Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Monk Of Reason]

It's a tu quoque, but I disagree. Theism is saying "we don't know everything, and we believe there is another factor" (i.e., God). We don't pretend to know everything. Every religion (and I'd say most, if not all theists) says that there is much more to God's Nature than we will ever understand.
We're not ones saying "this can't happen" and pretending we know everything about everything.

Most chrsitians seem to disagree with you on this. They "KNOW" that god loves them and that Jesus is the lord and savior. Muslims KNOW that Allah is their god. People have killed in the name of their religion in the past and caused huge amounts of animosity in the world as well as forcing religiously based bigoted laws in America right this very second. That isn't because they "think" that there is something else afoot in some kind of harmless and passive way.

Agnostic theists would be what you have described. Not Gnostic theists.

Atheism also doesn't state "this can't happen". It states "I don't believe this is happening". To doubt is inherently non-arrogant if it lacks a presumption. To have a presumption would be the definition of arrogance. As an Agnostic atheist I know I personally can be arrogant but my position as an agnostic atheist is not.

 

[Ingledsva]

ING - As already pointed out I am using Zombie as Walking Dead. And just as we don't have real Zombies - It is also logical to assume we don't have Walking Dead Jesus and friends.

Please then, describe the difference between 'real zombies' and 'walking dead jesus and friends'.

No. We are also talking about caved-skulls and dirty and dusty shrouds and dare I say... ZOMBIES. Because YOU read the verse and it is clear to YOU that these things MUST BE.
...

There are no "real" zombies, - and that is the point.


No Zombies crawling out of graves - and no Jesus and friends crawling out of graves.


As I said earlier, I wrote this to show there is no logic in expecting non-believers to accept as real - these myths.



*

 

[atanu]

You are a broken record no matter how many times I fix you aren't you?

YOUR failure to prove theism is not the CAUSE of my atheism. HOWEVER if you COULD prove your THEISM then it would CAUSE me to abandon my atheism.

For example if I place a cup on a table. Is the reason its on the table because no one pushes it off? no. Its on the table because someone put it there. But it is within the realm of possibility that someone could come and push it off.

Yes. We both are broken records. I merely repeated what you said, which is reproduced:

So prior to meeting you I was an atheist because I, myself, have not seen evidence of god. You now say you do believe in god. If we were to have a conversation about the subject then all I have to do to support my position is point out the lack of evidence. I can't go out and find all the non-evidence to present to you. I have not made a claim........

So, your evidences are just not sufficient. You know that.

I will stop here, my friend. You may see a few previous threads where a few atheists have agreed to my proposition.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3730462-post178.html

I have no problem with above admission, I however do not find that enough evidence to assert absence of a higher power. :sorry1:

Again: Absence of evidence cannot be evidence of absence (in my opinion).

Thanks.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you could change your argument, I could play a new song. I merely repeated what you said, which is reproduced:



So, your evidences are just not sufficient. You know that.

I will stop here, my friend. You may see a few previous posts where a few agreed:



Yes. We both are broken records. I merely repeated what you said, which is reproduced:



So, your evidences are just not sufficient. You know that.

I will stop here, my friend. You may see a few previous threads where a few atheists have agreed to my proposition.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3730462-post178.html

I have no problem with above admission, I however do not find that enough evidence to assert absence of a higher power. :sorry1:

Again: Absence of evidence cannot be evidence of absence (in my opinion).

Thanks.

Do you by chance follow the misguided notion that atheists "believe" there is no god? If so that explains a lot.

You suffer from misinformation of my position. Atheism means that I do not believe in god. Not that I believe god is impossible or that there specifically is no god.

 

[atanu]

Do you by chance follow the misguided notion that atheists "believe" there is no god? If so that explains a lot.

You suffer from misinformation of my position. Atheism means that I do not believe in god. Not that I believe god is impossible or that there specifically is no god.

No No. I know that atheists 'believe' that they have no 'belief' regarding God. On that there was a discussion of 100 pages earlier. I still hold that "no 'belief' regarding God" cannot stand on its own without clinching evidence, which is not there.

