Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say ...I don't know....

I'm altogether sure....Spirit first.

Yes, I realize that you're certain of your conclusion; that wasn't my point. When you explain how you arrived at it, the logical fallacy is apparent.

 

[Thief]

Yes, I realize that you're certain of your conclusion; that wasn't my point. When you explain how you arrived at it, the logical fallacy is apparent.

So you don't believe in cause and effect?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you don't believe in cause and effect?

See: this is argument from ignorance I was talking about.

... though now that I think about it, maybe it's more of a red herring than an argument from ignorance.

 

[McBell]

So you don't believe in cause and effect?

I do.
But unlike you I do not throw it out the window when it becomes inconvenient to my beliefs....

 

[Thief]

I do.
But unlike you I do not throw it out the window when it becomes inconvenient to my beliefs....

Not at all inconvenient.

I like it.

The universe is the effect and God is the Cause.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all inconvenient.

I like it.

The universe is the effect and God is the Cause.

What caused God?

 

[Thief]

What caused God?

We get to ask Him when we get there!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We get to ask Him when we get there!

So you don't actually have a rational basis for your position, but you hope to get one after you die?

 

[Nakosis]

I have no argument at all with those that say they believe in God. My dispute is with those that claim it as a truth or state that it is more reasonable to believe in God than not and in which case I ask for evidential proof that isn’t just belief in the belief, personal experience or anecdotal or vicarious argumentation.

I don't think your position is unreasonable. However I think using the burden of proof is too passive a position which can be easily dismissed. "That" makes it a bad argument.

 

[cottage]

Which I've asked you to explain, in vain. I give up.

I’ve repeated it time after time. Of course people know why they disbelieve in gods, for the reasons I’ve already given, and I can’t imagine where the absurd notion came from that they may not. But sceptics don’t have to explain themselves in response to a question-begging ‘Why don’t you believe in God’, but only in reply to arguments asserting to God’s existence made by the theist. Is that clear now?

 

[cottage]

I don't think your position is unreasonable. However I think using the burden of proof is too passive a position which can be easily dismissed. "That" makes it a bad argument.

The burden of proof isn’t really an argument at all, but it is an important principle without which anyone might claim anything without challenge. And the principle is especially important in the case of someone asserting an existential proposition where the burden of proof is always with the person making the assertion because the doubter cannot prove the non-existence of the supposed entity.

 

[Thief]

The burden of proof isn’t really an argument at all, but it is an important principle without which anyone might claim anything without challenge. And the principle is especially important in the case of someone asserting an existential proposition where the burden of proof is always with the person making the assertion because the doubter cannot prove the non-existence of the supposed entity.

So....faith needs no proving....right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So....faith needs no proving....right?

Ideas, whether they're called "faith" or not, need support in order to be reasonable.

 

[Thief]

Ideas, whether they're called "faith" or not, need support in order to be reasonable.

So Webster's has a inappropriate definition for faith?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So Webster's has a inappropriate definition for faith?

The dictionary definition of "faith" says nothing about whether a particular person's faith - or faith in general - is justified or reasonable.

 

[Desert Snake]

In face of total silence. There is no real validation for thiests to go by, nor is there any real platform that would warrant the claims made by thiests. Athiests just reflect the reality of the matter as it stands directly. I think in that light no real need exists to pursue the matter of disapproving thiestic claims which in such a case, the burden of proof is in fact pointless as there is nothing there that can be proven.

I don't understand how ethics apply unless there is something derogatory by how thiests are treated in relating their position.

I don't think atheists reflect the reality of the matter as it stands, I just think they're out of the conversation.

 

[Thief]

The dictionary definition of "faith" says nothing about whether a particular person's faith - or faith in general - is justified or reasonable.

So then...all and any who are of faith...cannot be reasoned with.

Gee....I might have said the same of some atheists!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So then...all and any who are of faith...cannot be reasoned with.

Gee....I might have said the same of some atheists!

Actually, I find that most people of faith I talk to can be reasoned with just fine. I don't think you're representative of religious people in general.

I've also found that most people of faith can give reasons for their beliefs. They may be reasons I disagree with, but they don't try to feed me nonsense like "faith needs no proving".

 

[Thief]

Actually, I find that most people of faith I talk to can be reasoned with just fine. I don't think you're representative of religious people in general.

I've also found that most people of faith can give reasons for their beliefs. They may be reasons I disagree with, but they don't try to feed me nonsense like "faith needs no proving".

So you prefer to disregard Webster's.
Is there a reference you DO prefer?

 

[McBell]

So then...all and any who are of faith...cannot be reasoned with.

Gee....I might have said the same of some atheists!

So you prefer to disregard Webster's.
Is there a reference you DO prefer?

Two posts in a row where you are blatantly dodging the topic....

Did you have faith no one would notice?