Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Skwim]

Part of the problem with the "burden of proof" defense of atheism is that the argument isn't just about whether gods exist.

But saying that one hasn't met the burden of proof of god's existence is hardly defending the atheist position. It's merely explaining it. The atheist has no need to defend his position. In a sense, his position is one of default nullification.

Consider concept X.

Person A says it exists. Even if no one disagrees with him, if asked, he would still bear the burden of proof to show this is true. And if one other person should pop up and say "I don't believe you (implicitly saying X doesn't exist)," the burden of proof still lies with person A and not the disbeliever.

As I quoted Alex Michalos in his Principles of Logic. in post 254

"usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed."

 

[Copernicus]

But saying that one hasn't met the burden of proof of god's existence is hardly defending the atheist position. It's merely explaining it. The atheist has no need to defend his position. In a sense, his position is one of default nullification.

I think that this point was addressed adequately at an earlier point in the thread. Who judges whether the burden of proof has been met? The atheist or the theist? In order for the argument to carry any persuasive force at all, you have to get the theist to agree. The strategy is supposed to get the theist to start presenting evidence to refute it, but the more typical response is "You're nuts!" OTOH, if you approach it as an argument over whether belief in gods is a reasonable belief to have, you might actually get a discussion. We aren't talking about a scientific or mathematical "proof" here. We are really talking about how one makes sense of nature and reality.

Consider concept X.

Person A says it exists. Even if no one disagrees with him, if asked, he would still bear the burden of proof to show this is true. And if one other person should pop up and say "I don't believe you (implicitly saying X doesn't exist)," the burden of proof still lies with person A and not the disbeliever.

As I quoted Alex Michalos in his Principles of Logic. in post 254

"usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed."

Quite true. It's just that most believers believe that they have sufficient proof of the existence of God (or some other gods), even if they can't make you see it. Are they being unreasonable?

Let me put it this way. Physicist Brian Greene believes that string theory has a reasonably good chance of being true. It isn't a religious faith or dogma, but he thinks it worth committing a considerable portion of his life to that idea. The thing about string theory is that we don't really know whether it a testable idea. The math is compatible with it, but we cannot yet falsify it. So his belief is grounded in little more than intuition--kind of the same thing as religious belief in God (although I wouldn't go so far as to equate it with a religious belief, given that he willingly accepts a "burden of proof" debt). Maybe he isn't being entirely rational about it. I know that very intelligent people can go to extreme lengths to justify their biases. Ultimately, though, one has to admit that his bias is at least reasonable. I believe that a great many theists are similarly committed to their faith in a god--that it is a reasonable belief to hold. Do they need to prove it to skeptics? Maybe ultimately they do, but they still think it a reasonable enough belief to go on believing it for the time being. Not all theists are fanatics, but are they right to maintain that their belief is reasonable? Is it, as Dawkins has argued, a fairly obvious delusion? That's the real question, not whether they can prove the existence of God.

 

[Skwim]

Quite true. It's just that most believers believe that they have sufficient proof of the existence of God (or some other gods), even if they can't make you see it. Are they being unreasonable?

Not at all. What would be unreasonable is if they thought they lacked sufficient proof, but presented it anyway.

Let me put it this way. Physicist Brian Greene believes that string theory has a reasonably good chance of being true. It isn't a religious faith or dogma, but he thinks it worth committing a considerable portion of his life to that idea. The thing about string theory is that we don't really know whether it a testable idea. The math is compatible with it, but we cannot yet falsify it. So his belief is grounded in little more than intuition--kind of the same thing as religious belief in God (although I wouldn't go so far as to equate it with a religious belief, given that he willingly accepts a "burden of proof" debt). Maybe he isn't being entirely rational about it. I know that very intelligent people can go to extreme lengths to justify their biases. Ultimately, though, one has to admit that his bias is at least reasonable. I believe that a great many theists are similarly committed to their faith in a god--that it is a reasonable belief to hold. Do they need to prove it to skeptics? Maybe ultimately they do, but they still think it a reasonable enough belief to go on believing it for the time being. Not all theists are fanatics, but are they right to maintain that their belief is reasonable? Is it, as Dawkins has argued, a fairly obvious delusion?

Belief, thinking, and bias are just fine, we all operate under such conditions, but these don't rise to the level of surety that the pronouncements of fact, god's existence in this case, do. I can't argue that a belief, thought, or bias is untrue, but I can argue a claim of truth, which, in essence, is what the atheist does. He says: Your failure to convince me you're right leaves with no other alternative than to reject your claim. A small argument to be sure ( actually, more of a conclusion), but a very reasonable one.

