Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[Willamena]

And if you propose something to be the truth, you better believe I'm gonna ask you to support it.

\

And if someone makes a claim, you better believe I'm gonna ask that person to support it.



No. You can't start complaining about having to bear the burden of proof just because you don't like the reasons why whoever asked you to provide the evidence was asking you for that evidence.

If you make a claim, you must support it. It doesn't matter who asks you to support it.

And if you can't produce a well-reasoned and rational argument to support a claim that you make, then it deserves to be called out, even by people who have the same beliefs you do.

For example, I'm an atheist. But if someone is an atheist because they hate God and feel that God let them down, then I'm gonna call them out on that, because that's not a valid reason to be an atheist.



But the claim itself can't provide evidence to support itself, just like it can't proclaim itself. It needs a person to do that. And the person who is required to provide the proof for the claim is the person who makes the claim.



So what? It doesn't matter what the truth is here, we aren't talking about truth, we are talking about claims and who has the responsibility of producing evidence to support those claims.

And I keep telling you that the person who has the responsibility to support a claim that has been made is the person who made the claim in the first place.

You seem to be trying to evade this responsibility by claiming that the only people who can demand evidence for a claim be provided are those who hold opinions counter to the claim that was made. This is not true. It is the responsibility of EVERYONE involved in a discussion to do everything they can to maintain intellectual honesty in that discussion, no matter what side of the argument they are on.

If I see a person in a debate about whether God exists or not, and that person just keeps repeating that God doesn't exist without giving any evidence or reasoning to support his claim, I'm gonna say to him, "Hey, you';re gonna need to make a better argument than that." And I'm on the same side as him!

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't question things. I'm just supporting the idea that we question things for a reason, and that that reason, in this case, is because we've heard something that doesn't conform with our worldview (such as that gods exist). Claims that bear the burden are the claims of truth, such as about the actual existence of things, because it is truth that lays the burden on them, not us. The people making the claim may own their claim, but ownership itself isn't what lays the burden on them. None of us own truth in our words alone. That said, if you argued objectively, adressing the burden instead of people's alleged and imagined obligation to support their words, and other's imagined entitlement to demand it, I predict that you'd have more successful arguments.

My two cents.

Re other's posts:
Yes, questioning happens as a matter of policy, pracitce, and procedure, but that wasn't the circumstance I was defending. And yes, I am defending the burden.


As to questioning all claims as a matter of principle, Poly, that would incredibly time consuiming. You would not have a moment of social interaction to yourself. I'll assume it's only hyperbolically every claim.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't question things. I'm just supporting the idea that we question things for a reason, and that that reason, in this case, is because we've heard something that doesn't conform with our worldview (such as that gods exist). Claims that bear the burden are the claims of truth, such as about the actual existence of things, because it is truth that lays the burden on them, not us. The people making the claim may own their claim, but ownership itself isn't what lays the burden on them. None of us own truth in our words alone.

However, if a person does make a claim, I have every right to ask them to support it. You seem to be claiming that I can only ask them to support it if and only if I disagree with their position, and so you have taken my demand they support their claim as me making a positive claim that they are wrong and then demanding I support my claim - which I haven't made!

That said, if you argued objectively, adressing the burden instead of people's alleged and imagined obligation to support their words, and other's imagined entitlement to demand it, I predict that you'd have more successful arguments.

How is it imagined? A person makes a claim. I ask that they support their claim. In what way is this unreasonable?

And yes, I am defending the burden.

It seems to me that what you are doing is trying to place the burden onto me when I ask that others shoulder the burden for the claims they have made.

 

[Willamena]

However, if a person does make a claim, I have every right to ask them to support it. You seem to be claiming that I can only ask them to support it if and only if I disagree with their position, and so you have taken my demand they support their claim as me making a positive claim that they are wrong and then demanding I support my claim - which I haven't made!

You may ask them to support it, if it's important enough to you that you do so for some reason.

It's not a right.

How is it imagined? A person makes a claim. I ask that they support their claim. In what way is this unreasonable?

It's imagined because you assert a right. What if the person that you demand proof of just turn and walk away? That is, after all, their reasonable right. They don't have to talk to you, under any circumstance. They are their own person (i.e. humanism).

It seems to me that what you are doing is trying to place the burden onto me when I ask that others shoulder the burden for the claims they have made.

What burden?

If there is some objective truth in that they should defend words, I would agree. But, really, it's just words.

Truth isn't words.

 

[Tiberius]

You may ask them to support it, if it's important enough to you that you do so for some reason.

It's not a right.


It's imagined because you assert a right. What if the person that you demand proof of just turn and walk away? That is, after all, their reasonable right. They don't have to talk to you, under any circumstance. They are their own person (i.e. humanism).


What burden?

If there is some objective truth in that they should defend words, I would agree. But, really, it's just words.

Truth isn't words.

No, it's not a right in the same sense as the right to a fair trial, or the right to an education.

But the point of the matter is that if someone makes a claim, they are responsible for supporting that claim, and if - for whatever reason - they do not do so, then they should not be surprised when others tell them that their claim is stupid and deserves no attention.

Otherwise we'd get all sorts of idiots making claims and insisting that we should treat those claims with respect even though they refuse to support them.

Now, it seems to me that you're just trying to convolute things. So let me be as clear as I can.

