Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[The Bullfrog]

How did you come to the conclusion that there was a complete lack of hard evidence?

Was it because the banana told you?

Or was it through considered exploration of various theistic arguments?

If it was any other topic other than God, you would have posted some references towards hard evidence. But you rather argue about who I am.

The reason the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the theist is because they are the ones that put God(s) up on that pedestal. I do not approach the idea of gods differently than any other claim that I have encountered in my life.

 

[Falvlun]

If no one was making god claims, there would be no atheists.

So... what?

How does that have any bearing on whether people need a reason to reject arguments made in favor of a particular claim?

 

[steeltoes]

That is why I place the burned of proof on the theist. Because they can't even figure out what it is the are proving.

They want those that don't share in their beliefs to be burdened as well.

 

[Nakosis]

If it was any other topic other than God, you would have posted some references towards hard evidence. But you rather argue about who I am.

The reason the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the theist is because they are the ones that put God(s) up on that pedestal. I do not approach the idea of gods differently than any other claim that I have encountered in my life.

Many Christians feel that have provided hard evidence and solid reasoning and wait for you to prove they have not.

Not everyone has the same criteria for what is accepted as hard evidence and solid reasoning. So now you have to prove the evidence is not sufficient and the reasoning is faulty.

 

[steeltoes]

Many Christians feel that have provided hard evidence and solid reasoning and wait for you to prove they have not.

Not everyone has the same criteria for what is accepted as hard evidence and solid reasoning. So now you have to prove the evidence is not sufficient and the reasoning is faulty.

Atheists have nothing to prove, that's why they call us atheists.

 

[Nakosis]

Atheists have nothing to prove, that's why they call us atheists.

Then why are you hanging around a religious forum?

 

[LuisDantas]

So... what?

How does that have any bearing on whether people need a reason to reject arguments made in favor of a particular claim?

It means that those who claim the existence of God need to give everyone else a reason to bother with the notion.

It creates the burden of proof and it creates it on the lap of the claimants, aka Theists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then why are you hanging around a religious forum?

To discuss religious matters. Do you think there is any conflict in that?

 

[steeltoes]

Then why are you hanging around a religious forum?

To meet women.

 

[The Bullfrog]

Many Christians feel that have provided hard evidence and solid reasoning and wait for you to prove they have not.

Not everyone has the same criteria for what is accepted as hard evidence and solid reasoning. So now you have to prove the evidence is not sufficient and the reasoning is faulty.

If you are going to come to me and say there is evidence and reasoning than it is by my criteria that I must accept it. I follow the scientific method. So give me this evidence, I keep hearing about, that factually proves god. Don't just talk about this evidence, pull it out. I want to hear your evidence.

 

[Quintessence]

No need to apologize. Are you a believer in Spinoza's God, in that God is nature?

Something like that. I'm a polytheist/pantheist/animist, and a major part of my practice is paying respect to or celebrating various aspects of reality, whether they have tangible form (i.e., worship of sun or storms) or are more abstract/ideological (i.e., worship of learning or creativity).

But that aside, I still don't know of any theisms that are not supported in some fashion. People do not accept things without cause. There are reams of theological and philosophical arguments for classical monotheism, oodles of people who can testify to their personal experiences with various gods, strong familial and community bonds that underpin traditions, and so forth. I'm not limiting the notion of support and proofs to the narrow empirical or scientific sense, largely because I don't feel it makes any sense to do so in the context of areas like philosophy or religion. They're not science, and it makes about as much sense to me that philosophy and religion conform to scientific standards as it does to demand that creative writing and the fine arts conform to such standards. That's my general angle, anyway.

So circling this back around to burden of proof, maybe another reason it strikes me as silly is because I tend to view religion and philosophy as more like an art. If you walk into an art gallery, and someone says they think an abstract painting represents some particular thing, it should be good enough for them to explain why it resonated with them in that way. There is no authoritatively proving that the painting means X, Y, or Z. It's interpretation. And folks can have many different interpretations, discuss their reasons, and still disagree with each other. Sometimes I would like it if atheists defined themselves less in opposition to someone's interpretation of the painting and told us more about how they see the painting. Perhaps from that angle, there is some truth in saying it is unfair to place any burden on them. But why place burdens on anyone? Not all theists are making authoritative truth claims when they speak of their gods - they're like the person in the art gallery saying "this is how I interpret this painting."

And now I'm probably rambling incoherently...

 

[Falvlun]

If it was any other topic other than God, you would have posted some references towards hard evidence. But you rather argue about who I am.

I wasn't talking about "who you are" at all. I am asking you to provide reasons you reject the arguments put forward by theists.

If, as many are arguing, that you don't need a reason to reject the arguments, then that means you can reject the arguments "Just because you feel like it", or "because you've already made up your mind", or "because that banana told me to".

