Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[IHaveTheGift]

Nope, I made no such suggestion.
Which I did not do.
Nope, I made no such claim, comment or inference.
I made no such argument.
Wow dude! You made up my side of the argument for yourself and got all outraged about what you invented as if it actually came from me.

You cant possibly be denying what you said to me, clear as the words on the page.

I do not believe that theists have to prove anything, unless of course a religious group wishes to influence education/public policy or the law.
In which case you need to establish the existence of the god in question with empirical evidence.

I asked you about it, you declined to reply on it.
I asked again...

Plus, I will make this point again, since you ignored my reply to you.

If you assert that Theists must provide empirical evidence of a God before being allowed to have a say in the voting of laws, atheists must also provide empirical evidence to support their reasons for a vote as well.

Your reply....

"No, in that circumstance the burden is always on the party making the positive claim. There is no such thing as a burden of disproof."

:sarcastic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that wasn't my argument. My argument was about when the theist provides evidence, and the atheist rejects that evidence as insufficient. Now what?

You have indicated that yes, the atheist has a responsibility to defend his claim (that the evidence is insufficient).

I call that responsibility a burden of proof (for the claim that the evidence is insufficient).

You say that it is not a burden of proof.

I ask why, and then you simply start in again with "the theist has the burden of proof for the claim that god exists". But that's not what the argument is about. We agree that the theist has the burden of proof for the claim that gods exist. We are disagreeing as to whether the atheist has the burden of proof for the claim that theists have not adequately met their burden of proof.

We are also disagreeing as to the difference between "an obligation to justify one's position when one makes a claim" and a "burden of proof". I see them as synonymous and you do not, but so far have not explained why.

I have several times now.

If one person puts forward an argument "A, therefore B, therefore C, therefore D" and the response is "I don't see how C follows from B", exactly what should the respondent do to satisfy his burden of proof? His claim isn't necessarily that the step from B to C was incorrect; only that he's not sure it was correct... and therefore isn't sure of conclusion D.

 

[Nakosis]

I do not believe that theists have to prove anything, unless of course a religious group wishes to influence education/public policy or the law. In which case you need to establish the existence of the god in question with empirical evidence - personal experiences in that case would not be at all sufficient. However in the case of a debate about the existence of god - the burden of proof is upon the theist.

Why? Why should my belief be a factor. In the US anyway a person has a right to vote regardless of their religious belief. Unless you want to go about proving religious folks shouldn't have a right to vote.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think I'll get into the most pit now too.

Is there a burden of proof for an argument?

No. I don't think so.

It helps to give support for an argument or claim, but proof is not necessary.

However, if someone demands that I'm supposed to convert my faith, belief, views, etc to theirs, they have darn good support, as in evidence or proof.

I'm more of a Toulmin Model for Argument kind'a guy. People have reasons to why they believe or claim things, not necessarily proofs.

 

[Falvlun]

People have reasons to why they believe or claim things, not necessarily proofs.

Thanks for the input!

The reasons people believe things are their proofs. At least, that's what proof is to me: It's the justification, evidence, reasons, arguments, etc that leads you to believe that something is true.

Proof in an absolute sense only exists in math, imo.

 

[McBell]

Proof in an absolute sense only exists in math, imo.

PSSST...
Whiskey...

 

[Falvlun]

PSSST...
Whiskey...

:drunk: How could I forget!

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Why? Why should my belief be a factor. In the US anyway a person has a right to vote regardless of their religious belief. Unless you want to go about proving religious folks shouldn't have a right to vote.

I tend to spend a great bit of time online and have had several debates over this very thing with atheists, and not a one of them can back up their reasons why religious people should stay out of lawmaking.

Most have tried to claim that our laws conflicts and hinders their livelihoods, yet can not even provide one single law that does such.
Some have tried to claim things like gay rights, abortion and such, but those are not even remotely exclusive to an atheist view point.
Same with abortion, which is legal btw.
And, I know plenty of atheists that are against abortion, gay rights, and support the death penalty.
Why can they take those stances, but claim religious people can not?

The OP is about BOP, I sort of feel this is on topic, as it discusses actual sides of the table and what is really going on with BOP and how it is misused for what I deem, unjustified reasons.

This is far from the first time I have heard an atheist say that religious people need to stay out of law making unless we can prove God, yet claim they don't have to disprove God and can freely voice their stances on laws.

