Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[atanu]

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

See, simple.

God by definition is not caused. Because it is not caused, it is free. Because there is such free consciousness within every mind, it is possible to meditate and control mind-body.

On the other hand, if one is caused solely by inert unconscious matter deterministically what hope can one have?

 

[LuisDantas]

I want you to explain why it hasn't been convincing. Otherwise, the claim is arbitrary and meaningless.

And it is supposed not to be?

I beg to differ. There is nothing more arbitrary than beliefs about the existence of God, and they need have no meaning beyond the strict boundaries of the person proper.

It says absolutely nothing as to the quality of the evidence provided.

It says that it is not convincing to me. Which is the decisive factor, when the tire meets the tarmac.

Sure, we may add lots of arguments to both sides of the debate. But that changes nothing at the end of the day.

 

[LuisDantas]

God by definition is not caused. Because it is not caused, it is free. Because there is such free consciousness within every mind, it is possible to meditate and control mind-body.

On the other hand, if one is caused solely by inert unconscious matter deterministically what hope can one have?

I'm fairly certain that not all theists agree with that understanding.

 

[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.

What strawman?

You really don't see how that's a strawman?

Not once have I indicated (let alone stated) that asking for credible evidence is bad.

This has been a common strawman throughout this thread: This idea that somehow I, and others, are supporting the idea that theists have no burden of proof.

Theists have a burden of proof. That is not being debated at all (except by those who are looking for an easy strawman to knock down).

What is being debated is whether atheists also have a burden of proof for the claim that theists have not met their burden of proof.

 

[Falvlun]

And it is supposed not to be?

I beg to differ. There is nothing more arbitrary than beliefs about the existence of God, and they need have no meaning beyond the strict boundaries of the person proper.

So you arbitrarily don't believe that gods exist, and you have arbitrarily decided that all of the arguments in favor of god's existence are bad ones.

That really doesn't speak to the rationality of your position.

It says that it is not convincing to me. Which is the decisive factor, when the tire meets the tarmac.

Sure, we may add lots of arguments to both sides of the debate. But that changes nothing at the end of the day.

Then this means that theists have no need to take your assessment of their arguments seriously. It means that any reason for rejecting their arguments is permissible, from talking bananas to well-thought out rebuttals.

However, I don't really think the claim that "theists haven't met the burden of proof" is meant to be taken as a purely subjective standard, like someone's favorite color. When people do support it, they tend to use objective reasons, or at least, reasons that they think should be universally applied.

And if it is, as I stated from the beginning, that makes the whole "burden of proof" a completely pointless attribution.

In such a scenario, who cares if they have the burden of proof? It's a meaningless weight. If you can't be bothered to assess the proof offered, and indeed need to provide no other reason than "not convinced", then there is no reason for them to take the burden seriously.

 

[Nakosis]

If you say so.

I only say so because I know so.

I only know so because looked into it because I was willing to accept the possibility.

One has to respect the idea of God at least as a possibility in order to have a willingness to pursue/investigate. Obviously no one is able to drag you into belief. You have to pursue the idea for your own reasons. If you don't have them, your own reasons, then I wouldn't expect you pursue the evidence.

There is no evidence here. There is just words here. Testimony from people who've had personal experiences that have the appearance of being preternatural. An exchange of ideas among people seeking to understand these experiences.

Yes, maybe there is some scientific explanation for these experiences. Unfortunately for the most part "science" has decided to take a hands off approach. So we are kind of left on our own to seek understanding.

Since science won't step up to the plate we are left to seek answers from those claiming to have knowledge about the truth of these experiences. You want proof? Yeah we want proof too.

All I can to is try to be as honest as I can with myself about these experiences and hope someone happens by with more information then I have.

Religions offer explanations to these experiences which are real to us. Unfortunately there are no guarantees but where else can we turn? Apparently not towards science...

 

[Falvlun]

Neither do I, necessarily. The standard is dictated by what's being claimed. The theist who's arguing "God exists" has a lot more work to do than the theist who's arguing "God's existence is more likely than his non-existence" or "the possibility that God exists can't be completely excluded." Each one still has to demonstrate the truth of their conclusion, but the arguments have more or fewer obstacles to clear depending on exactly what that conclusion is.


How reasonable a request is depends entirely on what's being asked. I'd consider a request to not dismiss theists as irrational to be reasonable; I'd consider a request to accept that the Earth is 6,000 years old not to be.


