your lack of belief in mermaids provided?

 

[Sheldon]

There is no burden of proof regarding a subjective existential value judgment. Neither the atheist nor the theist is required to offer 'proof' for the conceptual choice they've made regarding the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. No such proof is available, and if it were, we could not possibly verify it, anyway.

What we can offer each other are the reasons we chose the perspective that we have. These can stand as evidence, then, but not as proof.

Burden of proof, does not infer absolute proof, merely that claim incurs an epistemological burden. What standard one sets for belief is of course a personal choice.

 

[Sheldon]

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".

So what? Theism is a belief, it is like all beliefs the affirmation of a claim, you're not obliged to defend it at all, but nor is anyone obliged to believe you if you cannot demonstrate what they consider to be sufficient (objective) evidence.

The fact that something is unfalsifiable does not lend it any credence at all, this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

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

My atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with science, it is as are all claims I disbelieve entirely predicated on the lack of any objective evidence for any deity. Science and its methods are simply a tool for gaining knowledge, the alternative is to remain ignorant, and it would be odd for me to be more content, or to find ignorance more satisfying than that.

 

[Sheldon]

Since the debate is almost always about our beliefs, as none of us can know the truth, burdens of proof are irrelevant.

Well one is free to hold any belief and under no obligation to justify it, however if that belief or any aspect thereof is asserted publicly, then others are free to withhold belief, and state why. Disbelieving a claim is not itself a claim, and lack of belief is not a contrary belief, though some atheists go further than disbelief.

 

[Spirit of Light]

My atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with science, it is as are all claims I disbelieve entirely predicated on the lack of any objective evidence for any deity. Science and its methods are simply a tool for gaining knowledge, the alternative is to remain ignorant, and it would be odd for me to be more content, or to find ignorance more satisfying than that.

As long you are happy with how your life turns out, with or without a God in your life, isn't that good?

 

[Sheldon]

A persons can claim or assert something without having a belief.

I'm not sure that is correct, since a belief is the private affirmation of a claim that something is true, when you assert that belief you are in effect claiming something is true.

 

[Nakosis]

 

[Sheldon]

As long you are happy with how your life turns out, with or without a God in your life, isn't that good?

Well being happy is good I suppose, but not essential, and I'd say not attainable all the time. My lack of belief is largely insignificant, and were it not for the influence religions carry, it might never come up. I don't find myself debating which colours "is the best" since the answer as well as being subjective, is pretty innocuous. In stark contrast when someone asserts X is moral, or Y is immoral, and insists they're absolutes established through divine diktat, then this is a problem, especially and specifically if they try to insists everyone must conform to that diktat.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well being happy is good I suppose, but not essential, and I'd say not attainable all the time. My lack of belief is largely insignificant, and were it not for the influence religions carry, it might never come up. I don't find myself debating which colours "is the best" since the answer as well as being subjective, is pretty innocuous. In stark contrast when someone asserts X is moral, or Y is immoral, and insists they're absolutes established through divine diktat, then this is a problem, especially and specifically if they try to insists everyone must conform to that diktat.

I agree with you on this.

 

[PureX]

A burden of proof, which is actually a misnomer, since proof is the not the critical thinker's standard for belief

A 'critical thinker' is not looking to achieve a "belief", at all. A critical thinker is looking to dispel a belief.

- something more like burden to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt is more accurate - but this burden occurs whenever somebody makes a claim of fact and wants to be believed.

Basically, you're saying that "if they can't convince me of it, it isn't so". Which is nothing more than the refrain of a bias protecting itself. And this is wow the ideal of "burden of proof" get abused, constantly.

If you claim a god exists to a skeptic and you want to be believed, you'll need to make a compelling argument, without which the critical thinker simply notes that that is your opinion, but has no reason to believe it himself.

What I or anyone else believes or doesn't believe isn't the issue. The issue is what we proclaim to be universally true. I can proclaim and assert all the beliefs and opinions I want to, and you can accept them or ignore them or reject them as you please. None of this requires anyone to prove or "demonstrate" anything, because the assertions are all subject to the individual making them. They are SUBJECTIVE assertions. "Peas are fantastic!" "God is love!" "Evolution is fiction!" Whatever. We can discuss why we make statements like this, but no one is obliged to prove their veracity to anyone else because they're just subjective opinions. No one else is being obliged to accept them as being universally true.

One more caveat on the burden of proof. Even if one is making an existential claim (a claim of fact) and wants to be believed, ...

It doesn't matter if they want to be believed or not. All that matters is if they are proclaiming a universal truth: a truth that we all are expected to accept as such. Then, they are obliged to offer proof that can stand up to critical review. That's the only time a 'burden of proof' is imposed. And that doesn't mean that you must be convinced for it to be considered "proof". It's simply means that assertion of truth can be reasonably supported by logic, evidence, or some other means of extrapolation that can stand up to skeptical critique.

... there is no burden to demonstrate anything to an unprepared or unwilling mind.

I agree. But then there is little point in proclaiming truth to such a mind in the first place.

A second criteria for burden of proof is wanting to be believed. If one doesn't care, there is no burden of proof, but also, the comment has no persuasive power.

'Believing', and then wanting to be 'believed' has nothing to do with burden of proof. Both can occur without any presumption of universal truth.

 

[Sheldon]

They didn't invent it. They perceived it, and believed what they perceived.

Now that is a subjective opinion. If it were true of course, then Christianity seems to have gone "unperceived" for almost the entire 200k years humans have existed, since they first evolved.