For this thread, my position is summarised in two lines.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3730299-post170.html

I am not forcing anyone to agree. I have merely stated my understanding and to which a few already responded.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...2-post178.html

Thanks Monk.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No No. I know that atheists 'believe' that they have no 'belief' regarding God. On that there was a discussion of 100 pages earlier. I still hold that "no 'belief' regarding God" cannot stand on its own without clinching evidence, which is not there.

For this thread, my position is summarised in two lines.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3730299-post170.html

I am not forcing anyone to agree. I have merely stated my understanding and to which a few already responded.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...2-post178.html

Thanks Monk.

Can you explain to me how skepticism requires evidence?

 

[Breathe]

Most chrsitians seem to disagree with you on this. They "KNOW" that god loves them and that Jesus is the lord and savior. Muslims KNOW that Allah is their god.

But this isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the nature of God, and of making such claims of reality. Plus, this is through (believed) revelation. Different.

People have killed in the name of their religion in the past and caused huge amounts of animosity in the world as well as forcing religiously based bigoted laws in America right this very second. That isn't because they "think" that there is something else afoot in some kind of harmless and passive way.

Unrelated to the topic. This is religion, not theism. There are atheistic religions, too. It's false to compare religion and theism as the same thing. Atheists get upset when people do the same to atheism and communism, so I expect the same.

Atheism also doesn't state "this can't happen". It states "I don't believe this is happening".

This wasn't what happened earlier, though, nor what I said.

To doubt is inherently non-arrogant if it lacks a presumption. To have a presumption would be the definition of arrogance.

I agree.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But this isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the nature of God, and of making such claims of reality. Plus, this is through (believed) revelation. Different.

Fair enough

Unrelated to the topic. This is religion, not theism. There are atheistic religions, too. It's false to compare religion and theism as the same thing. Atheists get upset when people do the same to atheism and communism, so I expect the same.

I can't think of an actual atheist religion. Some Buddhists might lean that way on a technicality.

This wasn't what happened earlier, though, nor what I said.

"We're not ones saying "this can't happen" and pretending we know everything about everything."

I agree.

In apparent contradiction. Care to explain in further detail what your position is? Was I wrong when I read that you felt atheism is an "arrogant" position?

 

[Thief]

Wow! Now that I have been here for a few weeks, it is hard not to notice how tragically you repeat the same fallacies no matter how many times your misconceptions are corrected.

Science tells us that cause and effect are not universal, and that cause and effect do not apply to quantum events, or singularities.

Sadly knowing that you are wrong does not change your commitment to the things you are wrong about.

And I will say it again.

Take away cause and effect and you can never be sure of anything.....
ever again.

 

[Thief]

Actually I didn't "choose" to "not believe". I realized I don't believe. Just as you don't "choose" to not believe in Santa. So no it is not a choice in that regard. It is a conclusion.

So that breaks down the whole of the rest of your argument.

Though I have a question for you. If you define god only as "the cause of the universe" doesn't that remove any actual relevance or importance to the concept of god? What if it was defined and now it is called naturalistic? You could still call it god. People used to call the sun a god. Why? Because of all that it can do. We explain it now and its naturalistic. Would the same thing happen to you and your definition of god? Or do you still attach other meanings to the word other than "cause of the universe"?

Let's see.....bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.
Cannot be pushed aside, circumvented, subdued, tricked or cheated.

Having the power of creation......Creator.

Stacked decked and regarded as the Almighty.

Would that be sufficient for a bent knee?

 

[Breathe]

I can't think of an actual atheist religion. Some Buddhists might lean that way on a technicality.

Some forms of: Buddhism and Taoism.
Jainism.
Raelianism (creationist ancient alien atheists free loving cloning people).
LaVeyan Satanism, Dudeism
Non-theist Quakers, non-theist Judaism
Scientology...

According to some interpretations, the personality cults of Marxism, Maoism, Leninism, etc, would also count. The cult of personality around the Kim family of North Korea, too.

And so on.

"We're not ones saying "this can't happen" and pretending we know everything about everything."

Which isn't me saying atheists do this.

In apparent contradiction. Care to explain in further detail what your position is?

"Don't act like you know everything about the universe to say what is not possible, you're just a human too."

Was I wrong when I read that you felt atheism is an "arrogant" position?

Yes. Completely.

 

[Skwim]

Seems the thread has been

​

But what the heck, it ran its course long enough.

