Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Nakosis]

A Theist tries to prove his position to justify his "rightness" of things. Basically the truth of his morality.

Aren't Atheists often ask to justify their morality? Or it's usually presumed they can't justify their morals.

A specific claim... Homosexuality is immoral based on a belief in the existence of God.

How do you justify the opposite is correct? Or any position opposing religious morality without justifying the position there is no God?

 

[Musty]

Which is not logical, or reasonable.

As in a scientific view you cannot prove imaginative creations do not exist.

It's not logical to you and me but for some theist at least they see it as a logical deduction.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

:banghead3 That is not my claim!

Okay, but that's what I asked for. I said: "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." You then provided a bunch of quotes, I'm guessing, from this thread with people arguing against your point in various ways. So, if you in fact are making that claim, then it is on you to provide examples of atheists actually rejecting theists claims without any reasons given, or contextual clues that they have reasons for doing so. In other words, your thread is predicated on the example of atheists saying that the burden of proof is on theists, then theists providing reasons, and then atheists saying that they reject said reasons but won't say why. Do you have any examples of somebody actually doing this? Not talking about doing it, but actually doing it? The burden of proof is on you to provide examples of people actually doing this behavior you claim they do.

And it seems like you've invented a caricature of what I am saying.

Do atheists claim that they don't need to provide reasons for rejecting the arguments made by theists? Yes or no?

Reducing this to a "yes/no" question renders it meaningless, as various contexts and uses are being mixed up and tossed together. The answer is "it depends."

If Yes, then you and I agree and I have not invented anything.

If No, then please explain how I can have quotes from so many atheists, just within this thread, claiming that very thing!

The problem is that your problem is rather vague and broad, and you have various people trying to address you with their interpretation of your argument. Along with that, you're trying to simplify people's responses down and make them fit into some preformed mold you've invented. If you want my honest opinion, I don't think you've really thoroughly thought through what your problem actually is, and it largely seems based on what you perceive as some kind of logical "gotcha," when all you really have is semantical and contextual vagueness.

Debates about the existence of gods are about the arguments for and against anyway. All I'm trying to do is remove the stumbling block for the "against" arguments.

I've read countless well-considered, logical, and organized arguments "against" right here on RF, so I don't really see any stumbling blocks for people arguing against at all.

 

[outhouse]

It's not logical to you and me but for some theist at least they see it as a logical deduction.

Agreed.

And I personally "try" to give each a responce by what I view as their willingness to debate.

 

[Breathe]

the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Not the same as religion.

Idealistic doesn't mean religious. What are the overtones specifically?

It thinks too much of human nature. It thinks things like humanity is good, it's possible to get rid of inequality, and so on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's something I wanted to go back to, because I think it's important:

I'm a fan of "good enough"; I don't think perfection is attainable or all that necessary.

We have to be very careful with "good enough", because it can create unwarranted confidence in our conclusion.

For instance, if you were 90% sure of each step of an argument, how certain should you be of its conclusion?

If there are more than 7 steps - which is pretty typical for an argument for God - then you should be less than half sure (0.9^7 = 0.48). Before too long, an argument where each step is "good enough" becomes no better than a coin flip.

This is an especially major problem for religious and theistic arguments, because IMO their errors in logic often tend to be subtle and at first glance negligible, but have significant impact on the conclusion.

 

[McBell]

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

Why.?

 

[McBell]

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

You keep bringing up my "denial" yet you refuse to answer the most direct straight forward question:

What is it you claim I am denying?​

 

[LuisDantas]

A Theist tries to prove his position to justify his "rightness" of things. Basically the truth of his morality.

Aren't Atheists often ask to justify their morality? Or it's usually presumed they can't justify their morals.

There are those who think that atheism somehow hinders morality, yes.

A bit odd, actually.

A specific claim... Homosexuality is immoral based on a belief in the existence of God.

How do you justify the opposite is correct? Or any position opposing religious morality without justifying the position there is no God?

Morality is gauged by the effects of actions and events. It is fairly easy to demonstrate that homosexuality is no less moral than heterosexuality.

Ultimately, so-called "religious morality" is a very arbitrary construct - and not a very homogeneous one at that.

 

[Nakosis]

There are those who think that atheism somehow hinders morality, yes.

A bit odd, actually.

Not hinders, has no basis.

Morality is gauged by the effects of actions and events. It is fairly easy to demonstrate that homosexuality is no less moral than heterosexuality.

Gauged by who? If my goals are different then yours then I may see the effects of those actions as good. You may not.