Not guess; ask and find out. This is just effective communication. It's just that the other person isn't obliged to communicate back.

Hey, we agree on all the above! :woohoo:

There's nothing wrong with it, if that's what the atheist wants to do. It's your argument that the atheist HAS to do this, or that he's somehow unethical if he doesn't do this, that I'm objecting to.

Like I said before, no one has to do anything.

On a personal level, yes, I do think that an atheist does have an obligation to himself to understand why he is doesn't believe in the existence of gods. I think this is true of any position one takes, and is necessary if one wants a rational and cohesive world-view.

On a debate level, I think there is a reasonable expectation that people making claims about other people's claims should be able to back them up. That's just debate convention, and seems to me what burden of proof is all about.

People are, of course, free to have irrational or poorly thought out worldviews, and they are free to ignore polite debate conventions. I just don't think that it makes sense to do so.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

So, people are adamantly maintaining that they don't need to provide reasons for dismissing theistic arguments, but you don't think that it's likely that they are actually going to utilize this stance in an actual debate?

If you don't accept the self-professed intentions of people, then I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

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."

I think it is pretty clear that yes, many atheists on this forum claim that they do not need to provide reasons why they reject theistic arguments.

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.

You have accused me of mischaracterization and vagueness, but have yet to tell me exactly what has been mischaracterized or vague. It's rather hard to defend myself against unevidenced accusations.

I made this thread after experiencing countless debates on this forum. I didn't sit in my room and just make this issue up. This thread, itself, seems to support my observations: atheists are very resistant to accepting "a burden of proof" in regards to their claims regarding theistic 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.

Some routes can be open while other routes blocked. I do think this is a mental block for many atheists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, people are adamantly maintaining that they don't need to provide reasons for dismissing theistic arguments, but you don't think that it's likely that they are actually going to utilize this stance in an actual debate?

If you don't accept the self-professed intentions of people, then I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

You could convince me if you provide actual examples of atheists engaging in this tactic in a real debate. Since you're so obsessed with "burden of proof," this is an excellent time to put your money where your mouth is.

I think it is pretty clear that yes, many atheists on this forum claim that they do not need to provide reasons why they reject theistic arguments.

And I think your interpretation is oversimplified to the point of meaninglessness.

You have accused me of mischaracterization and vagueness, but have yet to tell me exactly what has been mischaracterized or vague. It's rather hard to defend myself against unevidenced accusations.

Your whole argument seems to be a vague mischaracterization to me, as it seems to be an invented caricature of an atheist who doesn't really exist. Again, fulfill your burden of proof and supply some examples of people actually engaging in the tactic you accuse them of in actual debates.

I made this thread after experiencing countless debates on this forum. I didn't sit in my room and just make this issue up. This thread, itself, seems to support my observations: atheists are very resistant to accepting "a burden of proof" in regards to their claims regarding theistic arguments.

Then it shouldn't be hard to supply many examples of this occurring in actual debates. I know you're cute, but that doesn't make you immune to fufilling your burden of proof.

Some routes can be open while other routes blocked. I do think this is a mental block for many atheists.

Yeah, I just don't see it. I've yet to encounter an atheist I've conversed with for any length of time whose reasons for rejecting religious belief aren't quite clear and considered.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you arbitrarily don't believe that gods exist, and you have arbitrarily decided that all of the arguments in favor of god's existence are bad ones.

There is a bit more to it, but this is indeed the crucial part.

"God" is as arbitrary a concept as they come. It is not possible to believe in its existence except arbitrarily, and therefore arbitrarily refusing to is as much of a good reason as one needs to have.

That really doesn't speak to the rationality of your position.

It never needed to!

It is not reasonable to expect a rational argument agains the existence of something that is by definition impossible to disprove.

Then this means that theists have no need to take your assessment of their arguments seriously.

And you expected them to be willing to be rationally convinced by someone else's arguments?

That may sometimes happen, but only when the person is willing to be convinced.

It means that any reason for rejecting their arguments is permissible, from talking bananas to well-thought out rebuttals.

True.

However, I don't really think the claim that "theists haven't met the burden of proof" is meant to be taken as a purely subjective standard, like someone's favorite color. When people do support it, they tend to use objective reasons, or at least, reasons that they think should be universally applied.