 

[steeltoes]

Same with me. You can see why BoP is not the best way to start out a conversation with a theist, then, can't you? You won't find out much about their beliefs if you manage to get them to walk away in disgust.

If the BoP comes up all I can say is that I can't find evidence for God, I took on the BoP and failed, and I refuse to believe on faith for the sake of believing God exists. I don't see the virtue of believing on faith alone.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

No one is disputing that.

But what happens next? That is what this thread is about, and what I am interested in.

Theists have offered various reasons, arguments, and evidences to support their claim that god exists.

But the atheists say that this evidence is not sufficient, that the burden of proof has not been met.

Do atheists need to support that claim?

And if you argue that they do not, then doesn't that make the claim arbitrary and meaningless? If anyone can reject arguments for any reason or no reason, then that makes the whole "burden of proof" argument a rational dead end.

 

[steeltoes]

The burden of proof is a valid argument, atheists admit that the proofs for God fail, 2 + 2 still equals four, end of story.

 

[Skwim]

If the BoP comes up all I can say is that I can't find evidence for God, I took on the BoP and failed, and I refuse to believe on faith for the sake of believing God exists. I don't see the virtue of believing on faith alone.

In as much as I don't think there's anything new to say about the theist/atheist BoP issue I'm going off point here to comment on your post.

I generally think of faith as trust in belief. One's belief is so strong that you're willing to act on it. Consider: your drive up to a four-way stop intersection and there are other cars doing the same. Now, having arrived first you you believe you have the right of way. Past experience has shown that in similar situations other drivers have granted you just this: the right of way. Now, there is no guarantee that this time they will do the same; however, you take your belief that they will, and turn it into a faith and act on this belief, and move forward. The virtue of this faith is that it accommodates your intent and allows you to get on with your life expeditiously.

This why I feel that faith can have a very practical application in life. In other cases, not so much. In fact it can blind one to reality by pushing one to ignore the contradictions and evidence against the belief on which the faith rests.

 

[Falvlun]

Only if you're trying to convince someone else that this is the case. If I listen to a theists claims about god and find them wanting, I have no burden of proof to reject them. The burden of proof only exists in the context of attempting to convince someone else of your positive claim.

You can ask me why I reject a theists claims about god, and I can say because they are insufficiently evidence. Yet, if I don't care about trying to convince you of why this is the case, I have no burden of proof.

Well, technically, no one has to do anything. I mean, everyone can just throw the rules of debate out the window. No one can force anyone to provide reasons for their beliefs, and everyone's free to believe whatever they want for whatever reason they want.

But everyone does seem to be forgetting the context.

We are talking about debates on RF where a theists asks an atheist to provide proof for their non-belief, and the atheist replies "I don't have to because you have the burden of proof". (NB: the wording does not need to be exact, but that's the gist of it.)

In such a context, if you are using the "burden of proof" argument as essentially a premise in your argument in the debate, I would think that you have an assumed responsibility to support the truth of your claim. Otherwise, even the theist could simply fire back "I'm not trying to convince you that god exists" too, and the debate would be at an impasse. The whole thing just causes a whole bunch of silliness.

And then there is the more important argument: That of the responsibility to yourself. I worry that the use of the "burden of proof" argument convinces people that they do not have to have any reasons for their disbelief. You owe it to yourself (at least, if you want a rational worldview), to understand why you reject the arguments made in favor of god's existence. And this has nothing to do with convincing other people.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But the atheists say that this evidence is not sufficient, that the burden of proof has not been met.

Do atheists need to support that claim?

Only if they're trying to convince others that their claim is true. Nobody has a "burden of proof" to themselves.

 

[outhouse]

Theists have offered various reasons, arguments, and evidences to support their claim that god exists.

But the atheists say that this evidence is not sufficient, that the burden of proof has not been met.

Do atheists need to support that claim?


.

You cant prove something that does not exist, really does not exist.


I would have to answer as, it depends on the claim the theist makes.


Has any theist ever brought anything to the table outside mythology and imagination?, would be my next question.

 

[Willamena]

Can you explain to me how skepticism requires evidence?

Sure. Unless a claim contradicts what you know to be true there can be no skepticism.