Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Where?

 

[steeltoes]

Until a theist presents his/her claim of God in falsifiable terms there is nothing to debate, nor does an atheist have to present anything to justify his/her position, no burden of proof required for the atheist, end of story.

 

[Willamena]

Where?

Here is a post that insists that only theists have a burden of proof.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3728712-post34.html

 

[steeltoes]

Here is a post that insists that only theists have a burden of proof.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3728712-post34.html

Look no further than the post before yours.

 

[Sir Doom]

God is a title assigned to any being, object and/or force deemed worthy of worship and/or adoration due to a perceived superiority in deed, authority and/or ability.

I'm pretty sure that's falsifiable.

Not that it matters much.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Cool!

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.

Sure. I think it's important to keep a couple of things in mind, though:

- a person's responsibilities to himself/herself don't necessarily imply responsibilities to other people.

- a person's obligation to understand their position about gods is just one aspect of a greater obligation to try to have a worldview that reflects reality. While the question of the existence of gods is part of that, it isn't necessarily any more important than the questions of the existence of unicorns, aether, the colour grue, etc., etc.

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.

The fact that many people think that this is a debate convention is why the Gish gallop works as a debate technique. Personally, when someone tries that on me, I have no problem dismissing their claims without letting myself get sucked into the debate quicksand that they've put in front of me.

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.

Ignoring "polite debate conventions" makes sense in all sorts of situations.

For instance, when a missionary approaches me uninvited and starts making claims at me - as happens sometimes - I think it's perfectly acceptable to tell him to **** up a rope without giving him any feedback at all about why I don't accept his claims.

I only feel constrained by polite debate conventions when a number of things are true:

- I freely chose to engage in the debate
- I care about maintaining a personal relationship with the other person
- The other person is sticking to polite debate conventions, too.

At least one of these conditions is false a LOT of the time.

Also, we have to remember that there are different kinds of debate. If it's just a private conversation between my opponent and me, I'll feel a lot less obliged to give reasons for my rejections of his argument than if we're debating in front of "fence-sitters" and I'm interested in convincing them of my position.

 

[Willamena]

Look no further than the post before yours.

Those too.

 

[Thief]

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

Faith requires no proving....Webster's.

and of course there shall never be....
a photo, a fingerprint, an equation, or repeatable experiment.

The universe won't fit in the petri dish.

But in the scheme of linear existence....in the beginning.....God.

Spirit first.
I think it stands to good reason.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here is a post that insists that only theists have a burden of proof.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3728712-post34.html

Because they do. Where's the examples of what was actually claimed?

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Where?

Post #444

Also, please note the precise claim that I am making. Inexplicably, there seems to be much confusion. I stated it in that post, and I'll give it here:

I didn’t say that there are posters who claim to have no reasons for their non-belief. I said that there are posters who claim that they need no reasons and have no responsibility to defend their non-beliefs.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Originally Posted by falvlun
I didn’t say that there are posters who claim to have no reasons for their non-belief. I said that there are posters who claim that they need no reasons and have no responsibility to defend their non-beliefs.

I think a case can be made for that position. If you tell me that invisible pink flying unicorns really do exist, I don't feel a serious obligation to disprove the unicorns. I mean, they're invisible.

You might insist that they manifest themselves in the real world. They're behind all the volcanic eruptions on the planet. They fly into volcanoes, burrowing around and weakening the structures, which causes the eruptions.

I can't argue against that. Not unless you present some kind of evidence.

Maybe you say that the Unicorn Prophet -- who once communed directly with the unicorns -- wrote about his conversations in the Unicorn Bible. They told him of their volcanic shenanigans and he conveyed that to us.

OK, that's a fine opinion. But how can I argue against it? Prophets are a dime a dozen.

"No, no," you exclaim, "the Unicorn Prophet was true. He really did speak to the unicorns. And to prove it... He could fly through the air like a unicorn. The Unicorn Bible describes how lots of people saw him do that. So whatever he says about unicorns, it must be true!"

I dunno. After awhile I might just figure I'm wasting my time trying to disprove the Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns.

I might just shrug off the Burden of Proof entirely.

 

[steeltoes]

I couldn't take on a burden of proof in order to justify my non-belief for the existence of an invisible God if I wanted to.

I don't believe things to exist because I can't disprove them,
I believe things that can be proven to exist, that's how it works for me.

 

[cottage]

Post #444

Also, please note the precise claim that I am making. Inexplicably, there seems to be much confusion. I stated it in that post, and I'll give it here:

With respect I think the OP is rather misconceived. Nobody needs to give a reason or offer an explanation for disbelieving in supernatural beings that are held to exist from faith, when even the advocates cannot prove such things to themselves. But if you’re asking whether adamant disbelievers are obliged to defend that view against a given argument, then that is a different question; and the answer to that is a firm ‘yes, of course!’, in my view.

But given the nature of the faith-based subject matter, proof of the supposed entity can only be given by the advocate. The doubters can never disprove the entity’s existence, not even if they successfully lambast and destroy every argument made by the advocates. So let’s make sure the term ‘proof’ is kept in its proper context, which is to lay it at the feet of those that make the faith-based assertion and not expect reasonable doubt to have prove a disproof against proof (which, again, given the subject matter, is impossible).

 

[Willamena]

Because they do. Where's the examples of what was actually claimed?

What was actually claimed?

 

[Willamena]

I dunno. After awhile I might just figure I'm wasting my time trying to disprove the Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns.

I might just shrug off the Burden of Proof entirely.

You'd shrug off the effort to prove, but the burden of proof rests with you because of your posit, not by your doing.

 

[Willamena]

I couldn't take on a burden of proof in order to justify my non-belief for the existence of an invisible God if I wanted to.

As well you shouldn't.

You have the burden only for things you posit.

 

[Willamena]

With respect I think the OP is rather misconceived. Nobody needs to give a reason or offer an explanation for disbelieving in supernatural beings that are held to exist from faith, when even the advocates cannot prove such things to themselves. But if you’re asking whether adamant disbelievers are obliged to defend that view against a given argument, then that is a different question; and the answer to that is a firm ‘yes, of course!’, in my view.

As Falvlun so simply pointed out, we do have good reason to not believe, even if it's that one. It's the denial of any burden for the atheist just because of atheism that's so bizarre.

But given the nature of the faith-based subject matter, proof of the supposed entity can only be given by the advocate. The doubters can never disprove the entity’s existence, not even if they successfully lambast and destroy every argument made by the advocates. So let’s make sure the term ‘proof’ is kept in its proper context, which is to lay it at the feet of those that make the faith-based assertion and not expect reasonable doubt to have prove a disproof against proof (which, again, given the subject matter, is impossible).

No one's asking atheists to prove anything (hopefully). The topic is the burden of proof.

 

[steeltoes]

As well you shouldn't.

You have the burden only for things you posit.

If I don't believe invisible gods exist out there the implication is that they don't exist. The implication is a posit that requires the burden of proof, is that what you are saying?

 

[cottage]

As Falvlun so simply pointed out, we do have good reason to not believe, even if it's that one. It's the denial of any burden for the atheist just because of atheism that's so bizarre.


No one's asking atheists to prove anything (hopefully). The topic is the burden of proof.

I’m sorry but I’ve got no idea what it is you’re saying. Your statements (above and below) appear self-contradictory.

 

[Willamena]

If I don't believe invisible gods exist out there the implication is that they don't exist. The implication is a posit that requires the burden of proof, is that what you are saying?

Well done; however, I would suggest the burden rests only with explicit posits.