Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Monk Of Reason]

Not quite, although to some they can be. See the answer below.


Sometimes it can be. Same as multiculturalism, sports, drinking, and many other things. Not necessarily in themselves, though, but they are definitely treated with the same fervour one can find in the newly converted by some of their... adherents, I guess.
I reject the dichotomy of "religion - science - politics - culture", though; I believe they all have an impact on one-another, regardless of how we feel about them.


That's probably worthy of its own thread, man. Suffice to say that there is often a blurry line and no clear-cut answer. Sometimes they just, well, are. I suppose it's the same way as someone with a foot fetish can tell 'good feet' from 'bad feet'. I have no idea since I don't share it, and they can't express it, other than they know and seem to agree on it.

I think the bottom line is that we have different personal definitions of "religion".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not my experience on here, unfortunately. Sadly, my experience says it's frequently quite the opposite.

I refer you to your above statement:

But I don't. It's only that you notice this because you're an atheist.

Cognitive dissonance works both ways.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sadly, I suspect it's more a case of having beaten one's head against a brick wall enough times, one learns not to beat one's head against a brick wall.

I'd be lying if I said I hadn't reached this point quite a few times while on these forums. But I guess it's not about never admitting when you're up against a brick wall, just not assuming that every wall is going to be made of bricks...

Or something.

Maybe we need a better analogy?

 

[steeltoes]

IMO, debating the existence of God is pointless.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

IMO, debating the existence of God is pointless.

It really is. To me, the concept is so abstract as to be pointless.

 

[Thief]

Believe that if you will.

It is still not science, and it is not altogether reasonable to expect others to be convinced by claims that it is.

Yeah I believe.

Cause and effect cannot be separated.
Doing so negates experimental result.
Science relies on cause and effect.

Linear existence leans to the same direction.
This existence has a beginning.
We were not there to see it....can't go back.
This existence is likely to have an ending.
We might be there to see it.
Depends on the conditions of the next life.

In the meantime....the effect won't fit in the petri dish.
All we can do is reason about it.

I reason....Spirit First.
God did it.

 

[steeltoes]

I rest my case.

 

[McBell]

Yeah I believe.

Cause and effect cannot be separated.

Yes it can.
All we have to do is ask you what caused god...

See, simple.

 

[Thief]

Yes it can.
All we have to do is ask you what caused god...

See, simple.

God did it.

Simple.

 

[McBell]

God did it.

Simple.

Thank you for furthering my point.

 

[Thief]

Thank you for furthering my point.

You don't have a belief......you don't have a point.

 

[outhouse]

This is a great example of where burden of proof is flat required.


People make up stuff as they go and claim their imagination is all that is needed in a debate.

 

[McBell]

You don't have a belief......you don't have a point.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
However, that has never stopped you before.

 

[Thief]

You have no idea what you are talking about.
However, that has never stopped you before.

I'm getting frubals!

 

[Thief]

This is a great example of where burden of proof is flat required.


People make up stuff as they go and claim their imagination is all that is needed in a debate.

Go for it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd be lying if I said I hadn't reached this point quite a few times while on these forums. But I guess it's not about never admitting when you're up against a brick wall, just not assuming that every wall is going to be made of bricks...

Or something.

Maybe we need a better analogy?

It might be worth considering one.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which take is that?

That of employing scientific ideas towards spiritual pursuits?

There are those that have so I'm happy to support them.

If you say so.

 

[Breathe]

I think the bottom line is that we have different personal definitions of "religion".

Most likely.

I refer you to your above statement:

Cognitive dissonance works both ways.

Indeed, but I've been both sides of the fence and I have no problem -- like many other theists -- pointing out when we see something unfair from our fellow theists.

From my experience, the non-theist camp tends to take the prize of having the highest number of rude (whether deliberately or not) posters, which is a shame.

So, cognitive dissonance? Maybe. But, at least I try to be open about the fact that there are dicks in the theist camp. Unlike, it seems, a fair few atheists who feel like their fellows do no wrong or somehow that the theists deserve it.

Again, this is a shame, because there are some atheists -- both online and offline -- whom I like. I make it clear it's not everyone though. I don't like the whole 'guilt by association' thing, so I'm not saying it's a pre-requisite to atheists or atheism.

 

[Falvlun]

I guess I would agree if it is established that we are attempting to argue someone out of belief.

Otherwise, I don't think so.

Can anyone show me where a burden of proof only exists if you are trying to convince someone? From everything I've read, well except for here, burden of proof exists when someone makes a claim (at least, in the context of a debate).

Also, why would you make a claim in a debate that you have no intention of supporting? Isn't that pretty silly?

 

[Falvlun]

It is true that theists haven't met the burden of proof for convincing atheists.

I don't know what else you want us to do or say about that.

I want you to explain why it hasn't been convincing. Otherwise, the claim is arbitrary and meaningless. It says absolutely nothing as to the quality of the evidence provided.