Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Copernicus]

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.

Actually, most of the combatants in this thread are atheists, and we've had this dispute before in other threads. And a fair number of those 500 posts have been yours, which suggests that your feelings about this issue are as strong as anyone else's. I will concede that those atheists who think BoP is a weak argument strategy seem to be in the minority.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, most of the combatants in this thread are atheists, and we've had this dispute before in other threads. And a fair number of those 500 posts have been yours, which suggests that your feelings about this issue are as strong as anyone else's. I will concede that those atheists who think BoP is a weak argument strategy seem to be in the minority.

But the burden of proof is not an argument at all anyway. Atheists do not use the 'burden of proof' argument, because it is not an argument.

The simple fact is that the burden of proof for theism has not been met, and that disbelief does not bear a burden of proof.

What I feel strongly about is the preposterous notion that the 'burden of proof' is an argument ever employed by atheists - it isn't an argument, it is just a convention that the person making the claim bears the burden of proof. If the burden of proof for theism had been met, there would be no atheists.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

For many, yes.

Yep. That is my personal reason.

 

[Breathe]

To my understanding religion generally requires some degree of theism or at least belief in higher power.

Your understanding is wrong.

Marxism isn't a cult actually and isn't anything like a religion. Comparable doesn't mean they are the same.

I disagree. From my perspective, yes it is. Hero-worship still has religious undertones, and it is idealistic.

Then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

No worries.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's what the thread is about.

That is not an answer, you realize.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one has answered this question yet, and I've asked it so many times that I'm irritating myself, but here goes again:

What if the reason you were not convinced of Bob's claim is because the banana told you he was wrong?

Is this fair to Bob, that you can have literally any reason (or no reason at all) to find his argument unconvincing?

"You're wrong because the banana told me so" is a positive claim with its own burden of proof. However, generally yes: it's fair to Bob not to accept his conclusion unless you unequivocally agree with certainty to every single step in his argument. In fact, accepting his conclusion for anything less would miss the whole point of logical argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You stopped before the part that this thread addresses.

So we have this:
Atheist: You can't prove that god exists!
Theist: Prove that god doesn't exist!
Atheist: You have the burden of proof!

This is the argument you described in your post. But, the debate doesn't just end there. My question is "What about what comes next?"

Theist: God exists because argument X, reason Y, and evidence Z.
(This is the theist's attempt at fulfilling her burden of proof.)

Atheist: You have not convinced me, therefore, you have failed to meet the burden of proof.
(This is the atheist rejecting the proof offered by the theist.)

I am not arguing about the part of the debate you described in your post. I am talking about the next step. The theist has offered proof and the atheist has rejected it.

Does the atheist need any reason to reject the arguments offered by the theists?

Is she allowed to reject them "just because"?

What do you mean by "allowed"?

Socially, if you want to maintain a relationship with the theist, then it might be a good idea to explain your thought processes in more detail.

Logically or ethically, you don't intrinsically owe the theist any of your time at all. There's nothing illogical or unethical about not providing a detailed response... unless, as I touched on above, a social obligation is created by some pre-existing relationship.

 

[cottage]

I am not arguing that theists don't have a burden of proof.

But, don't you think it's a bit unlikely that the atheist in a debate is completely ignorant of any of the reasons theists have offered over hundreds of years?

Not sure what you’re implying here, that the sceptic must trawl for the reasons that theists have used to justify their faith and then argue against them? As a sceptic I don’t disbelieve in gods because I find theists’ arguments unconvincing, I disbelieve in them because there is nothing corresponding to the concept in experience and nor is it an innate idea; therefore the burden of proof lies entirely with the theist to convince me otherwise. The individual that introduces any claim for supernatural beings, that is to say any objects that cannot be verified in possible experience, cannot expect sceptics to justify their scepticism against the individual’s belief-as-faith. (And it is of course absurd to expect the sceptic to prove the non-existence of a thing that even theists are unable to prove to themselves.)

I ask you the same questions I have asked others:

How do you know it's a poor argument? Who decides? What's the criteria?

If, as you have argued above, we need not give any reasons to label something a poor argument, or insufficient evidence, or whatever, then any reason is as good as another.

You could be rejecting the arguments because the banana told you to. How is that fair to the theist?

A poor argument is one that is fallacious, incoherent or logically impossible.

 

[Thief]

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

And what statement do you question?

Denial on your part needs no support?

 

[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 your denial is not a trump card.
Have a cause to say no?

 

[Willamena]

That is not an answer, you realize.

Yes it is. You had asked how I came about a conviction that was not a conviction that I had come about, so I gave the best answer.

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean by "allowed"?

To get away Scot-free.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

:
Your wish is my command:

We must be talking about different things. I don't see, in any of those, where there is an implication that the atheist is rejecting theists' claims for no reason.

 

[Nakosis]

So would it be fair to say I don't believe in atheism because they have failed to meet the burden of proof?

 

[Falvlun]

What do you mean by "allowed"?

Socially, if you want to maintain a relationship with the theist, then it might be a good idea to explain your thought processes in more detail.

Logically or ethically, you don't intrinsically owe the theist any of your time at all. There's nothing illogical or unethical about not providing a detailed response... unless, as I touched on above, a social obligation is created by some pre-existing relationship.

I meant in the context of a debate.

Of course, no one doesn't owe anyone their time. The theist doesn't "owe" any atheist proof for their beliefs. But the "burden of proof" is a debate convention. So, if you are claiming that the theist owes you something in a debate, then I don't see why there are such qualms about the idea of an atheist owing the theist something within a debate.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes it is. You had asked how I came about a conviction that was not a conviction that I had come about, so I gave the best answer.

You might as well have given none, I am sorry to say.

 

[LuisDantas]

So would it be fair to say I don't believe in atheism because they have failed to meet the burden of proof?

Weird, but fair. It is a bit more direct to simply say that you choose to believe in the existence of at least one deity.

 

[Falvlun]

We must be talking about different things. I don't see, in any of those, where there is an implication that the atheist is rejecting theists' claims for no reason.

Please note what I am claiming:

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.

EDIT: And to make it even clearer, you could insert "to give" after the bolded "need".

 

[LuisDantas]

I meant in the context of a debate.

Of course, no one doesn't owe anyone their time. The theist doesn't "owe" any atheist proof for their beliefs. But the "burden of proof" is a debate convention. So, if you are claiming that the theist owes you something in a debate, then I don't see why there are such qualms about the idea of an atheist owing the theist something within a debate.

Doesn't that need a premise that theism can be logically attained (or denied), though?

I don't think that is a reasonable premise to take.

 

[LuisDantas]

I meant in the context of a debate.

Of course, no one doesn't owe anyone their time. The theist doesn't "owe" any atheist proof for their beliefs. But the "burden of proof" is a debate convention. So, if you are claiming that the theist owes you something in a debate, then I don't see why there are such qualms about the idea of an atheist owing the theist something within a debate.

For two good reasons.

1. It is the theists that expect others to surrender to their take on things.

2. It is also the theists who are making positive claims about the literal existence of deities.

The first reason explains why atheists must speak. The second is why the burden of proof is of the theists alone.