It doesn't seem like a particularly rational way to go about things. Nor does it seem fair to the theists.

The reason the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the theist is because they are the ones that put God(s) up on that pedestal. I do not approach the idea of gods differently than any other claim that I have encountered in my life.

I'm not saying that theists don't have a burden of proof. Or rather, theists must support their claim that gods exist, just as atheists should support their claims that the theists haven't provided sufficient evidence that god exists.

 

[outhouse]

the theists haven't provided sufficient evidence that god exists.

Not sufficient evidence.

They have never supplied any evidence at all.

 

[The Bullfrog]

I wasn't talking about "who you are" at all. I am asking you to provide reasons you reject the arguments put forward by theists.

If, as many are arguing, that you don't need a reason to reject the arguments, then that means you can reject the arguments "Just because you feel like it", or "because you've already made up your mind", or "because that banana told me to".

It doesn't seem like a particularly rational way to go about things. Nor does it seem fair to the theists.



I'm not saying that theists don't have a burden of proof. Or rather, theists must support their claim that gods exist, just as atheists should support their claims that the theists haven't provided sufficient evidence that god exists.

"that the theists haven't provided sufficient evidence that god exists."

I would be happy to dispute the evidence if they would get some.

 

[Willamena]

That is why I place the burned of proof on the theist. Because they can't even figure out what it is they are proving.

They don't have to prove anything. They are theists.

 

[outhouse]

They don't have to prove anything. They are theists.

Yet many try and prove their mythology exist in reality.

They constantly cross scientific lines as well as historical, so YES they do have to prove things. :yes:

 

[Willamena]

"Burden of proof" does not mean you have to prove something to others, nor does it kick in when you're wanting to convince someone else of something that you believe. Rather, it is present whenever a posit (a belief) is made about the world.

The (classical) theist posits god and bears that burden. The atheist posits disbelief, unconvincing evidence, unconvincing arguments, etc. and bears that burden. This thread was made in protest of those atheists who say they have no burden.

 

[steeltoes]

Something like that. I'm a polytheist/pantheist/animist, and a major part of my practice is paying respect to or celebrating various aspects of reality, whether they have tangible form (i.e., worship of sun or storms) or are more abstract/ideological (i.e., worship of learning or creativity).

But that aside, I still don't know of any theisms that are not supported in some fashion. People do not accept things without cause. There are reams of theological and philosophical arguments for classical monotheism, oodles of people who can testify to their personal experiences with various gods, strong familial and community bonds that underpin traditions, and so forth. I'm not limiting the notion of support and proofs to the narrow empirical or scientific sense, largely because I don't feel it makes any sense to do so in the context of areas like philosophy or religion. They're not science, and it makes about as much sense to me that philosophy and religion conform to scientific standards as it does to demand that creative writing and the fine arts conform to such standards. That's my general angle, anyway.

So circling this back around to burden of proof, maybe another reason it strikes me as silly is because I tend to view religion and philosophy as more like an art. If you walk into an art gallery, and someone says they think an abstract painting represents some particular thing, it should be good enough for them to explain why it resonated with them in that way. There is no authoritatively proving that the painting means X, Y, or Z. It's interpretation. And folks can have many different interpretations, discuss their reasons, and still disagree with each other. Sometimes I would like it if atheists defined themselves less in opposition to someone's interpretation of the painting and told us more about how they see the painting. Perhaps from that angle, there is some truth in saying it is unfair to place any burden on them. But why place burdens on anyone? Not all theists are making authoritative truth claims when they speak of their gods - they're like the person in the art gallery saying "this is how I interpret this painting."

And now I'm probably rambling incoherently...

Participation is not mandatory. No one should have to explain why they do not play golf or why they do not participate in religious beliefs. The OP suggests that we are obligated with a burden of proof to explain why we do not participate in a commonly shared belief in God. Well, I don't think the theist ought to concern him/herself with the nonthieist.

 

[outhouse]

"Burden of proof" does not mean you have to prove something to others, nor does it kick in when you're wanting to convince someone else of something that you believe. Rather, it is present whenever a posit (a belief) is made about the world.

The (classical) theist posits god and bears that burden. The atheist posits disbelief, unconvincing evidence, unconvincing arguments, etc. and bears that burden. This thread was made in protest of those atheists who say they have no burden.

I rarely see any atheist making the statement

"Your god does not exist scientifically"

Without an explaination.

 

[steeltoes]

"Burden of proof" does not mean you have to prove something to others, nor does it kick in when you're wanting to convince someone else of something that you believe. Rather, it is present whenever a posit (a belief) is made about the world.

The (classical) theist posits god and bears that burden. The atheist posits disbelief, unconvincing evidence, unconvincing arguments, etc. and bears that burden. This thread was made in protest of those atheists who say they have no burden.

We've been through this before, it's a freedom for atheists, not a burden.