Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Monk Of Reason]

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

as stated above. You seem to think that "burden of proof" is different somehow than it is. As an atheist I have to show that the evidence provided is not good enough. I don't have to bring counter evidence if that is the case. This is the nature of burden of proof.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

The meaningfulness (or lack thereof) of theism is indeed not demonstrated by arguments for atheism.

It has been established previously by other means. For my own satisfaction, if doubtlessly not for everyone else's.

As a rule, I don't take theism too seriously. It is not worth the trouble.

 

[McBell]

And I will say it again.

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

Except as was already pointed out, cause and effect is not the be all you want/need it to be in the first place...

 

[Thief]

Except as was already pointed out, cause and effect is not the be all you want/need it to be in the first place...

You don't have that for certain....as I pointed out.

 

[Thief]

All this plea for evidence....

Go outside on a clear night...and look up.

 

[McBell]

You don't have that for certain....as I pointed out.

Nor do you.
You just happen to need it to be in order for your faith to work for you.

 

[Thief]

Nor do you.
You just happen to need it to be in order for your faith to work for you.

Need what?....a reason to believe?
I have that.
It's called cause and effect.

Have you tried looking up on a clear night?
That's a lot of effect....to have no Cause.

 

[McBell]

Have you tried looking up on a clear night?
That's a lot of effect....to have no Cause.

And yet your god (a lot of effect) has no cause?
Your hypocrisy is most comical.

 

[McBell]

Need what?....a reason to believe?
I have that.
It's called cause and effect.

Yes, we have already established you have to have cause and effect to be a be all in order for your faith to work.


You really should try harder to keep up.

 

[Thief]

Yes, we have already established you have to have cause and effect to be a be all in order for your faith to work.


You really should try harder to keep up.

And you could try a little harder to let go a discussion you cannot win.

 

[McBell]

And you could try a little harder to let go a discussion you cannot win.

:biglaugh:

Is this to say you are not interested in keeping up with the conversation?

 

[Copernicus]

And you could try a little harder to let go a discussion you cannot win.

Thief, it would be nice if you would stay on topic rather than derail the thread with more of your proselytizing.

 

[Willamena]

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

No, atheists need to have a reason, preferably a good one, for being atheists.

 

[steeltoes]

No, atheists need to have a reason, preferably a good one, for being atheists.

I'm an atheist because I can't think of a good reason to be a theist.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, atheists need to have a reason, preferably a good one, for being atheists.

Yes. And that abundantly good reason is the lack of evidence for the argument of theism.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm an atheist because I can't think of a good reason to be a theist.

I suppose that a theist could just make the opposite claim. One reason to participate in a forum like this is to get different perspectives from other intelligent folks who disagree with us. Or we could just go into our respective corners and not talk to each other. If the goal is to engage theists in conversation, then arguing over who has the burden of proof probably isn't a winning strategy.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, atheists need to have a reason, preferably a good one, for being atheists.

Beyond "not having a belief in the existence of deities", you mean?

Far as I can tell that is neither true nor a goal worth pursuing. How did you come to that conviction?

 

[LuisDantas]

I suppose that a theist could just make the opposite claim.

Perhaps, but it would be far more problematic for him. How does one claim to believe in a deity for no particular reason?

I don't think that can work very well, if at all. Theism is supposed to exist as a function of a belief, which by its turn involves some conception of deity.

To say that one believes in that just because is... exceedingly odd IMO.

One reason to participate in a forum like this is to get different perspectives from other intelligent folks who disagree with us. Or we could just go into our respective corners and not talk to each other. If the goal is to engage theists in conversation, then arguing over who has the burden of proof probably isn't a winning strategy.

Ah, but why is the burden of proof a subject at all? As a reaction against social and religious pressure for (usually empty) belief or at least the semblance of belief in deities.

The true question isn't whether it is a bad argument, but rather why an argument for atheism is at all demanded.

 

[Willamena]

Yes. And that abundantly good reason is the lack of evidence for the argument of theism.

For many, yes.

Beyond "not having a belief in the existence of deities", you mean?

Yes.

Far as I can tell that is neither true nor a goal worth pursuing. How did you come to that conviction?

It's what the thread is about.

 

[Skwim]

I suppose that a theist could just make the opposite claim. One reason to participate in a forum like this is to get different perspectives from other intelligent folks who disagree with us. Or we could just go into our respective corners and not talk to each other. If the goal is to engage theists in conversation, then arguing over who has the burden of proof probably isn't a winning strategy.

Boy, considering that burden of proof is exactly what the thread is predicated on and that it's now closing in on 500 posts it certainly indicates to me that it's a winning strategy. Theists have engaged themselves here just as much as have the non-theists.