That's the real question, not whether they can prove the existence of God.

But this is the crux of the issue posed in the thread: where the burden of proof lies. The issue of god's existence is the burden of the theist, and the theist's alone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder if your tune would be the same if the non-belief were were talking about were "lack of belief in evolution" or "disbelief in heliocentrism".

But regardless, your response that the theist shouldn't concern himself with the non-theist is a non-sequitur, and it doesn't fully address my concerns.

It is a non-sequitur because we are talking about a debate setting. We are talking about theists and atheists having a discussion together in regards to their beliefs, and a specific claim made by atheists to theists about theistic argumentation. Thus, your claim that the theist should essentially mind his own business makes no sense.

It doesn't fully address my concerns because it isn't primarily about theist/non-theist relations anyway. It is about the non-theist's responsibility to himself. Should the non-theist concern himself with himself?

What's wrong with Laplace's response to being asked about God ("I had no need of that hypothesis")?

If the non-theist has a robust, god-free mental model of the world and its predictions agree reasonably well with what he observes, then what else is needed?

Edit: I get the idea of trying to explore one's beliefs and put them to the test. However, if someone decides that the question of the existence of gods is less of a priority than other questions, I'm not going to fault him for it. In fact, I could completely sympathize with someone who devotes their life to exploration and inquiry but never gets around to examining the issue of gods. I don't think gods *demand* our attention, and there are plenty of other things to keep us occupied.

 

[atanu]

Sure, why not?

The concept of God itself is unverifiable and therefore can be thought of as nonsensical until explained in falsifiable terms.

I don't believe a scientific study is valid until it is verified and even then I hold by beliefs loosely, so you can imagine my hesitation to formulate a belief as regards to a nonsensical God.

You have just answered my query.

Hesitation is not equal to the opposite. If I do not agree to my neighbours' explanations regarding his proposition, does not mean that the opposite proposition becomes de-facto proved.

 

[RFForumMember]

I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically.

The burden of proof argument claims that because theists have failed to adequately prove the existence of god, atheists need no further reason, evidence, or explanation for their own position of non-belief.

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.

To begin with, ethically:
I believe that every person should be able to articulate why they do or do not hold particular beliefs (or, at the very least, beliefs that they spend time debating.) To me, this is an integrity thing. I can't imagine simply rejecting something, especially something that is widely held to be true-- whether it be evolution, or photosynthesis, or the existence of god-- without having an understanding of why I don't accept it.

Next, philosophically:
It seems to me that the burden-of-proof argument has been misused, or at least, not very well thought out.

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?

So, how would you go about evidencing the claim that theists have not met their burden of proof?

You would need to go through various arguments made for the existence of gods and explain why they fail to provide sufficient evidence.

And yet, this is precisely what one would need to do in the first place, before burden of proof is even evoked: If a theists asks an atheist to support their position, the atheist could simply explain why the various arguments for the existence of gods has failed to convince her.

Which seems to me to make the whole burden of proof argumentation not only unethical, but useless as well.

Not sure if you are missing the obvious that you are in fact not only arguing against atheists but also against all other known religions. (If you follow one you most likely reject all the others)

So you are arguing that if a Mormon says XYZ they first have to prove Mormonism just as an atheist would have to first prove there is no god... Its all irrational. I see how you ended up down this path but Burden of proof arguments are good arguments and not bad.

IMHO, you're mileage may vary. (Check wikipedia?)

 

[Bird123]

I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically.

The burden of proof argument claims that because theists have failed to adequately prove the existence of god, atheists need no further reason, evidence, or explanation for their own position of non-belief.

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.

To begin with, ethically:
I believe that every person should be able to articulate why they do or do not hold particular beliefs (or, at the very least, beliefs that they spend time debating.) To me, this is an integrity thing. I can't imagine simply rejecting something, especially something that is widely held to be true-- whether it be evolution, or photosynthesis, or the existence of god-- without having an understanding of why I don't accept it.

Next, philosophically:
It seems to me that the burden-of-proof argument has been misused, or at least, not very well thought out.

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?

So, how would you go about evidencing the claim that theists have not met their burden of proof?

You would need to go through various arguments made for the existence of gods and explain why they fail to provide sufficient evidence.

And yet, this is precisely what one would need to do in the first place, before burden of proof is even evoked: If a theists asks an atheist to support their position, the atheist could simply explain why the various arguments for the existence of gods has failed to convince her.

Which seems to me to make the whole burden of proof argumentation not only unethical, but useless as well.

Doesn't burden of proof rest on the one who SEEKS the knowledge? So many never seek anything.

