Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[ChristineES]

Most Christians 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.

.

Well, gee, if we didn't believe that, we wouldn't even have a faith. If Muslims didn't believe anything about Allah, then could they even have a religion/faith? But, even so, it is still a faith and nothing we try and prove. There are a lot of laws that Christians had nothing to do with, such as abortion laws and having sex outside of marriage isn't against the law of the land, so I think you might want to rethink that:If you do, You may not change your mind and think that I am full of it, however. I am just saying that not all laws are religion based.

 

[Willamena]

So, if that were my reason, then you'd have a burden of proof for not thinking it was an acceptable reason. And, this would go on ad infinitum.

The burden of not thinking is precisely what this thread is against.

 

[Falvlun]

From what I've seen here and elsewhere it's never because the atheist has no reason, but rather that the reasons given by theists have failed to convince, which is ample reason for rejection.

Don’t you think that the “why” is important? Why haven’t the arguments convinced us?

I don't recall any posters here who has said they don't have a reason for their non-belief, but rather they feel no burden to prove it. In fact, I think they have plenty of reason; primarily that theists have not proven their case, which is quite sufficient

I didn’t say that there are posters who claim to have no reasons for their non-belief. I said that there are posters who claim that they need no reasons and have no responsibility to defend their non-beliefs. You yourself said as much below:

Why shouldn't I believe that marshmallows lack brains if you can't prove to me that they do? I feel absolutely no responsibility/burden to prove my disbelief.

If you're making the claim that atheists have rejected theists claims without giving any reason why, then the burden of proof is on you to provide examples.

Your wish is my command:

In face of total silence. There is no real validation for thiests to go by, nor is there any real platform that would warrant the claims made by thiests. Athiests just reflect the reality of the matter as it stands directly. I think in that light no real need exists to pursue the matter of disapproving thiestic claims which in such a case, the burden of proof is in fact pointless as there is nothing there that can be proven.

All the atheist need point out is the failure of the theist to make their case. The theist can either accept this or push for explanation, which the atheist is under no obligation to do.

There is no burden on anyone rejecting the claim to do anything.

And I see it as perfectly reasonable. I don't see any reason to defend my position that marshmallows don't have brains, no matter how much you may like just such a defense.

It is also not possible to prove that you find the evidence lacking and so you would be placing upon atheism a burden thatis impossible to meet.

The reality here is that atheism can not bear a burden of proof that it is not possible to satisfy, and to ask atheists to do so is as absurd as it is dishonest.

But that doesn' t make sense - you either believe something or you don't. You do not need to prove that you have failed to be convinced,. That you have not been convinced and thus do not hold a given belief is not a claim - it is a statement.

No, not until the claims are presented in falsifiable terms are atheists obligated in any way to explain anything, to themselves or to anyone else.
It is perfectly reasonable to summarily dismiss without evidence claims that are presented without evidence.

Sure, but you can justify atheism simply by recognising that the burden of proof for the existence of god is as yet unmet.
You do not need to disprove the unproven.

"that the theists haven't provided sufficient evidence that god exists."
I would be happy to dispute the evidence if they would get some.

(Note: I included these sorts of sentiments because they are related—they are the claim that atheists have no need to defend their rejection of the evidence offered by theists by claiming that no evidence was ever offered. )

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.

You can ask me why I reject a theist’s 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.

(Note: you did indicate that if the intention was to convince, then the burden of proof would exist. I included this because I still find it strange that you can claim that someone hasn’t met the burden of proof in a debate, and yet, feel that this doesn’t necessarily need to be justified.)

All the atheist is saying to the theist is "your 'proof' does not convince me." What kind of burden is subsumed in such a claim? Is the theist going argue, "I don't believe that you are not convinced," which is hardly a point of rational dispute, and the basis of some presumed burden. How would the atheist go about proving that he is unconvinced?

[/INDENT] And I feel no burden whatsoever to prove my lack of belief.

But saying that one hasn't met the burden of proof of god's existence is hardly defending the atheist position. It's merely explaining it. The atheist has no need to defend his position. In a sense, his position is one of default nullification.

If the non-theist has a robust, god-free mental model of the world and its predictions agree reasonably well with what he observes, then what else is needed?

(Note: I included this because it indicates that an atheist need not defend his position, as long as it aligns with the rest of his worldview. But could not this same thing be said of theists?)

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

(Note: Quotes like this indicate that simply asserting that the proofs fail is enough. Isn't the "why" important?)

 

[Falvlun]

But not meeting the burden of proof is the reason being given for disbelief. "There isn't a good enough reason for me to accept your claim" is a perfectly valid reason to disbelieve the claim.

Don't you think the "why" is important?

After all, Creationists don't think that the TOE has good enough reasons for them to support it... because they believe that God hand-created everything.

The reasons you reject the arguments are important. Otherwise, simply stating that theists haven't met the burden of proof is arbitrary.

And I pointed out that "it simply being anecdotal" isn't the issue. The nature of the claim itself makes anecdotal evidence dismissable, not the fact that the evidence is anecdotal in and of itself. My point is that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

Ah, I get what you were saying now.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, gee, if we didn't believe that, we wouldn't even have a faith. If Muslims didn't believe anything about Allah, then could they even have a religion/faith? But, even so, it is still a faith and nothing we try and prove. There are a lot of laws that Christians had nothing to do with, such as abortion laws and having sex outside of marriage isn't against the law of the land, so I think you might want to rethink that:If you do, You may not change your mind and think that I am full of it, however. I am just saying that not all laws are religion based.

Obviously it is an innate property of religious folks to believe something to be true. Otherwise they wouldn't be religious.