I am sorry if this is too far off topic for the OP, my apologizes.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

:drunk: How could I forget!

Cut down on your "proofs"

It is a scientific fact that anything over .00001 proof will cause forgetfulness.
I should know..."burp" :faint:

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for the input!

The reasons people believe things are their proofs. At least, that's what proof is to me: It's the justification, evidence, reasons, arguments, etc that leads you to believe that something is true.

Proof in an absolute sense only exists in math, imo.

That's why I try to avoid that word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I tend to spend a great bit of time online and have had several debates over this very thing with atheists, and not a one of them can back up their reasons why religious people should stay out of lawmaking.

Most have tried to claim that our laws conflicts and hinders their livelihoods, yet can not even provide one single law that does such.
Some have tried to claim things like gay rights, abortion and such, but those are not even remotely exclusive to an atheist view point.
Same with abortion, which is legal btw.
And, I know plenty of atheists that are against abortion, gay rights, and support the death penalty.
Why can they take those stances, but claim religious people can not?

The OP is about BOP, I sort of feel this is on topic, as it discusses actual sides of the table and what is really going on with BOP and how it is misused for what I deem, unjustified reasons.

This is far from the first time I have heard an atheist say that religious people need to stay out of law making unless we can prove God, yet claim they don't have to disprove God and can freely voice their stances on laws.

I am sorry if this is too far off topic for the OP, my apologizes.

It's not that theists should stay out of lawmaking; it's that theists ought not to impose their religion on others. There are two reasons for this:

- the Golden Rule. If you don't want someone else's religion imposed on you, then you shouldn't impose your religion on others.
- liberty. In a free society, restraints on liberty must be justified. If they can't be, then the default is freedom. Now, I realize that there's not necessarily a logical contradiction involved in not wanting a free society, but just about everyone I've ever met, including the theists, seems to at least say that this is what they want.

If a law can't be justified, it's a bad law. If a law can't be justified without your god, then it's a bad law until such time as you can show everyone that your god exists.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

It's not that theists should stay out of lawmaking; it's that theists ought not to impose their religion on others. There are two reasons for this:

- the Golden Rule. If you don't want someone else's religion imposed on you, then you shouldn't impose your religion on others.
- liberty. In a free society, restraints on liberty must be justified. If they can't be, then the default is freedom. Now, I realize that there's not necessarily a logical contradiction involved in not wanting a free society, but just about everyone I've ever met, including the theists, seems to at least say that this is what they want.

If a law can't be justified, it's a bad law. If a law can't be justified without your god, then it's a bad law until such time as you can show everyone that your god exists.

Law making and forcing religion on others are not even remotely the same things.
There is not one single law that was ever brought into the US constitution that forces any religion on anyone.

The only laws we have that are parallel to Gods laws are ones such as thou shall not kill and to not rob your neighbor.
Please explain why we have these laws if God is not proven by religious people.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't even have those laws either?
If not, which laws are you referring to?

Not to be calling you out, but it is perfectly clear to me that people listen to big shots like Dawkins, Tyson and the famous youtube channels that make huge "cute sounding" strawman attacks about all these non existing laws that conflicts an atheists well being and people seem to begin to parrot it as if its truth.
Paraphrasing Tyson and Dawkins....
"I dont care about you praying to a God, but when you force it on me with lawmaking, we have a huge problem"

Please proved actual laws that prove me wrong and you and them right.
Thanks. :yes:

Oddly, the two newest and biggest laws to have taken affect recently are gay rights and the right to abort, both of which are highly anti God, if you will.
Considering religious people make up 80% of the worlds population, we can easily conclude that law making and religious beliefs are not even comparable.

edit:
This must be said, if anyone is forcing laws on us that are wrong, it is big businesses and their greed.
They pay off the Gov and continue to pollute the planet and give us things deemed safe that are not safe.
The biggest, being meds that have more deadly side affects than the actual cures.
"take this for a headache, warning, side affects include bleeding constantly from both eyeballs"

And them polluting the hell out of everything and paying off the Gov to amend laws, that ruin our health, but lines their pockets.

But no, lets worry about the non existing laws just because its a viral topic and we love jumping on the bandwagon...

 

[Ingledsva]

Seriously, if one doesn't wish to accept presented evidence, one does not have to, it does not make the evidence any more invalid.
Plus, what one claims to be true for them, doesn't automatically become true for every one,

Sorry, but I never once spoke for the whole world, only my own personal beliefs, why you keep speaking for everyone else and presenting it as facts for everyone?

