• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
IHaveTheGift said:
BTW, if you dont deal with "strawmen" why did you reply to me in the first place,
Click to expand...
I don't consider pointing out straw men to be dealing with them. I assume you recognize the difference between identifying something and doing something with/about it. Or is such an assumption too presumptuous?
 
I

IHaveTheGift

U know who U R
Skwim said:
I don't consider pointing out straw men to be dealing with them. I assume you recognize the difference between identifying something and doing something with/about it. Or is such an assumption too presumptuous?
Click to expand...

So, you still wish to play off like a know it all and have yet to refute a thing I said and still give audience to "stawman" that you dont do?
Gotta love it. :D

You remind me of a child that tells his parents "NO!!!" but then run off while saying "because I said so" once they are asked for proof of such the word "NO"
"because I said so"...?:facepalm:

seriously bro?
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
IHaveTheGift said:
So, you still wish to play off like a know it all and have yet to refute a thing I said and still give audience to "stawman" that you dont do?
Gotta love it. :D
Click to expand...

Jesus is a fictional character. He never existed in 30CE Jerusalem.

There. I've refuted one of the things you said.

Now can the rest of us thread-watchers get a little peace and quiet?
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
steeltoes said:
No theist has ever presented objective evidence, therefore it is reasonable to summarily reject such claims without presenting any argument in return.
Click to expand...

So, you know every theist, do you? I hope you'll forgive me for being epistemically responsible.
 
I

IHaveTheGift

U know who U R
AmbiguousGuy said:
Jesus is a fictional character. He never existed in 30CE Jerusalem.

There. I've refuted one of the things you said.

Now can the rest of us thread-watchers get a little peace and quiet?
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
oddly, the majority of Historians disagrees with you, where is your evidence to support your theory that disproves them?
They spend years and years studying the evidence....
"NO" isnt an actual rebuttal, unless you are a child. ;)

Sorry bro, but one doesn't get to monopolize the threads to their "liking"
We all get a say, this isn't a dictatorship, you want that?
Create your own board and allow what you want to be discussed, k?

Wanting only what you wish to read here and one sided arguments... isn't a plausible argument in itself. :yes:
 
Last edited:
S

steeltoes

Junior member
IHaveTheGift said:
:facepalm:
oddly, the majority of Historians disagrees with you, where is your evidence to support your theory that disproves them?
"NO" isnt an actual rebuttal, unless you are a child. ;)

Sorry bro, but one doesn't get to monopolize the threads to their "liking"
We all get a say, this isn't a dictatorship, you want that?
Create your own board and allow what you want to be discussed, k?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the majority of historians won't touch the Jesus historical question with a ten foot pole.
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Willamena said:
The burden of proof is not about having proof, it's about having a burden.
Click to expand...

Jesus said something about that his burden is light.

Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Does that explain why the proof is so light in Christianity too? :shrug:
 
I

IHaveTheGift

U know who U R
steeltoes said:
Sorry, but the majority of historians won't touch the Jesus historical question with a ten foot pole.
Click to expand...

This is how you debate?
Make empty claims?

here, since I require proof for you, I will offer proof first, even though its common knowledge in today's worlds on what we know for sure about the existence of Jesus.
source:
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

almost universal assent? :yes:


your turn ;)
 
Last edited:
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
IHaveTheGift said:
So, you still wish to play off like a know it all and have yet to refute a thing I said and still give audience to "stawman" that you dont do?
Gotta love it. :D

You remind me of a child that tells his parents "NO!!!" but then run off while saying "because I said so" once they are asked for proof of such the word "NO"
"because I said so"...?:facepalm:

seriously bro?
Click to expand...
All that need be said has already been done so. That you have forgotten so soon is all the more the pity.

Take care.
 
I

IHaveTheGift

U know who U R
Skwim said:
All that need be said has already been done so. That you have forgotten so soon is all the more the pity.

Take care.
Click to expand...

I guess you got me there, you fully proved my arguments wrong....:rolleyes:

I love it, this is so funny that you keep replying and claiming you refuted a thing I said and still have not even tried to.
Let alone, claim you dont give audience to strawmanning

Just imagine a debate on TV, with billions of people watching and you come out and try what you tried with me... :facepalm:

"you're wrong" and the audience goes wild and you are given a noble peace prize for saying two words and are the new "Einstein".... love it.

Heck, to be frank, you should link the officials from Harvard with your intensive debate style, you deserve your own class and degrees from that alone :D
 
Last edited:
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
steeltoes said:
...if one theist presented objective evidence for God, we all would have definitely heard about it. It hasn't happened.
Click to expand...

Now that's a posit I can get behind. Not.

It's not epistemically responsible to claim things you can know nothing about.
 
Breathe

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
AmbiguousGuy said:
Jesus is a fictional character. He never existed in 30CE Jerusalem.

There. I've refuted one of the things you said.

Now can the rest of us thread-watchers get a little peace and quiet?
Click to expand...
Good God, that was so bad it was painful to read. C'mon, man.
 
Falvlun

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
cottage said:
A ‘burden of proof’ lies with the person that introduces a claim as an obligation to prove the truth of what is claimed.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how this is different than the "responsibility someone has to justify their claim".

cottage said:
I’m stating it: I’m arguing that any proposition or assertion that makes a specific claim carries the burden of proof, whether that is ‘God exists’ or ‘There is no God’. ‘Some people can waggle their ears’ might be true or false, but ‘John can waggle his ears’ is an affirmative premise. Now it’s not for the doubters to prove that John cannot waggle his ears; it is for John to prove he can do so. The one that makes the assertion is obligated to prove the assertion. But the one who hears the assertion and disbelieves it is only required to justify and support his/her disbelief, not necessarily to prove the assertion false. Arguments usually revolve around a central premise, whether that concerns God’s existence or John’s ability to waggle his ears but it is only the central premise that must be proved in order for the proposition to be upheld; and failure to unseat the proposition doesn’t shift the burden of proof on to the challengers.
Click to expand...
The part I bolded is what I am arguing for. Atheists bear the responsibility to justify their disbelief.

It seems to me that me calling it a "burden of proof" is the only disagreement we have. We both agree that atheists have responsibility to support their claims--- which is something that a majority of atheists within this thread have not agreed with. We are more on the same side than not, which is why I find it strange that you have identified my argument as the problem, and not all those others who have claimed that they have no responsibility whatsoever.

cottage said:
I think I’ve made it as clear as I possibly could that any and every argument must be defended by those making it, but the burden of proof remains with the advocate(s) of the asserted proposition(s). This is of especial significance in the case of God, where certainty is claimed.
Click to expand...
A couple of things to support my contention that it is rightly called a "burden of proof" and not just "a responsibility to support your position". (Note that I find both to be synonymous; you are making the distinction).

1. You seem to be hung up on the idea of "proof", taking it to indicate some sort of absolute truth guarantee. I interpret the word "proof" to indicate the body of evidence someone uses to justify their position. Proof is justification.

2. You still seem to be hung up on the idea that the assertion I am talking about is "Gods don't exist", when it is "theists have not met their burden of proof".

3. You have still failed to explain why some claims have a burden of proof and others do not. In other words, why does the claim "Gods exist" have a burden of proof, but the claim "Your evidence is insufficient" not have a burden of proof? Everything I have read regarding "burden of proof" simply indicates that those making a claim have a burden of proof for that claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top