Homosexuality is a sin (according to the Bible) It is immoral to support sinful acts.

Ultimately, so-called "religious morality" is a very arbitrary construct - and not a very homogeneous one at that.

What morality is not arbitrary and is homogeneous?
God says (through the Word of God) it is sinful. How are you going to argue with that?

 

[Ingledsva]

A Theist tries to prove his position to justify his "rightness" of things. Basically the truth of his morality.

Aren't Atheists often ask to justify their morality? Or it's usually presumed they can't justify their morals.

A specific claim... Homosexuality is immoral based on a belief in the existence of God.

How do you justify the opposite is correct? Or any position opposing religious morality without justifying the position there is no God?

The Bible doesn't actually say anything against homosexuality.



One would think Jesus would have said something about it if it was forbidden, - but he didn't, and I will assume that is because it isn't.



*

 

[Nakosis]

The Bible doesn't actually say anything against homosexuality.



One would think Jesus would have said something about it if it was forbidden, - but he didn't, and I will assume that is because it isn't.



*

I'm pretty sure Paul does. I tried to justify Paul with Homosexuality and I couldn't really. I assume most Christians don't discount Paul.

personally I don't disagree but in taking the position that the Bible is the moral authority, in order to dispute that there would be a need to dis-prove God

 

[Willamena]

How do I prove to you that "I don't believe?"

I would think it more important, epistemically, to justify it to yourself.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

God says (through the Word of God) it is sinful. How are you going to argue with that?

No. Certain people say that their particular god says it is sinful. A position not supported by any rational evidence that homosexuality is immoral in any measurable way. Incidentally, the same people whose "word of god" makes it clear that it isn't people's place to judge or condemn others. You'll have to excuse us if we don't put much stock in some people's hypocritical bigotry.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would think it more important, epistemically, to justify it to yourself.

I agree. However, this has nothing to do with the type of posit which carries a burden of proof. Atheists posit "I don't believe." This claim carries no burden to prove to others that that claim is true.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not hinders, has no basis.



Gauged by who? If my goals are different then yours then I may see the effects of those actions as good. You may not.

Homosexuality is a sin (according to the Bible) It is immoral to support sinful acts.



What morality is not arbitrary and is homogeneous?
God says (through the Word of God) it is sinful. How are you going to argue with that?

Rather matter-of-factly, actually...

Myself, I'm a proponent of Utilitarianism. And a fan of Peter Singer.

 

[Willamena]

I agree. However, this has nothing to do with the type of posit which carries a burden of proof. Atheists posit "I don't believe." This claim carries no burden to prove to others that that claim is true.

The burden of proof is on the one making the posit.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Bible doesn't actually say anything against homosexuality.



One would think Jesus would have said something about it if it was forbidden, - but he didn't, and I will assume that is because it isn't.

I'm pretty sure Paul does. I tried to justify Paul with Homosexuality and I couldn't really. I assume most Christians don't discount Paul.

personally I don't disagree but in taking the position that the Bible is the moral authority, in order to dispute that there would be a need to dis-prove God

Where?


Arsenokoites does not refer to homosexuals. There are no know uses as such in ancient Greek. It is used for illegal actions like rape and prostitution, though. It is also found in sentences dealing with illegal actions against women, and slaves.



*

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The burden of proof is on the one making the posit.

Yes, and if the atheist posits "I don't believe," how do they go about proving this beyond simply making the statement?

 

[Copernicus]

18 or 3.4% to be exact, a figure I would never characterize as "a fair amount." (Yours is 15 or 2.8%---only three less than mine )

Oh, so you've been doing the math, eh? Well, you aren't done. You need to make a table of all contributers and their post counts. Then you have to rank them according to the number of posts and see whether it is fair to accuse someone with 18 (er...19) posts in this thread of having "a fair number of posts" in this thread. When you are done, post the results here so that I can concede your point. Or not. Now, off you go! (BTW, I didn't claim to have less than a "fair number of posts" myself.)

And. . . ?

And you seem to be complaining a lot about other people going on and on with no sign of agreement. We are all posting here because we have opinions that we want to put forward.

which kind of conflicts with your statement above that: "most of the combatants in this thread are atheists,"

Absolutely not. I think that the vast majority of posts have been from atheists, not theists. I thought Falvlun did a masterful job of extracting snippets of comments from atheists that supported his/her point about the overreach of the BoP attitude. (Sorry, Falvlun, if I keep getting your gender wrong, not that it matters. English forces us to make a choice in 3rd person singular pronouns. )