ING - LOL! I would like to know how this sentence -

"ING - Indeed, however you folks have no real evidence to show us, or you would have done so."

Became your "whole world" reply?

=============



our bodies can just spontaneously heal itself and baffle doctors ehhh?
Why do we even have doctors then?


Strawmanning, goal posting, red herring, you name it, you are dong it.
Claiming that forsay, star fish can regrow limbs or whatever they are called has zero to do with a HUMAN BEING whose own doctor claims said persons recovery is baffling and unexplainable by what we know about the human body, modern meds, science itself and nature in general.
Plus, "we are working on it" is not the same thing as "we can regrow limbs on human beings now"


ING - LOL! AGAIN! How are these FACTS - straw men?

"ING - Some animals can regrow limbs, thus it is natural. We are now working on stimulating the regrowth of limbs and spinal connections, etc. People spontaneously recover from diseases, cancer, etc. There is no need for an invisible man to accomplish these things."

It is interesting how you ignore the full content of a sentence! Animals can regrow limbs. We are animals. Attempted regrowth has been observed in HUMANS - the younger the better. THUS - stimulation experiments are going on right now to regrow limbs, spinal connections, etc.

But none of that has to do with your flippant "its a miracle," WITHOUT any proof of such, - and our absolutely knowing in medical science - that we have spontaneous healing, from cancer and other diseases, with no invisible beings required. Hence not a miracle from a God.



About not needing God...that is completely irrelevant to disprove that miracles happen.
Might as well claim that when God said let there be light, we all know we flip a light switch to turn on the light, not pray to a God to do it for us...and claim that disproves Gods existence too.
Plus, even if someday science figures out how to turn non life into actual life, that would not disprove God either.
That wouldn't even prove that is how life jump started in the first place, there is no way to ever 100% prove how it happened.
Might as well claim that because one can make a burger that tastes like a BigMac, that proves that Mcdonalds is unneeded and never invented the BigMac in the first place.


ING - The rest of this is just filler crap - having no connection to the reply.

==============

ING - Indeed, however, you will never be able to prove you saw dead Jesus. You expect people to just take your word for it. The reality is that it has no more impact then the person that says they see Kushtaka.

again,
what one claims to be true, doesn't automatically become true for every one,


ING - What is your point?



Show me where I expect everyone to believe me and such?
The fact is, before saying it, I said that it does not matter who believes me or not, and it changes nothing.
I personally don't care if you believe me, I am simply stating what is true to me, you can take it as you wish


ING - LOL! You brought up your seeing Jesus in a post about invisible beings. Therefor you tried to use it as a FACT - in the debate - to persuade people that Jesus and other invisible "Gods" are real.




Infact, you claimed that "To the rest of us you are imagining things"
Odd, who is all in your idea of "the rest of us?"
Do you actually know what the rest of the world thinks all the time?
To me, to be able to know what billions of others think, its very remarkable.
Considering you know what everyone else thinks, doesn't that make you a mind reader?
Doesn't it also make you able to predict the future, to "pre" state what everyone does and will think, after reading my post about Jesus?
PS, someone replied to me, before you did, and never once said anything about me imagining things...
So much for your ability to read minds and know what everyone thinks about what I said, ehhh?



ING - Interesting - again - how you try to expand the reply. The rest of us - as in non-theists, Agnostics, etc, on this thread, and probably a lot of Theists as well, I would assume, - as - YOU - are claiming to have actually seen Jesus.




Odd, I thought atheists only believe in things proven true with empirical evidence
Can one actually have empirical evidence from reading minds of others and predicting the future? :sarcastic
Care to provide evidence to prove your abilities to "know" everything?


ING - LOL! There is nothing to prove here. You are trying to take this into the realm of idiocy.

=================

Oh yah, according to many UFO sightings, they claim that UFOs have the ability to become invisible/leave our dimension... etc...

Neither of which would make them actually invisible. I assume you have seen the military's new cloaking cloth, or heard of the B-2 stealth bomber, or YF-23, etc.

As for your military examples, it has zero to do with the capabilities of the unknown, such as Alien Life.
You might as well compare a child's plastic car to a REAL car as being the same things with the same capabilities.


ING - As you can see - I put your quote, and my answer, to show that, again - you are trying to take this into idiocy since you don't like the answer.