That is often the case. But it does not have to be.

And if it is, as I stated from the beginning, that makes the whole "burden of proof" a completely pointless attribution.

I would rather say that it fits the bill just about right. It has as much point as it truly needs to have. Which admitedly is not a whole lot.

In such a scenario, who cares if they have the burden of proof? It's a meaningless weight. If you can't be bothered to assess the proof offered, and indeed need to provide no other reason than "not convinced", then there is no reason for them to take the burden seriously.

Then again, if they did they would probably not be theists in the first place, so why bother?

 

[Falvlun]

You could convince me if you provide actual examples of atheists engaging in this tactic in a real debate. Since you're so obsessed with "burden of proof," this is an excellent time to put your money where your mouth is.

I think I've fulfilled it; actually, I think it should be obvious to anyone who has read this thread.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think I've fulfilled it; actually, I think it should be obvious to anyone who has read this thread.

I don't think you've met your burden of proof, since people stating something in a debate with you isn't the same as them actually doing it in the context of a debate about the existence of god, which is what you claim they're doing. Unless you can provide me with an actual example of somebody utilizing the tactic you claim they do in the context of an actual debate about the existence of god, I think it would be obvious to any reasonable person that you haven't, in fact, met your burden of proof regarding your claim.

Is this the type of reasoning you're looking for from somebody when challenging whether somebody has met their burden of proof?

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think you've met your burden of proof, since people stating something in a debate with you isn't the same as them actually doing it in the context of a debate about the existence of god, which is what you claim they're doing. Unless you can provide me with an actual example of somebody utilizing the tactic you claim they do in the context of an actual debate about the existence of god, I think it would be obvious to any reasonable person that you haven't, in fact, met your burden of proof regarding your claim.

It is unreasonable to assume that people who so passionately adhere to a particular understanding of their responsibilities within a debate would never utilize that position within a debate. It would be like claiming that you won't believe that a person lies when you have heard them say that they believe that there is nothing wrong with lying and that they have absolutely no responsibility to tell the truth.

The search function on this forum is abysmal. As I come across instances in normal forum wanderings, maybe I'll post them here, for you. But until then, I think it is eminently reasonable to assume that people do what they say that they do.

Is this the type of reasoning you're looking for from somebody when challenging whether somebody has met their burden of proof?

Yes.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But until then, I think it is eminently reasonable to assume that people do what they say that they do.

You're so adorably optimistic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The search function on this forum is abysmal. As I come across instances in normal forum wanderings, maybe I'll post them here, for you. But until then, I think it is eminently reasonable to assume that people do what they say that they do.

Actually, it's more like you're asking us to assume that people do what you say that they do, which, given the lack of evidence you have presented of them doing that, is a thoroughly unreasonable position.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually, it's more like you're asking us to assume that people do what you say that they do, which, given the lack of evidence you have presented of them doing that, is a thoroughly unreasonable position.

Actually, I think we've all seen atheists do just that in arguments with theists, and Falvlun provided ample examples of invocations of BoP from atheists in this very thread. She has done an excellent job of keeping this very long thread focused on her argument in the OP, that atheists themselves give the appearance of shifting the burden of proof when constantly coming up with the refrain that theists have the burden of proof because they have somehow failed to come up with evidence. What is really under dispute is whether the evidence they bring has actually been refuted. What counts as reasonable evidence? When there is alleged evidence under discussion, and that specific claim has been refuted, then the burden of proof legitimately shifts to the theists. As a blanket claim that they have failed in all respects to meet their burden of proof--well, that is just begging the question. Atheists then have a burden of proof to support their generalization with something more than handwaving.

 

[Willamena]

It never needed to!

It is not reasonable to expect a rational argument agains the existence of something that is by definition impossible to disprove.

If it's your intent, as the atheist, to argue against the existence of "god" then the goalposts have been moved.

This is the strawman that has reared its head again and again in this thread.

 

[Willamena]

Proof and Burden of Proof are two different things.

 

[Willamena]

The search function on this forum is abysmal. As I come across instances in normal forum wanderings, maybe I'll post them here, for you. But until then, I think it is eminently reasonable to assume that people do what they say that they do.

Burden of proof isn't about doing other people's homework for them.

 

[steeltoes]

No theist has ever presented objective evidence, therefore it is reasonable to summarily reject such claims without presenting any argument in return.