Some people do try to prove their faith and have it forced upon others. Herritage foundation, banana man, ect.

I never said "all laws". Some laws. Thankfully the majority of our laws were secular. Some religious based laws have wiggled their way into our books though.
And on adultery...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't you think the "why" is important?

Of course it is. Where did I ever state or imply that the reasons given for rejecting given evidence isn't important?

 

[ChristineES]

Obviously it is an innate property of religious folks to believe something to be true. Otherwise they wouldn't be religious.

Some people do try to prove their faith and have it forced upon others. Herritage foundation, banana man, ect.

I never said "all laws". Some laws. Thankfully the majority of our laws were secular. Some religious based laws have wiggled their way into our books though.
And on adultery...

I won't talk about adultery, I've been the victim of it. But, if I go by most people's reaction to it, then it is considered wrong outside of religion, as well.

 

[Willamena]

Of course it is. Where did I ever state or imply that the reasons given for rejecting given evidence isn't important?

You didn't; it's just what the thread is about.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I won't talk about adultery, I've been the victim of it. But, if I go by most people's reaction to it, then it is considered wrong outside of religion, as well.

yeah. I personally disagree with it. I wasn't really rebutting I was just adding information to the pot since we were on the subject.

 

[Falvlun]

Of course it is. Where did I ever state or imply that the reasons given for rejecting given evidence isn't important?

Because that's been what I have been arguing for this entire thread, and it seemed like you were in opposition to that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because that's been what I have been arguing for this entire thread, and it seemed like you were in opposition to that.

No. The point of the thread is about burden of proof. Not about validity of counterarguments.

 

[Willamena]

No. The point of the thread is about burden of proof. Not about validity of counterarguments.

It's not even about the validity of counterarguments. It's just about having a rational position.

 

[Falvlun]

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?

No, of course not. Not at all.

They (we) may even decide arbitrarily that they are not convinced and call it a day.

This really, really surprises me. I thought you were being sarcastic, but the rest of your post seems to support a serious take.

And if you argue that they do not, then doesn't that make the claim arbitrary and meaningless?

Yes!

Why would it have any meaning? It is, after all, just a refusal to support a claim that is itself of at best arguable meaning and evidence.

Theism means very little. And atheism can't mean any more than theism.

I just... I just don't understand this. Why would you make meaningless claims to support your position?

If anyone can reject arguments for any reason or no reason, then that makes the whole "burden of proof" argument a rational dead end.

More exactly, it would make the effort of proving God's existence a dead end. Which it does.

It seems to me that you are a bit perplexed by what are essentially direct consequences of the deeply arbitrary nature of theism.

If the claim "theists have failed to meet their burden of proof" is arbitrary and meaningless, then that says nothing about meaningfulness of theism (or atheism). It simply makes it a bad argument.

 

[outhouse]

It's not even about the validity of counterarguments. It's just about having a rational position.

Has a theist ever provided that in a debate while bringing evidence for any deity?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's not even about the validity of counterarguments. It's just about having a rational position.

Inadvertently. The OP tried to twist words around to shift burden of proof in claims. It has devolved into other tangents along the way of course.

OP: Atheists need to prove their case.

Atheists: Not exactly.

Devolution

 

[Falvlun]

No. The point of the thread is about burden of proof. Not about validity of counterarguments.

Well, the OP was about counterarguments too:

But look more closely. The atheist is making a claim: The claim that theists have not met their burden of proof.

Who decides this? There is no objective arbiter. Why should we, or the theist, accept the assertion that the burden of proof has not been met?

Is this not a claim that requires it's own proof?

So, how would you go about evidencing the claim that theists have not met their burden of proof?

The whole thing stems from the burden of proof argument, so I think your distinction comes down to a quibble. However, if you maintain that this thread has nothing to do with the "validation of counterarguments", then that requires you to basically ignore everything I have posted in this thread.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, the OP was about counterarguments too:

More specifically the OP's misunderstanding of counterarguments.

 

[Falvlun]

Inadvertently. The OP tried to twist words around to shift burden of proof in claims. It has devolved into other tangents along the way of course.

I didn't twist anything.

It seems rather logical to me:

Premise 1: The person making a claim has the burden of proof.
Premise 2: Atheists claim that theists have not met their burden of proof.
Conclusion: Atheists have a burden of proof for the claim "theists have not met their burden of proof".

(And, to avoid the squeals of "But what about the theists!", yes, the theists have a huge big fat burden too.)

 

[Falvlun]

More specifically the OP's misunderstanding of counterarguments.

If you think I misunderstood something, feel free to correct my misunderstanding, now that you know what this thread is about, and all.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I didn't twist anything.

It seems rather logical to me:

Premise 1: The person making a claim has the burden of proof.
Premise 2: Atheists claim that theists have not met their burden of proof.
Conclusion: Atheists have a burden of proof for the claim "theists have not met their burden of proof".

(And, to avoid the squeals of "But what about the theists!", yes, the theists have a huge big fat burden too.)

Premise 1: Someone makes a god claim.
Premise 2: Atheists ask for evidence that is measurable.
conclusion: Theist have to meet that threshold. Generally the bar is pretty low and yet it still isn't met.

We can go into other debates about where this line should be drawn but typically "any" physical or compelling evidence would be nice.

The atheists, or whoever in any argument like this, has to provide a counterargument against the evidences brought by the first premise. But if evidence is not brought from the get go then there cannot be a debate.

*edit* Where you have twisted the words was specifically where you seemed to state that atheists we simply saying "nope not enough evidence" and there was no actual thought process involved and it was some kind of cop out. That is not the case usually.