1. The whole discussion is about invisible God beings and their invisible realms!
2. YOU - brought up UFO's, and how people say they can become "invisible," and leave our dimension.


3. Aliens visiting us with "spaceships" would be real, not invisible beings with pixy dust, pinging in and out. We have the ability to cloak RIGHT NOW. It makes absolute sense thus - that a superior culture visiting us would have that ability, - since people are saying they can become "invisible" at will. Same thing with dimensional space ideas. NO GOD ALIENS with pixy dust, actually becoming invisible! Now - that WOULD be ridiculous!



Again, comparing our technology to the unknown technology of Alien life, if it does exist, is not plausible.
If Alien life does exist and has visited our planet, our technology and theirs can never be the same, we can barely even make it to the moon and back, let alone travel to other galaxies.


ING - See above! That is absolutely FALSE. I am talking SCIENCE. Their advanced SCIENCE - does not mean they are pinging in and out of invisibility with God powers, or Pixy dust. Their "invisibility" would still be cloaking SCIENCE.

================

"Oh yah, according to many UFO sightings, they claim that UFOs have the ability to become invisible/leave our dimension... etc..."


ING - SEE ABOVE!


...

So it seems, you know everything about what Alien Life is capable of, ehhh?
You know what they can do, what their technology consists of as well?
Where did you gain such knowledge and why are you not working for NASA? :sarcastic

ING - Get a grip on reality. LOL!


Aliens would be LIVE BEINGS - NOT GODS with invisibility POWERS!


THUS - using SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY!


It is hilarious that you are saying such ridiculous crap, and attempting to be "sarcastic!" LOL!



*

 

[McBell]

Most have tried to claim that our laws conflicts and hinders their livelihoods, yet can not even provide one single law that does such.

Proposition 8...

Some have tried to claim things like gay rights, abortion and such, but those are not even remotely exclusive to an atheist view point.
Same with abortion, which is legal btw.
And, I know plenty of atheists that are against abortion, gay rights, and support the death penalty.
Why can they take those stances, but claim religious people can not?

The OP is about BOP, I sort of feel this is on topic, as it discusses actual sides of the table and what is really going on with BOP and how it is misused for what I deem, unjustified reasons.

This is far from the first time I have heard an atheist say that religious people need to stay out of law making unless we can prove God, yet claim they don't have to disprove God and can freely voice their stances on laws.

I am sorry if this is too far off topic for the OP, my apologizes.

Personally, it matters not what religion (or lack of) a person claims.
They should have the right to vote so long as they meet the other requirements.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

@Ingledsva

Again, since you claim to know so much about Alien life forms and their technology, why are you in debating a common man such as myself, why are you not working for Nasa?
I know of not one scientist that makes the claims as being brute facts about the unknown Alien life as you keep doing. :sarcastic

"Some animals can regrow limbs, thus it is natural. We are now working on stimulating the regrowth of limbs and spinal connections, etc. People spontaneously recover from diseases, cancer, etc. There is no need for an invisible man to accomplish these things."

Are you serious?
Do you even understand that setting up a fallacy does not mean a thing?

1)It is natural for a very few animals to regrow limbs, not humans and once again, working on it is not saying it is a brute fact and surely does not disprove miracles.
In all reality, if someone spontaneously regrew a limb, it would be nothing short of a miracle.
It would be all over the news and deemed a miracle by every single doctor that knew about it.
Stop it with your nonsense.

2)Can you prove God has nothing to do with spontaneous recoveries that baffle doctors?
Come back when you can, k? :yes:
BTW, "because I said so, isn't actual proof"
So, I have no need to continue to keep replying to your "opinions dressed up as brute facts"
And wont.
:no:

 

[Ouroboros]

Spontaneous remission of cancer in humans: Spontaneous remission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amputated finger tips grow back: https://student.societyforscience.org/article/amputated-‘finger’-tips-grow-back
and: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/you-can-now-regrow-severed-fingertip-just-lizards-tail

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Spontaneous remission of cancer in humans: Spontaneous remission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

not sure what you are trying to suggest with that.
Nothing in the wiki shows disproving a miracle, they cant even explain why it happens

Amputated finger tips grow back: https://student.societyforscience.org/article/amputated-‘finger’-tips-grow-back

Not even remotely the same thing as limbs growing back.

and: Re-Grow Human Limbs Just Like Lizards

again, not the same thing as limbs actually growing back, and the process requires outside assistance and genetic engineering, it doesn't happen on its own.
There is nothing what so ever spontaneous about it.
And again, does nothing to disprove God or miracles.

