Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Rejecting an insufficiently evidenced, or unevidenced claim is perfectly rational. The burden of proof remains upon the party making the claim.
-
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
- Thread starter Falvlun
- Start date
Rejecting an insufficiently evidenced, or unevidenced claim is perfectly rational. The burden of proof remains upon the party making the claim.
Is it not possible that some Christians believe because they have been convinced by sufficient evidence?
No, not until the claims are presented in falsifiable terms are atheists obligated in any way to explain anything, to themselves or to anyone else.
It is perfectly reasonable to summarily dismiss without evidence claims that are presented without evidence.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Absolutely! For them the evidence is sufficient. For others, not so much or not at all.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Okay, we aren't supposed to believe explanations. Gotcha.
Well, hypotheses deal with facts, too.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
That would invalidate faith, and faith is the foundation of Christianity. So I would think it possible, but unlikely in the extreme.
Yes, it is rational, which is the whole point of this thread. Atheists do not lack justification for their position. Their burden is a different burden than the theist's.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Correct. Theories are accepted or rejected, they are not questions of belief.
For example: I do not 'believe in' the theory of evolution, because it is not an ideology or a belief system - it is a scientific theory. I accept the theory of evolution for what it is - the best possible explanation at this time for how evolution works. It demands no belief.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Can you describe the literal difference between a notion and a hypothesis outside the context of God, please?
Until claims are presented, there is nothing to explain anyway.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Can you describe the difference between accepting an explanation and believing an explanation?
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I apologise for repeating the question asked by steeltoes, but what claim is it that you imagine atheists bear the burden of proof for?
I don't believe in anything, for example when it comes to evolution I try to understand it to the best of my ability, in that way I can gain knowledge as to how the world works.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Can you describe the difference between believing you know how the world works and knowing how the world works?
I'll just copy-paste. They have a burden to explain why they reject the claims of theists. It's not a burden of "convincing others," but simply a burden for themselves, to have a rational position.
Or, as Falvlun said:
Last edited:
For the atheist I wouldn't call it a burden, I would call it a freedom.
Losing my religion was like losing a heavy yoke around the neck, it was a freedom to me, exhilarating to say the least. Nothing weighty about it, quite the opposite.Well, then that's a weighty freedom that they bear.