Who has the burden of proof?

[ImmortalFlame]

They ARE extra-Biblical! We don't know why they never made it into the Bible, perhaps the publisher looked at the manuscripts and said "Forget it, Matt/Mark/Luke/John beat you to it, but if you want to do re-writes by sexing them up a bit, come back and we'll talk again"

And do you have dates for them?

 

[McBell]

No problem, there are plenty of references to Jesus that are not included in the Bible..
For example ever hear of the gospels of Mary, Thomas, Peter, Judas etc?

You have just proven the existence of Hogwarts..

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is absolutely correct. When a claim is made, it carries the burden of proof with it.

However, not all atheists make the claim that there is no God. In the exact same way that the default position with regards to Santa Claus is to believe he does not exist until it is demonstrated that he exists beyond a reasonable doubt, atheism holds the position of withholding belief until God is demonstrated sufficiently to be true. Withholding a belief does not carry a burden of proof.

Then there really wouldn't be a difference between atheism and agnosticism. Both positions lack a belief in God, right...so why are there two different names for a single position? Why? Because the traditional definition of an atheist has always been one that says "There is no God"...it isn't until recent years that this position has been "downgraded" to "I don't believe in God" due to the exact same reason we are speaking about...burden of proof. It sunk in that the explicit claim of "There is no God" carried the same burden that the theistic claim "God exists" carried, so the term "atheist" had to be downgraded to more of an agnostic position.

There is a difference in "I don't believe in God because I don't see any good evidence for his existence", and "I don't believe in God because God doesn't exist".

And the difference between the implications of both statements is what separates the men from the boys :yes:

 

[Shuttlecraft]

(re gospels of Mary,Thomas,Peter,Judas)..And do you have dates for them?

Do you?..

 

[Shuttlecraft]

You have just proven the existence of Hogwarts..

Sheesh, am I running a sunday school here having to explain the obvious?
Everybody KNOWS Hogwarts is a studio film set made of plywood and cardboard..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then there really wouldn't be a difference between atheism and agnosticism. Both positions lack a belief in God, right... so why are there two different names for a single position? Why?

Actually, agnosticism says nothing about belief whatsoever. Agnosticism is a position with regards to knowledge, not belief, so atheism/theism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist ("I do not believe there is a God, but I do not claim to know that God doesn't exist") or an agnostic theist ("I do believe there is a God, but I do not claim to know that God exists"). There can be a bit more to it than that with regards to agnosticism, such as holding the position that God is unknown/unknowable, but the point is that agnosticism says nothing about belief/lack of belief - it deals strictly with claims of knowledge.

Because the traditional definition of an atheist has always been one that says "There is no God"...it isn't until recent years that this position has been "downgraded" to "I don't believe in God" due to the exact same reason we are speaking about...burden of proof. It sunk in that the explicit claim of "There is no God" carried the same burden that the theistic claim "God exists" carried, so the term "atheist" had to be downgraded to more of an agnostic position.

Actually, in almost every dictionary definition I have come across, atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a God or a disbelief in God. I don't know how "traditional" that definition is, especially considering the actual etymological origin of the word means precisely "without God belief".

There is a difference in "I don't believe in God because I don't see any good evidence for his existence", and "I don't believe in God because God doesn't exist".

And the difference between the implications of both statements is what separates the men from the boys

I wouldn't really agree with that. If an atheist wants to say they believe there is no God, that's fine. I choose to say I lack a belief in a God because I feel the God claim, as with any claim, needs to be demonstrated before I can believe it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you?..

I'm asking you. You brought them up in response to my request for contemporary, extra-Biblical sources. So, when were they written? Are they contemporary?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I'm asking you. You brought them up in response to my request for contemporary, extra-Biblical sources. So, when were they written? Are they contemporary?

This thread is called 'Burden of Proof', so as the challenger it falls on YOU to prove they're invalid sources..
As a great philosopher once said-

"Prove it!"

 

[Parsimony]

This thread is called 'Burden of Proof', so as the challenger it falls on YOU to prove they're invalid sources..

That's not how it works at all. The burden of proof falls upon the original claimant. If I say that aliens or leprechauns are real, it's up to me to back that claim up with evidence, not the skeptic's job to prove that they are not real.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually, agnosticism says nothing about belief whatsoever. Agnosticism is a position with regards to knowledge, not belief, so atheism/theism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist ("I do not believe there is a God, but I do not claim to know that God doesn't exist") or an agnostic theist ("I do believe there is a God, but I do not claim to know that God exists"). There can be a bit more to it than that with regards to agnosticism, such as holding the position that God is unknown/unknowable, but the point is that agnosticism says nothing about belief/lack of belief - it deals strictly with claims of knowledge.

That is nothing but semantic babble. It is either you believe in God, or you don't believe in God. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with reasons you believe, or reasons you lack belief...it is either you believe, or you don't.

Both atheists and agnostics lack belief in God. An agnostic will tell you he doesn't believe in God, and an atheist will tell you he doesn't believe in God. So all of the semantic babble is really uncalled for.

Actually, in almost every dictionary definition I have come across, atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a God or a disbelief in God. I don't know how "traditional" that definition is, especially considering the actual etymological origin of the word means precisely "without God belief".

Well, I've personally spoken to people that have told me flat out, "God doesn't exist", "God is a fairy tale", "God is imaginary", etc...and some of those people that made such statements are members of this very forum.

What do you think Madame O'Hair's position was? "God doesn't exist, get him out of government, get him out of schools, get him out of society!!!"

