Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Copernicus]

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."
​

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 ).

​

OK, with your excellent graphics skills and my superb mastery of set theory, we may be able to do this one together. I'll describe it and you draw it. (Be careful. You will be graded on this.) You will need to draw three concentric circles. Label them thusly:

1) Outermost circle: All posters (atheists + non-atheists).
2) First inner circle (not too much smaller): All atheist posters (a subset of all posters, but still the majority of posters).
3) Innermost (smallest circle): All atheist posters who think BoP is a weak argument strategy (a subset of all atheist posters).

Now, it may help to color or shade the circles differently so you can properly understand how the sets nest within each other. You do have to get the proportions right so that the outer layer may be rather thin, given that the majority of posts here have been by atheists--both those who do and do not agree with the OP.

 

[Thief]

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.

I don't have a religion either.
But I believe I have an argument.

 

[Willamena]

If asked of a believer, yes it is.

Yeah, we can't have that.

 

[Skwim]

OK, with your excellent graphics skills and my superb mastery of set theory, we may be able to do this one together. I'll describe it and you draw it. (Be careful. You will be graded on this.) You will need to draw three concentric circles. Label them thusly:

1) Outermost circle: All posters (atheists + non-atheists).
2) First inner circle (not too much smaller): All atheist posters (a subset of all posters, but still the majority of posters).
3) Innermost (smallest circle): All atheist posters who think BoP is a weak argument strategy (a subset of all atheist posters).

Now, it may help to color or shade the circles differently so you can properly understand how the sets nest within each other. You do have to get the proportions right so that the outer layer may be rather thin, given that the majority of posts here have been by atheists--both those who do and do not agree with the OP.

You proposed a Venn diagram, V - E - N - N, so let's not be changing horses mid-stream here. Moreover, I suspect that when you said "Do you want me to draw you a Venn diagram?" you had no idea of what a Venn diagram is. In any case, I have no interest in pursuing your little project here, concentric circles or not, or your constant reformations of post content.

Have a good day friend Copernicus.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

So since our capacity for logical and abstract thought differ what we accept as ethical behavior differ.
The concept of God provides "superior" thinking and "superior" consequences. The apparent perception of it at least among the majority of people accepting the concept.

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.

For you, not necessarily for me. If you can illicit a majority of agreement, you may even be able to enforce such idealism. If not then there is no compelling reason for me to accept any of this as an ethical position.

You seem to believe that is a challenge.

I think without the concept of God there is no case for a universal standard of ethical behavior.

So I think there is a burden of proof to prove there is an alternative to God as far as a ethical standard or perhaps prove such a standard is not necessary if you're going to "kill" God.

 

[LuisDantas]

So since our capacity for logical and abstract thought differ what we accept as ethical behavior differ.

To an extent, yes.

The concept of God provides "superior" thinking and "superior" consequences. The apparent perception of it at least among the majority of people accepting the concept.

Trouble is, it just does not work. If there is some sort of ethical clear directive that emanates from either God, the belief in His existence or some scripture, it has not managed to manifest itself clearly at all.

In fact, it can easily be argued that it is a hindrance to ethical behavior instead.

For you, not necessarily for me. If you can illicit a majority of agreement, you may even be able to enforce such idealism. If not then there is no compelling reason for me to accept any of this as an ethical position.

By all means. If you can make that work, be my guest.

I think without the concept of God there is no case for a universal standard of ethical behavior.

Really? That is quite odd IMO.

So I think there is a burden of proof to prove there is an alternative to God as far as a ethical standard or perhaps prove such a standard is not necessary if you're going to "kill" God.

That is not really true. Non-theistic ethical systems exist, and as matter of fact usually work far better than theistic ones.

To the extent that a burden of proof for their existence as an alternative exists, it has been satisfied since the times of Socrates and Aristotle at the very least.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think without the concept of God there is no case for a universal standard of ethical behavior.

So I think there is a burden of proof to prove there is an alternative to God as far as a ethical standard or perhaps prove such a standard is not necessary if you're going to "kill" God.

Would you say that there's a case for a universal standard of morality WITH God? What would this universal standard entail?

For instance, is rape universally wrong? Strictly speaking, bees rape flowers. Are bees evil?

