Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Willamena]

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

As I said, it's more important, epistemically, that they justify it to themselves. That they see and understand the burden.

Some can't even do that much.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Fine, but if you can't support the argument against that particular God why would anyone take stock in your position?

And, to be clear, it's not that you'd need to prove your position with certainty just that is is a reasonable position.

 

[Nakosis]

Rather matter-of-factly, actually...

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

Greatest good for the greatest number? (First heard that as a basis for ethics in Scientology).

The greatest good for the greatest number is for the greatest number to get into heaven.

It's fine but the goals are still arbitrary. Good basis of ethics though among people who have a common goal. You might be left to prove you have the better common goal.

 

[Nakosis]

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.
*

That's not really certain. There is a argument but it basically finds excuses to justify it's position. Still the Bible being the word of God, why would God allow such a grievous error in translation.

But ok, how about

OT....

Lev 20 :13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

[Alceste]

I think the distinction between "rejection" and "failure to accept" is important.

Sure, there are theistic arguments that I've heard or read, carefully considered, and found holes. And I can articulate why I think the holes are actually holes.

However, there are plenty of theistic arguments that I haven't heard or read that I know are out there. I've never read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ or Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Do I reject their arguments? No - I don't even know what they are. I've heard some Christians claim that both books give compelling arguments for God and Christianity, but I don't trust these assessments.

Not only haven't I read either book, but I don't have any plans to read them. I don't have a whole lot of time for reading, and I'm still trying to work my way through Guns, Germs and Steel and Mark Twain's autobiography. I imagine that I'll find other books that interest me so that Strobel and McDowell will never get to the top of my reading list.

So... I know full well that there are at least two bookfuls of arguments for the existence of God out there, but I have no plans to evaluate these arguments and I think that it's still quite reasonable to call myself an atheist.

Am I being unethical?

I did read the Case for Christ. Pure drivel from start to finish.

 

[Ingledsva]

That's not really certain. There is a argument but it basically finds excuses to justify it's position. Still the Bible being the word of God, why would God allow such a grievous error in translation.


ING - Because it isn't the word of God. It is a work of man.


But ok, how about

Lev 20 :13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

OT....

Doesn't actually say that. There is no "as he lieth with a".


Look at the actual words in the Hebrew.


And what about Lev 18:22?


It is talking about Sacred Sex, - the Qadeshah. It changes to Molech worship (Sacred Sex) at 21, and continues to 30.

Lev 18:30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.



*

 

[McBell]

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

No need to argue with it.
It is nothing more than a bold empty claim that can be dismissed by those who do not follow that particular deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Until you establish that:

- God exists
- what you claim is the Word of God really is the Word of God
- divine command theory is correct

... we don't have to argue it. This is how the burden of proof works.

 

[Skwim]

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!

I'll pass, thank you. If you want these numbers then do them yourself.

(BTW, I didn't claim to have less than a "fair number of posts" myself.)

Nor did I say you did.

And you seem to be complaining a lot about other people going on and on with no sign of agreement.

Really? Care to quote these supposed complaints? I'll wait.

We are all posting here because we have opinions that we want to put forward.

Yup. Pretty much so.

Absolutely not.

Then why say,

"I will concede that those atheists who think BoP is a weak argument strategy seem to be in the minority."???
​

 

[Copernicus]

Really? Care to quote these supposed complaints? I'll wait.

Good. Don't hold your breath, because I want to see the results of your math exercise first. People interested in the quibble can go back over your 19 previous posts and check for the accuracy of the quibble.

Then why say,

"I will concede that those atheists who think BoP is a weak argument strategy seem to be in the minority."???
​

Because that seems to be true, as well. Most of the posts in this thread are from atheists, and most of the atheists have disagreed with the OP. Do you want me to draw you a Venn diagram? The results of your math homework first, sonny!

 

[Thief]

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.

I think it is fair.

When taking stance and denial.....you are asserting cause not to believe.
In the face of belief.....'why not?'...is the obvious question.

Without response....denial is shallow.

 

[Skwim]

Good. Don't hold your breath, because I want to see the results of your math exercise first.

Sorry, your control issues aside, believe it or not I'm not in the least interested in playing your game of Do As I Say . . .

People interested in the quibble can go back over your 19 previous posts and check for the accuracy of the quibble.

. . . or care to assist you in saving face here. Flounder in your ill-conceived remark by yourself.

Because that seems to be true, as well. Most of the posts in this thread are from atheists, and most of the atheists have disagreed with the OP. Do you want me to draw you a Venn diagram?

YES!!! Please do. Here, I'll even help you out with the two sets as you've expressed them (label them as you wish):

  SET

1) "I will concede that those atheists who think BoP is a weak argument strategy seem to be in the minority."

2) "I think that the vast majority of posts have been from atheists, not theists."
​

The results of your math homework first, sonny!

Ah ha, your escape clause. How cute. Alas *sigh* I have no homework, so onward with your diagram. Here, I've even provided a two-set Venn outline for you (If you have three sets in mind I'm all the more intrigued). Just label the sets and explain the intersection (that's the overlapping area ).

​

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not the same as religion.

1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Marxism contains the last part. But Marxism is no more a religion than the republican party.

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.

I think we are getting off on a tangent that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think it is fair.

When taking stance and denial.....you are asserting cause not to believe.
In the face of belief.....'why not?'...is the obvious question.

Without response....denial is shallow.

This covers my daily five seconds of wondering if you even see a meaning on what you say.

No, I don't know why I do that either.

 

[LuisDantas]

Greatest good for the greatest number? (First heard that as a basis for ethics in Scientology).

Nope, that is actually from Star Trek

Seriously now, it is not a simple matter of numbers. Rather, ethical value must be gauged by the consequences as we can honestly anticipate them.

Ethical capability is a direct consequence of logical and abstract thought, and limited by both.

The greatest good for the greatest number is for the greatest number to get into heaven.

Sure, if:

1. It can be established that there is some reasonable chance of that "heaven" existing.

2. It can also be established that choosing that greater number at the expense of those left behind is an ethically better result than the alternatives.

As it turns out, both premises are exceedingly unconvincing, even when considered alone.

Together, they make this a matter not worth considering.

It's fine but the goals are still arbitrary. Good basis of ethics though among people who have a common goal. You might be left to prove you have the better common goal.

You seem to believe that is a challenge.

 

[outhouse]

Is asking for credible evidence bad now?

 

[Skwim]

Is asking for credible evidence bad now?

If asked of a believer, yes it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Apparently.

 

[Breathe]

1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Which does not include theism per se. Especially, not required. This is why there are non-theist religions. Like Raelianism.

Marxism contains the last part. But Marxism is no more a religion than the republican party.

I disagree; Marxism certainly fits it, just in a different way to the way it is defined: it is a wholly naturalistic set which focuses on humans. The way it is defined here, in my opinion, is far too narrow a definition. For example, UUism is also classed as a religion, but says nothing about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, leaving that to others. Buddhism and Jainism do not have creator gods, either.

I think we are getting off on a tangent that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Indeed, I think we are. Maybe it's worth another thread. If not, it was fun chatting.

 

[psychoslice]

To have an argument needs to have proof on both side, if one has no proof then why argue, religion has no argument because it has no proof, simple.