Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[AmbiguousGuy]

Good God, that was so bad it was painful to read. C'mon, man.

What are you talking about? Bad?

Did I touch a nerve?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I fail to see how this is different than the "responsibility someone has to justify their claim".

Have you sorted out the problem of evil?

Jesus was probably a street-corner rabble-rouser whom jews did not like. There have been thousands of them in Abrahamic religions - 'the Kingdom of God is near' 'repent'.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

oddly, the majority of Historians disagrees with you...

Nonsense.

... where is your evidence to support your theory that disproves them?

You really want to talk about the historical Jesus? I just thought you wanted to be refuted on one of your points.

They spend years and years studying the evidence....

Sure. Most all of them start their Jesus study in Sunday School.

"NO" isnt an actual rebuttal, unless you are a child.

Nonsense. You said Jesus existed. I said No. That's how blunt assertions of truth are rebutted.

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?

Goodness.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sorry, but the majority of historians won't touch the Jesus historical question with a ten foot pole.

The wimps. If no one talks back to the cultural assumption, the cultural assumption will still be here to oppress our grandchildren.

Down with the man!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

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

So all theists are epistemically irresponsible?

That's too many syllables for most of the theists I know.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You just posited that you never posit anything. And I, for one, am skeptical of such a claim, so I'd be interest in your evidence.

No, not so. Willemena says that it doesn't matter whether the speaker or whether the listener is the judge of whether the speaker has actually made a posit.

So, as the speaker, I accept that authority for myself and declare that I have made no posit.

So I never posit anything. That is the truth.

At least between me and Willamena.

 

[Falvlun]

Have you sorted out the problem of evil?

Jesus was probably a street-corner rabble-rouser whom jews did not like. There have been thousands of them in Abrahamic religions - 'the Kingdom of God is near' 'repent'.

Did you accidentally quote me? Not sure what your response has to do with my statement.

 

[Falvlun]

No, not so. Willemena says that it doesn't matter whether the speaker or whether the listener is the judge of whether the speaker has actually made a posit.

So, as the speaker, I accept that authority for myself and declare that I have made no posit.

So I never posit anything. That is the truth.

At least between me and Willamena.

Well okay. I ain't getting in the middle of that one. *backs away slowly*

 

[Willamena]

So all theists are epistemically irresponsible?

That's too many syllables for most of the theists I know.

That's not even a rational conclusion from what I said.

 

[Willamena]

No, not so. Willemena says that it doesn't matter whether the speaker or whether the listener is the judge of whether the speaker has actually made a posit.

So, as the speaker, I accept that authority for myself and declare that I have made no posit.

So I never posit anything. That is the truth.

At least between me and Willamena.

Yeah, but some of us actually believe in truth, remember.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's not even a rational conclusion from what I said.

Well, it's rational from my perspective.

You said: It's not epistemically responsible to claim things you can know nothing about.

But theists can know nothing about God.

Therefore theists are epistemically irresponsible.

 

[cottage]

I fail to see how this is different than the "responsibility someone has to justify their claim".

The difference is that the major proposition carries the burden of proof, even if a counterclaim is weak or non-existent.

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.

Okay now let’s get something properly understood here. This isn’t about arguing a question of fact, concerning verifiable propositions in possible experience. The central claim here is that a supernatural being exists and cannot fail to exist. That is the definition of God and it is held from faith to be a truth. On that proposition alone no person is be expected, and certainly not obligated, to have to justify their lack of belief in that faith-based claim to the supernatural. It is entirely the responsibility of the advocate to explain to those without that faith-based belief why they ought to believe that the proposition is true; and that can only be done by argument. Now if/when the advocate gives an argument, such as one of the classic proofs, or insists that God intervenes in the world then the person without the belief has the opportunity to justify his or her lack of belief. Is that clear now?

 

[Willamena]

But theists can know nothing about God.

I know "god." They can too.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well okay. I ain't getting in the middle of that one. *backs away slowly*

I know what you mean, but it may be a critically-important point to the whole BoP thing.

Who makes the posit?

I know that when I was first arguing about the historical Jesus, the historicalers were always insisting that I had the BoP, since my position was contrary to 'the scholarly consensus'. They were saying that since everyone believed that Jesus was historical, therefore it was my BoP to prove otherwise.

They could just sit there atop their Mountain of Assumption and it was my job to climb up and knock them off.

But in my mind, I'd made no posit at all. I'd just offered my personal opinion about Jesus' historicity. I wanted them to just argue with me.

So I can understand some of your frustration about atheists shrugging off the BoP, but I can also understand their stance toward it.

Personally, I think 'the burden of proof' should be banned from the language -- or at least given a longish jail term.