 

[idav]

For instance, is rape universally wrong? Strictly speaking, bees rape flowers. Are bees evil?

Evil necessitates having a conception of right and wrong through perspective of others. That being said, I don't think my committing genocide of the weeds in my yard is evil.....that is unless I look from the perspective of the poor poor weeds, dern evil humans haha.

 

[Nakosis]

Would you say that there's a case for a universal standard of morality WITH God? What would this universal standard entail?

How about these....

"When you stand praying, forgive"
"You must be born again"
"Remain in Me and I will remain in you"
"Let your light shine before men"
"Settle matters quickly with your adversary"
"Get rid of whatever causes you to sin"
"Do Not Swear at All"
"Do Not Resist an Evil Person"
"Giving More than is Demanded"
"Love Your Enemies"
"Give to Please God, Not to be Seen"
"Pray Privately, Not to be Seen of Men"
"Do not Store up Treasures on Earth"
"Do not Judge"
"Ask, Seek, and Knock"
"Care for Those in Distress"
"Watch out for false prophets"
"Be Merciful"

For instance, is rape universally wrong? Strictly speaking, bees rape flowers. Are bees evil?

Do you think the flowers object to this behavior? Are they being forced against their will?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about these....

What about them?

Do you think the flowers object to this behavior? Are they being forced against their will?

They certainly haven't given free, informed consent to the sexual activity. And while I can't say what the will of the flower would be, the flower is certainly being forced.

 

[Nakosis]

What about them? You asked what a universal divine standard might entail. So I provided an example.

They certainly haven't given free, informed consent to the sexual activity. And while I can't say what the will of the flower would be, the flower is certainly being forced.

Sorry just don't find it convincing to equate pollination to an immoral act. I'm sure there are better examples.

 

[Nakosis]

What about them?


They certainly haven't given free, informed consent to the sexual activity. And while I can't say what the will of the flower would be, the flower is certainly being forced.

Well actually if there was a commandment from God against pollination it would then be immoral. Maybe kind of silly cause why was things designed that way right?

Still the bees might be going to hell because of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You asked what a universal divine standard might entail. So I provided an example.

It didn't look like any sort of universal morality - is that really how you intended me to take it?

Sorry just don't find it convincing to equate pollination to an immoral act. I'm sure there are better examples.

That's the point: I don't think it's possible to come up with a truly universal morality. Even something as immoral (in the human context) as rape is still only situationally immoral... as the bees and flowers illustrate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well actually if there was a commandment from God against pollination it would then be immoral. Maybe kind of silly cause why was things designed that way right?

Still the bees might be going to hell because of it.

I don't believe in commandments from God in general, but regardless, let's not put the cart before the horse: first come up with even one moral standard that's applied universally and then we can talk about whether that standard is "right" or if it's endorsed by God.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Indeed.

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.

Do you think of the Republican party as a religion? Or the democratic party? Or Feminism as a movement? What classifies something as a political movement vs a religion?

 

[Falvlun]

Is asking for credible evidence bad now?

If asked of a believer, yes it is.

Apparently.

Guys having a hay day with that strawman, I see.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't have a religion either.
But I believe I have an argument.

So yo must have proof then, if not why argue, and if you do have proof I would love to hear it.

 

[Falvlun]

So yo must have proof then, if not why argue, and if you do have proof I would love to hear it.

If I understand the counter-argument to my OP correctly, you only need to prove something, even within the context of a debate, if it is your intention to convince the other person. So, I suppose if thief doesn't want to convince you, he has no burden of proof.

 

[Nakosis]

It didn't look like any sort of universal morality - is that really how you intended me to take it?

These were some of the commandments of Jesus. If one accepts Jesus as God or as a representative of God these would be the moral standards that were provided.

That's the point: I don't think it's possible to come up with a truly universal morality. Even something as immoral (in the human context) as rape is still only situationally immoral... as the bees and flowers illustrate.

Yes, that was the other part of my statement. Either provide an alternate standard for "right and wrong" or claim no such standard exists.

Personally I fine with the idea of right and wrong being arbitrary. Not everyone is. So my point is that you have to make a case for one or the other.

 

[Willamena]

So yo must have proof then, if not why argue, and if you do have proof I would love to hear it.

The burden of proof is not about having proof, it's about having a burden.