People's opinions and beliefs do not matter. They might point in a direction that one might discover truth, however burden of proof will always fall to those who struggle to DISCOVER the Real Truth for themselves.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You have just answered my query.

Hesitation is not equal to the opposite. If I do not agree to my neighbours' explanations regarding his proposition, does not mean that the opposite proposition becomes de-facto proved.

To make sure you aren't confused. Atheism isn't promoting some opposing ideal to religion. Rather it is what is left when religion is not accepted.

For example if you don't agree to your neighbor's explanations then obviously that doesn't mean that the opposite is wrong. It means you simply do not believe his explanations. From that point it doesn't imply that you think anything in terms of what the explanation "is" but only that it "is not" what the neighbor says.

 

[steeltoes]

You have just answered my query.

Hesitation is not equal to the opposite. If I do not agree to my neighbours' explanations regarding his proposition, does not mean that the opposite proposition becomes de-facto proved.

Who said anything about opposites?

 

[atanu]

Who said anything about opposites?

You said:

"The concept of God itself is unverifiable and therefore can be thought of as nonsensical until explained in falsifiable terms."

I ask, is it not non-sensical to be definite about what you yourself claim is unverifiable. (BTW, the proposition of God may not be non-sensical to many).

Further, in my understanding, it is double dose of nonsense to assert "I am an atheist, because my neighbour fails to validate his theism". It is like saying "I am anti TOI, since TOI proponents have not convinced me that their evidences are objective".


(Of course, I said earlier that the above may be sensical to you. No argument from my side about that). :yes: What is nonsensical to some may be sensical to others.

 

[Bunyip]

Here we go again...

Can you please explain why 'a matter of belief' means 'a matter that one believes in' and DOES NOT mean 'a matter one believes'?

On top of this, if there is a distinction here, please explain why you described the existence of God as 'a belief' and not 'a matter of belief'?

Sometimes people are burdened with over-wrought prejudices against assigning specific words to specific ideas. It makes it tough for them to explain without violating their ridiculous hang-ups that are ultimately nothing more than dogmatic hair-splitting nonsense.

But normally, its pretty easy. I agree.

Very interesting...



Yeah, but what about God's existence? Since that's what I asked about. Belief in God is another matter entirely.

Every time you actually buckle down and try to explain the difference, you change the terms. Why is that?

Try again. This time with gusto!

My meaning was clear. I have no interest in pointlessly arguing about word meanings. There is clearly a huge difference between accepting an explanation (theory) as the best possible available interpretation of the data and believing in the existence of an unevidenced bronze age deity.

I thunk that the differenceis clear to you also, and no amount of arguing with me about semantics will make it go away.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You said:

"The concept of God itself is unverifiable and therefore can be thought of as nonsensical until explained in falsifiable terms."

I say, it is non sensical to be definite about what you yourself claim is unverifiable. (BTW, the proposition of God may not be non-sensical to many).

It is nonsense to believe and put stock into something that cannot be falsified. For example you yourself follow the exact same logic behind it every second of every day. Do you ever run across the street and put yourself into harms way simply because the concept of the Matrix exists in an unverifiable way? Do you believe that it is possible to prove we are not in the matrix? There is no evidence against it. But yet I assume you do not try to get out of the matrix and I would bet a large sum of money that you don't put your life on the line for it.

Similarly I don't accept that the concept of god is worth such effort. I find it fun to debate things but I find it fun to debate in general. But as far as actually considering the viability of god is put to a moot point since it is an unverifiable concept.

Does this make sense?

Further, in my understanding, it is double dose of nonsense to assert "I am an atheist, because my neighbour fails to validate his theism". It is like saying "I am anti TOI, since TOI proponents have not convinced me that their evidences are objective".


(Of course, I said earlier that the above may be sensical to you. No argument from my side about that). :yes: What is nonsensical to some may be sensical to others.

A bit wrong with your analogy and its why you confused yourself with it. For example I am not concerned really with your theism. Or my neighbor's theism. My stance as an atheist more or less is not in any way influence by their specific evidences for their specific god claim. But the fact that theism as a concept has not been validated or even supported with demonstrable evidence is the problem.

The cause to the effect of my chance as an atheist is not my neighbor's evidence. It is the evidence, arguments and concept of theism itself.

Though I must ask you what is TOI?

 

[Sir Doom]

My meaning was clear. I have no interest in pointlessly arguing about word meanings.

Then stop using words you don't know the meanings of in incorrect ways.

There is clearly a huge difference between accepting an explanation (theory) as the best possible available interpretation of the data and believing in the existence of an unevidenced bronze age deity.

