Who's really right?

[Beaudreaux]

Why is "statement of fact" such a difficult concept for people of such intelligence to grasp?

Forgive me. I do try.

It would help if you define what you mean by "fact". I am not trying to pick nits here. People often have differing understandings of what a fact is. When I taught speech at LSU, my students' heads would explode when I claimed that facts are not always true.

 

[Storm]

So you're saying that a claim - either way - that God exists or does not exist, the burden of proof is on the person making that claim? And a statement of belief - "I believe God exists vs I believe God doesn't exist" - there is no burden of proof?

Yep.

Forgive me. I do try.

It would help if you define what you mean by "fact". I am not trying to pick nits here. People often have differing understandings of what a fact is.

CM illustrated it perfectly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Richard made positive claim when he said God doesn't exist.

Ah, didn't read back far enough.

Absolutely, an atheist making the claim that "god(s) don't exist" has as much a burden of proof as any theist who holds the position that "god(s) do exist."

 

[Storm]

Ah, didn't read back far enough.

Absolutely, an atheist making the claim that "god(s) don't exist" has as much a burden of proof as any theist who holds the position that "god(s) do exist."

Yes, precisely.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yep.


CM illustrated it perfectly.

So if that's the case, I'd agree with you when it comes to statements of fact, but not necessarily of belief. I think belief requires justification as well.

 

[Storm]

So if that's the case, I'd agree with you when it comes to statements of fact, but not necessarily of belief. I think belief requires justification as well.

If you're speaking generally, I agree. To believe without reason is, well... unreasonable. However, according to the rules of debate, it's not subject to burden of proof.

Now, if you REALLY want to pick nits, you could say that a statement of belief does state a fact. But it's just the fact that one believes x, in which case, the fact that one states it is proof enough. :run:

 

[Vile Atheist]

If you're speaking generally, I agree. To believe without reason is, well... unreasonable. However, according to the rules of debate, it's not subject to burden of proof.

Now, if you REALLY want to pick nits, you could say that a statement of belief does state a fact. But it's just the fact that one believes x, in which case, the fact that one states it is proof enough. :run:

I was speaking generally and in that case, I agree with you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think belief requires justification as well.

It depends on what somebody means when they use the term "believe." If someone expresses their beliefs in a context which implies that their beliefs are factually correct, then, technically, the burden of proof on them is relevant.

However, if someone expresses their beliefs as something they choose to believe, but do not think their beliefs are necessarily factually correct, then there is no burden of proof since they're not actually making a substantial claim about anything other than a choice of beliefs.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yes, precisely.

So then there's a big difference between someone who says

I believe God does not exist

and

I do not believe God exists.

With no burden of proof on the latter, yes?

 

[Storm]

So then there's a big difference between someone who says

I believe God does not exist

and

I do not believe God exists.

With no burden of proof on the latter, yes?

Actually, no. Those are both statements of belief, neither with burden of proof. The difference is "God does (not) exist" vs "I (don't) believe God exists." The former is positive claim, subject to burden of proof. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you're on, it's all about your phrasing.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It depends on what somebody means when they use the term "believe." If someone expresses their beliefs in a context which implies that their beliefs are factually correct, then, technically, the burden of proof on them is relevant.

However, if someone expresses their beliefs as something they choose to believe, but do not think their beliefs are necessarily factually correct, then there is no burden of proof since they're not actually making a substantial claim about anything other than a choice of beliefs.

I see your distinction and I accept that. Both are statements of beliefs and if they are put in such a manner as to try and convince you that they are correct or others that they are correct, then it has the burden of proof. Absolutely.

 

[Willamena]

An opinion does not carry any burden of proof.

 

[Vile Atheist]

An opinion does not carry any burden of proof.

...Until you assert your opinion is correct.

 

[Willamena]

...Until you assert your opinion is correct.

If you didn't feel it was correct, would it be your opinion? :no:

Even then.

 

[Vile Atheist]

If you didn't feel it was correct, would it be your opinion?

Even then.

Of course you would "feel" your own opinion is correct. But "feeling" it is correct is much, much different from "asserting" it is correct. I have no problem if someone believes in mystical moo-cows that eat rainbows and fart candy and "feels" they are correct. That's their own business.

But when they assert their opinion is correct, I think they need to justify that with proof of these mystical moo-cows.

 

[Willamena]

Of course you would "feel" your own opinion is correct. But "feeling" it is correct is much, much different from "asserting" it is correct. I have no problem if someone believes in mystical moo-cows that eat rainbows and fart candy and "feels" they are correct. That's their own business.

But when they assert their opinion is correct, I think they need to justify that with proof of these mystical moo-cows.

Asserting it is correct based on a feeling that it is correct is still asserting.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Asserting it is correct based on a feeling that it is correct is still asserting.

Yes, I know. And when you assert something, you need to back it up with proof.

Student: I think this paper was graded unfairly
Teacher: How so?
Student: I think this paper was graded unfairly
Teacher: Okay, fine...but can you give me an example?
Student: I think this paper was graded unfairly


Asserting without backing it up will get you nowhere.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, I know. And when you assert something, you need to back it up with proof.

Student: I think this paper was graded unfairly
Teacher: How so?
Student: I think this paper was graded unfairly
Teacher: Okay, fine...but can you give me an example?
Student: I think this paper was graded unfairly


Asserting without backing it up will get you nowhere.

An opinion does not carry a burden of proof.

I cite as example the last seven posts in this thread (which is in no way "proof").

 

[Vile Atheist]

An opinion does not carry a burden of proof.

I cite as example the last seven posts in this thread (which is in no way "proof").

An opinion is basically a belief. "I have the opinion that Superman is superior to Spiderman" is no different from saying "I believe Superman is superior to Spiderman".

Beliefs and opinions of themselves - simply stated and nothing more - do not require proof. Especially if the belief or opinion is subjective.

But saying "I believe Superman is superior to Spiderman" is different than saying "I believe Superman is superior to Spiderman and your belief Spiderman is superior is wrong"

Here the person making that statement is going beyond stating their opinion or belief and entering the realm of claiming their beliefs are more factually correct than another.

That's the point the burden of proof is slapped on your opinion. Simply stating "I am of the opinion/I believe Superman is superior than Spiderman" of itself does not require any justification beyond your own personal opinion. But when you assert your opinion or belief has greater veracity than another, then you must take on the burden of proof.

 

[Willamena]

An opinion is basically a belief. "I have the opinion that Superman is superior to Spiderman" is no different from saying "I believe Superman is superior to Spiderman".

Beliefs and opinions of themselves - simply stated and nothing more - do not require proof. Especially if the belief or opinion is subjective.

But saying "I believe Superman is superior to Spiderman" is different than saying "I believe Superman is superior to Spiderman and your belief Spiderman is superior is wrong"

Here the person making that statement is going beyond stating their opinion or belief and entering the realm of claiming their beliefs are more factually correct than another.

That's the point the burden of proof is slapped on your opinion. Simply stating "I am of the opinion/I believe Superman is superior than Spiderman" of itself does not require any justification beyond your own personal opinion. But when you assert your opinion or belief has greater veracity than another, then you must take on the burden of proof.

"There is a God" is also an opinion, no more or less so than "Ice cream melts too fast." We, as audience, have the ability to discern statements made that are opinion from statements made that are fact. If there's any burden, it's on us to make that distinction and treat the statement accordingly.