I make a claim, but provide no support.

Do you consider that my claim is valid until you have a reason to doubt it, or do consider that my claim is INvalid until you have a reason to accept it?

 

[ppp]

You may ask them to support it, if it's important enough to you that you do so for some reason.

It's not a right.

It is a right to ask them to support it. Just as it is their right to refuse.
But exercising their right to refuse does not substitute as a rational justification for their claim.

 

[Willamena]

I make a claim, but provide no support.

Do you consider that my claim is valid until you have a reason to doubt it, or do consider that my claim is INvalid until you have a reason to accept it?

Not on principle, no.

And neither should you.

But that's really not the point I was disputing.

 

[Willamena]

It is a right to ask them to support it. Just as it is their right to refuse.
But exercising their right to refuse does not substitute as a rational justification for their claim.

Why would it?

 

[ppp]

Why would it?

I don't understand your question.

 

[Willamena]

I don't understand your question.

Why would exercising their ability to refuse substitute as a rational justification for their claim?

 

[ppp]

Why would exercising their ability to refuse substitute as a rational justification for their claim?

Since I said it wouldn't constitute rational justification for their claim, again, that question makes no sense.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Atheist are techniqually complacent.

 

[Tiberius]

Not on principle, no.

And neither should you.

But that's really not the point I was disputing.

And which option are you saying no to?

 

[Willamena]

No, it's not a right in the same sense as the right to a fair trial, or the right to an education.

But the point of the matter is that if someone makes a claim, they are responsible for supporting that claim, and if - for whatever reason - they do not do so, then they should not be surprised when others tell them that their claim is stupid and deserves no attention.

Right. And that responsibility is ultimately unto themselves.

Now, it seems to me that you're just trying to convolute things. So let me be as clear as I can.

I make a claim, but provide no support.

Do you consider that my claim is valid until you have a reason to doubt it, or do consider that my claim is INvalid until you have a reason to accept it?

"Neither cosmos nor divinity."

Truth does not lie in our words.

 

[Tiberius]

Right. And that responsibility is ultimately unto themselves.

If someone makes a claim and then refuses to support it, then you bet I'm gonna tell them, "Hey, unless you're gonna support that claim, it's meaningless."

"Neither cosmos nor divinity."

Truth does not lie in our words.

Again, you are just trying to convolute things.

I make a claim, but provide no support.

Which of the following positions do you hold?

1. My claim is valid until you have a reason to doubt it.
2. My claim is INvalid until you have a reason to accept it.

Please pick one and tell me which one you have chosen. Option 1 or option 2 please.

 

[Willamena]

If someone makes a claim and then refuses to support it, then you bet I'm gonna tell them, "Hey, unless you're gonna support that claim, it's meaningless."

Power to you. But they've no obligation to respond. It's no skin off anyone's nose if it's meaningless to you.

Again, you are just trying to convolute things.

I make a claim, but provide no support.

Which of the following positions do you hold?

1. My claim is valid until you have a reason to doubt it.
2. My claim is INvalid until you have a reason to accept it.

Please pick one and tell me which one you have chosen. Option 1 or option 2 please.

What if I pick option 3? Your claim is neither valid nor invalid until I've verified it.

Let me call up Google....

 

[Tiberius]

Power to you. But they've no obligation to respond. It's no skin off anyone's nose if it's meaningless to you.



What if I pick option 3? Your claim is neither valid nor invalid until I've verified it.

Let me call up Google....

So you're not going to believe a claim until it has been verified.

Tell me, who should be the one to provide the data needed to verify my claim? Should I provide the data myself, or should I just make the claim and then say it's your job to go and find out for yourself?

 

[Willamena]

So you're not going to believe a claim until it has been verified.

Tell me, who should be the one to provide the data needed to verify my claim? Should I provide the data myself, or should I just make the claim and then say it's your job to go and find out for yourself?

Belief is an entirely different question.

Since my "Google" sarcasm was lost on you, it doesn't matter who provides data about the claim. It's still just a claim until I verify it.

 

[Tiberius]

Belief is an entirely different question.

Since my "Google" sarcasm was lost on you, it doesn't matter who provides data about the claim. It's still just a claim until I verify it.

I can turn into an eagle and fly around the place.

If you disagree, you must find the evidence to show that my claim is wrong. Until then, you can't say that my claim is wrong.

Now, do you think I can turn into an eagle?

 

[Willamena]

I can turn into an eagle and fly around the place.

If you disagree, you must find the evidence to show that my claim is wrong. Until then, you can't say that my claim is wrong.

Now, do you think I can turn into an eagle?

I'm under no obligation whatsoever to entertain your claim, and I have no pressing need to pass judgement on it.

Now, your earlier claims about the burden of proof did inspire a need to pass judgement. Why would that be?

Edit: I'm not as patient as Socrates. It's because fiction cannot violate my worldview, whilst fact can. Fiction bears no burden.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm under no obligation whatsoever to entertain your claim, and I have no pressing need to pass judgement on it.

Now, your earlier claims about the burden of proof did inspire a need to pass judgement. Why would that be?

Edit: I'm not as patient as Socrates. It's because fiction cannot violate my worldview, whilst fact can. Fiction bears no burden.

You haven't proved that my claim about turning into an eagle is fiction.