I don't care if someday science can grow a human being from a cup of dirt, it still does not disprove God, miracles or even show that is how life jump started in the first place.

Nothing about science has a thing to do with disproving or even proving God.

 

[Ingledsva]

...

Originally Posted by Bunyip - "Sorry, but claiming that a person who believes a bronze age deity actually exists is delusional - whilst being understandably unsettling for believers is a perfectly sound ajd rational position."

Would it be fair of me and be a rational position for me to claim that the reason you deny God is because you are a product of satan and work for him and are delusional thinking that you are acting on your own free will and you are under the control of satan himself?
Since I believe in God and know he exists and you do not, obviously, you must be under the power of satan and are deluded.
Stupid assumption ehhh?

There is nothing rational to claim someone online that you do not know personally is delusional, specially when you cant even prove God doesn't exist in the first place.
Let alone claim that billions of other people are also delusional.

If anyone is delusional, it is the one who thinks it is a sound argument to claim things about billions of people they do not know.


Originally Posted by Bunyip - "Millions of people believed in Thor, Hecate, Baal - were they deluded?"


Logical fallacy(I think that is what it is called, still new to that sort of titling.
Forgive me if its called something else...

****


ING - Interesting that you separated his paired sentences to try for a new meaning, and then try use the "Logical Fallacy Argument," which would be incorrect.


Here is what you said, and his actual reply to you - - -

...In closing, anyone that claims I am delusional, should be ashamed of themselves, you don't know me and have no right to make that claim.

Sorry, but claiming that a person who believes a bronze age deity actually exists is delusional - whilst being understandably unsettling for believers is a perfectly sound ajd rational position.

Millions of people believed in Thor, Hecate, Baal - were they deluded?

ING - That is not a "Logical Fallacy." He asked you a logical question that is pertinent to the discussion.


Basically -


Why should we consider people that follow OTHER Bronze Age Deities to be delusional, while considering you folks differently, - with YOUR Bronze Age Deity and his supposed human/Deity son?




*

 

[Ouroboros]

not sure what you are trying to suggest with that.
Nothing in the wiki shows disproving a miracle, they cant even explain why it happens

I met a person who was not a Christian who had a son that had a cancer remission... after changing to vegetarian diet. The doctors couldn't explain that either.

Not even remotely the same thing as limbs growing back.

It shows the power of the biological functions and system. Just because they haven't grown a leg or an arm doesn't mean that this experiment doesn't mean anything at all.

again, not the same thing as limbs actually growing back, and the process requires outside assistance and genetic engineering, it doesn't happen on its own.

Of course not. Was that suggested? In a way it was doing it on its own, just with a little push in the right direction. I'm not sure, but I think the paste was just to attract the body's own stemcells... but I could be wrong.

There is nothing what so ever spontaneous about it.
And again, does nothing to disprove God or miracles.

Keep on resisting the miracle of life in this universe or the powers of nature. One day, you'll learn that all these miracles are part of the powers of this world.

I don't care if someday science can grow a human being from a cup of dirt, it still does not disprove God, miracles or even show that is how life jump started in the first place.

Of course it doesn't disprove God. But it proves the power of this reality, this world, this nature. The powers in our biological bodies are hindered by genetic switches that turns some of the features off. That's what the research is about. To turn the body's own healing powers on again. That's a miracle of nature.

Nothing about science has a thing to do with disproving or even proving God.

Agree.

However, when nature does have the power to do something, we should admit to its truth and not reject it.

Other than accepting scientific facts for being truths about our world, I'm okay with you having your faith.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

That is not a "Logical Fallacy." He asked you a logical question that is pertinent to the discussion.


Basically -


Why should we consider people that follow OTHER Bronze Age Deities to be delusional, while considering you folks differently, - with YOUR Bronze Age Deity and his supposed human/Deity son?
*

That is a logical fallacy.

"They were deemed delusional, therefore you are delusional....
Is infact, a fallacy.

Plus, you simply can not even prove "they" were delusional to begin with.
Let alone compare them to me as being a logical premise.

Might as well make this claim then...
Stalin was atheist and a vicious monster who murdered millions of people.
Therefore all atheists are vicious murderers.