First, I never mentioned any sort of unevidenced bronze age deities, so this is hardly relevant to the question.

Second, if there is such a clear and huge difference then you shouldn't have any problem with the questions I'm presenting you with. The fact is that regardless of the difference, you are UNABLE to demonstrate that difference effectively. This means that you don't actually know it, you just believe it because it falls in line with your particular world view as opposed to being the result of your honest intellectual consideration of the issue. In other words... its dogma (for lack of a better term).

I thunk that the differenceis clear to you also, and no amount of arguing with me about semantics will make it go away.

The difference between me and you, is that I know what I believe and I can explain it too. You just know what you believe. You are even going so far as to baselessly assert that I believe the same thing as you do, and that this 'fact' means you don't need to explain.

 

[atanu]

It is nonsense to believe and put stock into something that cannot be falsified. For example you yourself follow the exact same logic behind it every second of every day. Do you ever run across the street and put yourself into harms way simply because the concept of the Matrix exists in an unverifiable way? Do you believe that it is possible to prove we are not in the matrix? There is no evidence against it. But yet I assume you do not try to get out of the matrix and I would bet a large sum of money that you don't put your life on the line for it.

Similarly I don't accept that the concept of god is worth such effort. I find it fun to debate things but I find it fun to debate in general. But as far as actually considering the viability of god is put to a moot point since it is an unverifiable concept.

Does this make sense?

Not at all.

First, as per our teaching, the Brahman is knowable and I know Brahman closer that I know an apple on my palm. It is ineffable but it is knowable. Whereas, it seems, that all you know of God is an idea of Matrix. This does not apply to me at all.

Second, if there was really something (suppose Object A) that was not falsifiable, I will not say "'A' does not exist". I will simply say "Existence or non existence of 'A' is indeterminate".

Even while holding no belief in any Deity, people do benefit from Yoga-Meditation. It would be actually inane to insist that "Most Yoga teachers say 'Om', which is a non falsifiable Hindu concept of God, so I will not take part in Yoga".

A bit wrong with your analogy and its why you confused yourself with it. For example I am not concerned really with your theism. Or my neighbor's theism. My stance as an atheist more or less is not in any way influence by their specific evidences for their specific god claim. But the fact that theism as a concept has not been validated or even supported with demonstrable evidence is the problem.

The cause to the effect of my chance as an atheist is not my neighbor's evidence. It is the evidence, arguments and concept of theism itself.

Again no. The example that I used remains, in essence, correct. "I am an atheist since my neighbour fails to validate his theism."

Though I must ask you what is TOI?

Mistake. It should have been TOE.

 

[Bunyip]

Then stop using words you don't know the meanings of in incorrect ways.



First, I never mentioned any sort of unevidenced bronze age deities, so this is hardly relevant to the question.

Second, if there is such a clear and huge difference then you shouldn't have any problem with the questions I'm presenting you with. The fact is that regardless of the difference, you are UNABLE to demonstrate that difference effectively. This means that you don't actually know it, you just believe it because it falls in line with your particular world view as opposed to being the result of your honest intellectual consideration of the issue. In other words... its dogma (for lack of a better term).



The difference between me and you, is that I know what I believe and I can explain it too. You just know what you believe. You are even going so far as to baselessly assert that I believe the same thing as you do, and that this 'fact' means you don't need to explain.

To be honest buddy, I have no idea what you are whinging about. Nor did I misuse or misunderstand any word I used.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not at all.

First, as per our teaching, the Brahman is knowable and I know Brahman closer that I know an apple on my palm. It is ineffable but it is knowable. Whereas, it seems, that all you know of God is an idea of Matrix. This does not apply to me at all.

I know Mario and Luigi better than I know most my friends. It doesn't make them real.

Likewise just as many Christians feel as though they "know" Jesus as much as you know your god. However can you bring evidence for your god?

I don't think you know the difference between "understanding" and "verifiable". They do not mean the same thing. I fully realize and trust that you are knowledgeable of your god concept. But how is it that you know it to be true? What are the evidences? What could we do or set up to prove that it exists?

Until that time it is not a verified concept.

Second, if there was really something (suppose Object A) that was not falsifiable, I will not say "'A' does not exist". I will simply say "Existence or non existence of 'A' is indeterminate".

Even while holding no belief in any Deity, people do benefit from Yoga-Meditation. It would be actually inane to insist that "Most Yoga teachers say 'Om', which is a non falsifiable Hindu concept of God, so I will not take part in Yoga".

If there is no evidence for object "A" other than the theory behind it then it is not a verified object. In science for example we have hundreds of thousands of theories that are not yet verified. Those theories (usually but with exception) are not treated as "fact".