I wouldn't really agree with that. If an atheist wants to say they believe there is no God, that's fine. I choose to say I lack a belief in a God because I feel the God claim, as with any claim, needs to be demonstrated before I can believe it.

And I would say that same thing regarding the naturalistic or materialistic worldview.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This thread is called 'Burden of Proof', so as the challenger it falls on YOU to prove they're invalid sources..

I've not said they're "invalid sources". I'm asking if you can demonstrate that they are valid sources.

Can you do that?

 

[Skeptisch]

Sheesh, am I running a sunday school here having to explain the obvious?

Why not tell the obvious truth?

Christians believe their God is omnipotent, and can do anything. Problem is, if their God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future, their God is also a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no credible evidence of your omnipotent God and his ‘on water walking son’ but there is plenty of evidence of the above mentioned psychopath.

You are of course entitled to worship even a psychopath.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is nothing but semantic babble. It is either you believe in God, or you don't believe in God. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with reasons you believe, or reasons you lack belief...it is either you believe, or you don't.

Where did I say anything that disagrees with that? I've explicitly stated what you just have multiple times throughout this entire thread.

Both atheists and agnostics lack belief in God. An agnostic will tell you he doesn't believe in God, and an atheist will tell you he doesn't believe in God. So all of the semantic babble is really uncalled for.

It's not "semantic babble" - it's the actual definition of the word. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief - it is a position with regards to knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Since you already agree with me, as you said above, that you you either believe in God or you don't, then surely you must also understand that agnosticism isn't some mythical position that is somehow "between" atheism and theism - because nothing can be between them. You either believe or you don't.

Well, I've personally spoken to people that have told me flat out, "God doesn't exist", "God is a fairy tale", "God is imaginary", etc...and some of those people that made such statements are members of this very forum.

What do you think Madame O'Hair's position was? "God doesn't exist, get him out of government, get him out of schools, get him out of society!!!"

So what? That's irrelevant. What atheists say has little or nothing to do with what the definition of an atheist actually is. If someone makes a claim to you, such as "God doesn't exist", the burden is upon them to support their claim. But the fact remains that atheism, in general, does not carry a burden of proof because atheism is the absence of belief - not a belief. The claims are what carries the burden of proof, not the designation of the person making them.

And I would say that same thing regarding the naturalistic or materialistic worldview.

So you don't believe nature or material reality exists?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..The burden of proof falls upon the original claimant. If I say that aliens or leprechauns are real, it's up to me to back that claim up with evidence, not the skeptic's job to prove that they are not real.

If you alone say aliens and leprechauns are real, we'd take your claim with a pinch of salt, and the burden of proof would be on YOU.
But if 5 million people say they saw them, the burden would be on US to prove they were hallucinating..

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..if their God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future, their God is also a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery...

The Bible clearly says the earth is a Testing Ground, so God isn't going to keep running on to give us a hand or the test would be worthless!
And it's not God's finger pulling the triggers in wars!
Anyway Satan can be a bit of a rotter so why blame God?
Jesus said "Satan has bound this crippled woman for eighteen years" (Luke 13:16), then he cured her..

 

[McBell]

If you alone say aliens and leprechauns are real, we'd take your claim with a pinch of salt, and the burden of proof would be on YOU.
But if 5 million people say they saw them, the burden would be on US to prove they were hallucinating..

Wrong.
This is nothing more than an appeal to numbers fallacy.

The burden is on those making the claim, regardless of how many are making the claim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you alone say aliens and leprechauns are real, we'd take your claim with a pinch of salt, and the burden of proof would be on YOU.
But if 5 million people say they saw them, the burden would be on US to prove they were hallucinating..

You still have yet to present a single eye-witness account from any of these supposed 5 million people. If you cannot present any evidence of your claim that 5 million people saw them, then your claim can be dismissed.

I'm still waiting.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

(re gospels of Mary,Thomas,Peter,Judas)..I've not said they're "invalid sources". I'm asking if you can demonstrate that they are valid sources...

If you haven't said they're "invalid sources", you must be saying they ARE valid, so I don't see why you need me to add anything further..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you haven't said they're "invalid sources", you must be saying they ARE valid, so I don't see why you need me to add anything further..

Wow, you really don't understand how logic works.

You have to demonstrate your claim. I do not believe your claim until it is sufficiently demonstrated. Me saying "I don't believe your claim" is not the same as saying "your claim is false". I've never said that your sources are invalid - because I don't know whether or not they are. However, I have yet to see any evidence from you to indicate that your sources ARE valid. It is up to YOU to demonstrate that YOUR claim is accurate and that YOUR sources are valid.

Do you not realize how incredibly nonsensical what you've just said is?

Judge: Prosecution, please make your case.
Prosecution: My case, your honour, is that the defendant is guilty.
Judge: Er, I see... And do you have any evidence to support your position?
Prosecution: Well, do you have any evidence to support your claim that the defendant is innocent?
Judge: I never said the defendant was innocent. You said they were guilty, and I was asking what your evidence was.
Prosecution: So you think my evidence is invalid? Do you have any evidence that my evidence is invalid?
Judge: You have't presented any evidence, so I can't say that it's invalid! Can you present the evidence??
Prosecution: Aha! If you can't say my evidence is invalid, that means that you must think it's valid. Therefore, the defendant is guilty. I rest my case!

Now tell me, honestly, do you think the prosecution has a sound argument?

 

[Skeptisch]

The Bible clearly says the earth is a Testing Ground, so God isn't going to keep running on to give us a hand or the test would be worthless!
And it's not God's finger pulling the triggers in wars!

The Bible says clearly:

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)