Although it's pretty far down my list, so far as linguistic do-badders go.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yeah, but some of us actually believe in truth, remember.

I don't understand. You think there is a God of Argumention out there who knows truly whether I have posited or whether not?

 

[McBell]

I think you answer it within your post. Where is your "evidence gauge" when you offer that criticism of theistic argumentation? Without supporting, or followup, reasons, it simply is an arbitrary assessment.

And?
It is not the atheists fault you disagree with the conclusions they draw from the presented evidences.

I mean, it isn't like the atheist is trying real hard to enact laws based on their disbelief in god.

After all, creationists could claim that there's "Not enough evidence" for evolution.

Yes.
And many do.

That is the point where I stop discussion with them.
Or is doing so not taking the high road?

 

[Willamena]

I know what you mean, but it may be a critically-important point to the whole BoP thing.

Who makes the posit?

For those of us who recognize and believe in truth, either person can posit and it's not a critically important point.

But in my mind, I'd made no posit at all. I'd just offered my personal opinion about Jesus' historicity.

Those two things are not necessarily at odds.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I know "god." They can too.

OK. But I thought you once argued that we can't know something unless that thing is true.

So you are saying that the existence of God is true?

 

[Willamena]

I don't understand. You think there is a God of Argumention out there who knows truly whether I have posited or whether not?

Yes. That God is you, and me. Well, mostly me.

 

[Falvlun]

The difference is that the major proposition carries the burden of proof, even if a counterclaim is weak or non-existent.

A ‘burden of proof’ lies with the person that introduces a claim as an obligation to prove the truth of what is claimed.

We both agree that the "burden of proof" lies with the person that introduces a claim, and that the "burden of proof" is an obligation to prove the truth of what is claimed.

The difference is that you are making distinctions between claims: You are saying "this claim has a burden of proof" but "that claim does not". Your above definition does not indicate how or why such a distinction is made. It merely states that "a person who introduces a claim" has such an obligation known as "burden of proof".

Is it your position that the atheist makes no claim when he states that the theists have not met their burden of proof/ have not offered sufficient evidence?

And again: Note: Just because an atheist has a burden of proof for his claim (that the evidence is weak), this does not mean that the theist gets to wipe his hands clean of his claim (that god exists).

Okay now let’s get something properly understood here. This isn’t about arguing a question of fact, concerning verifiable propositions in possible experience. The central claim here is that a supernatural being exists and cannot fail to exist. That is the definition of God and it is held from faith to be a truth. On that proposition alone no person is be expected, and certainly not obligated, to have to justify their lack of belief in that faith-based claim to the supernatural. It is entirely the responsibility of the advocate to explain to those without that faith-based belief why they ought to believe that the proposition is true; and that can only be done by argument. Now if/when the advocate gives an argument, such as one of the classic proofs, or insists that God intervenes in the world then the person without the belief has the opportunity to justify his or her lack of belief. Is that clear now?

It seems you are trying very hard to make a distinction between our arguments. I don't dispute anything you have said up there. In fact, I have said the exact same thing, both in response to you and in my OP:

I am not asking atheists to disprove the existence of gods.

I am asking atheists to support their claim that theists have not met their burden of proof. In other words, atheists have a responsibility to explain why they reject the arguments.

You have stated the exact same thing, and act as if you are clarifying something to me! From your quote above:

Now if/when the advocate gives an argument, such as one of the classic proofs, or insists that God intervenes in the world then the person without the belief has the opportunity to justify his or her lack of belief.

And from my OP:

I do believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I do not deny that theists do have a larger burden in order to prove their claim. I simply do not think that this completely erases the need for an atheist to be able to support and defend their own position.

/snip/

Some background: The burden of proof is historically placed on the person making a positive claim. Thus, theists certainly have a burden of proof, as they claim that gods do in fact exist.

Many atheists have gotten around their own burden of proof by claiming to merely have a "lack of belief" in the existence of gods. They are not making a claim themselves; they are merely refusing to accept the claim of another.

Or are they?

The argumentation often goes like this: Theists have not met their burden of proof, therefore, I need no reason to not believe in the existence of gods.

Seems reasonable on the face of it, no? And it has been a convincing one, at least, to many atheists.

But look more closely. The atheist is making a claim: The claim that theists have not met their burden of proof.

Who decides this? There is no objective arbiter. Why should we, or the theist, accept the assertion that the burden of proof has not been met?

Is this not a claim that requires it's own proof?

I deleted the less relevant bits, and bolded the most relevant bits.

From the get go, I have repeatedly stated that theists have a burden of proof. And from the get go, I have stated that atheists have a responsibility to justify why they reject the arguments offered by theists. That is precisely your position, which you so nicely clarified for me above!