What does yoga have to do with anything? We know why yoga is healthy. Stretching and meditation has shown to be good for the human body and mind across the board. Zen meditation is helpful. Tai Chi is healthy. Yoga is healthy.
Doesn't prove that Shinto is right. Doesn't prove that Taoism is right.

Again no. The example that I used remains, in essence, correct. "I am an atheist since my neighbour fails to validate his theism."

You can say that all you like but I distinctly proved you wrong in my last quote. If you would like to bring an argument explaing why then I am all ears. But saying "nope I'm still right" isn't an argument.

Mistake. It should have been TOE.

TOE is supported by demonstrable evidence as well as falsifiable testing. In fact several predictions where made based off of the fact of evolution in parts of science that were not even invented yet that have given it a falsifiable accreditation.

 

[Sir Doom]

To be honest buddy, I have no idea what you are whinging about. Nor did I misuse or misunderstand any word I used.

I asked a question and you answered it. I am debating that answer with you because I find it lacking. Whether that is inability or lack of interest makes no difference to me. But just don't bother if you don't care, m'kay?

 

[cottage]

I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically.

The burden of proof argument claims that because theists have failed to adequately prove the existence of god, atheists need no further reason, evidence, or explanation for their own position of non-belief.

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.

To begin with, ethically:
I believe that every person should be able to articulate why they do or do not hold particular beliefs (or, at the very least, beliefs that they spend time debating.) To me, this is an integrity thing. I can't imagine simply rejecting something, especially something that is widely held to be true-- whether it be evolution, or photosynthesis, or the existence of god-- without having an understanding of why I don't accept it.

Next, philosophically:
It seems to me that the burden-of-proof argument has been misused, or at least, not very well thought out.

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?

So, how would you go about evidencing the claim that theists have not met their burden of proof?

You would need to go through various arguments made for the existence of gods and explain why they fail to provide sufficient evidence.

And yet, this is precisely what one would need to do in the first place, before burden of proof is even evoked: If a theists asks an atheist to support their position, the atheist could simply explain why the various arguments for the existence of gods has failed to convince her.

Which seems to me to make the whole burden of proof argumentation not only unethical, but useless as well.

Well I’m sorry but I think presenting the burden of proof concept as a bad argument is itself a bad argument, at least in the way it is implied in the OP.

To me it seems straightforwardly the case that any initial statement or proposition carries with it the burden of proof. To be confronted with ‘Why don’t you believe in God?’ is a statement that presumes one should believe in a supernatural being unless the other party can prove otherwise and this to shift the burden of proof from the questioner, who is making the claim, to the one who is being questioned, which is preposterous. The proper approach is ‘God exists because…’ And to which the sceptic can now respond in the specific, instead of the general which was what the theist was unreasonably demanding.

Then there is the other scenario: a sceptic says ‘I don’t believe in God’ and the theist asks ‘Why’. The sceptic replies that he/she can see no reason or evidence to believe in supernatural beings. And that is a perfectly reasonable and adequate response. Note that (as in the paragraph above) it isn’t required of the sceptic to now come up with a whole litany of explanations to justify his/her scepticism; it for the theist, as the advocate, to provide evidence or give reasons why the sceptic should be convinced. And if that is done then we have a dialogue because it is now incumbent upon the sceptic to answer the theist’s arguments. The burden of proof, however, still remains with the advocate, and a poor argument made by the sceptic doesn’t make ‘God exists’ a true statement by default.

 

[Thief]

To make sure you aren't confused. Atheism isn't promoting some opposing ideal to religion. Rather it is what is left when religion is not accepted.

For example if you don't agree to your neighbor's explanations then obviously that doesn't mean that the opposite is wrong. It means you simply do not believe his explanations. From that point it doesn't imply that you think anything in terms of what the explanation "is" but only that it "is not" what the neighbor says.

Some items of discussion have lines drawn.

I you agree....line drawn....
If not...line drawn.

That you did not accept an explanation IS a line drawn.

If I say to you....cause and effect...and you disagree.....
what line would you then prefer?

Having set aside a firm means of certainty (experiment not available)
What course of resolve do you affirm?

Simple nay saying?

 

[McBell]

Ok. So, the basic stance remains: "I am an atheist because my neighbor theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist."

May be that is valid for some. Thanks.

What does the neighbors belief have to do with your being an atheist?
And how, exactly is a person to "prove" they are a theist?

Can a person be a theist if god does not exist?
Can a person be an atheist if god does exist?

Seems to me the labels theist and atheist are about the person with the label, regardless of the existence, or lack of, of god.