Burden of proof on us?!

[elman]

First off, NO atheist will say "There is no god" and if you hear one say this, they are a rare exception and do not know what they are talking about. Atheists simply say, "Until there is evidence shown for the existence of god, we do not believe that one exists." This is quite different.

Regarding your point about generally accepted claims. Yes, the person would be required to provide evidence for his position ONLY if the opposition's claim ALSO had evidence for theirs. This does not work in the case for a deity; yes, the majority of people believe a deity exists, but evidence is lacking. Therefore, evidence is not required on the atheist's part.

This means that there should never be a case where an atheist would be put into a point where he/she would be expected to produce evidence for their position.

The evidence that supports a belief in a loving Creator is subjective. I have experienced the evidence for God in my life, but I cannot put it on the table for someone else. Each of us must find their own evidence. Finding evidence often involves being open to and seeking evidence. If one rejects all evidence as evidence, then they will not see any evidence.

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, recently I have read in a thread somewhere that the burden of proof on the topic of deities is apparently on atheists! Can someone please explain to me how this is the case?

I have no doubt that this would have been brought up before, but I would like an up to date thread on it.

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but our Founding Fathers spoke correctly when they declared such things to be a "matter of private conscience." IOW, proof for me is not proof for you, and vice-versa. Or as Billie Holiday sang, "God Bless the Child Who's Got His Own."

 

[.Iona.]

And therefore, no one should believe in a god.

How do you come to that conclusion?

So, if in court both sides cannot prove a crime, it should just be let go and forgotten about?!

 

[begt]

It is still a belief or rather a disbelief that requires proof when one promotes or claims what they think defiantly about God.

Proof or your requirement of it is subjective. I would say for the billions who do indeed believe sufficient "proof" has well been established.

To me it seems that those who claim disbelief or hide behind the title of this modified version of atheism are afraid to be held to account for their beliefs, to the same measure they hold others to account for what they believe.

This makes sense to me because it is been my experience for the reasons of denying one's own accountability, people tend to deny the existence of God.

No, atheism is not a belief that requires proof, it's simply a view on one issue. Why do people always have difficulties with this?! The starting position to every claim is non-belief until proven otherwise.

Modified version of atheism? That's how most atheists view the world.

That billions of people think there's a god is irrelevant because they cannot provide any proof that it's true. It just means that they share the same delusion. The whole world used to think that the world was flat, now we know that it is not.

People have had different gods for thousands of years, and all of them have regarded their god as the right one and been absolutely convinced it's the right one. Obviously not all religions are correct....Clearly the human mind is able to trick itself into believing all sorts of stuff under special circumstances.

 

[razeontherock]

begt: you're new here. Let me advise you of the rules. CF makes it kinda hard to find them lately, but the only non Christian (NC) allowed to post in this particular sub-forum is the OP. In other words, not you. Some could take great exception and report you for blasphemy in what you just said. That's not the way I'd like to see this place run, because I suspect you have legitimate concerns to deal with, just like everybody else. So I'd rather just say things this way, and ask you to look over our dizzying array of sub-forums a little closer, as there are certainly places you can interact.

Peace

 

[begt]

Thanks, razeontherock. Yes' it's extremely confusing..

 

[razeontherock]

You could start a thread here? "Struggles by non Christians" next door, does that make you uncomfortable? The other sub-forum in our Outreach section, CWR, is the freest of the 3. We also have a society section.

 

[Dragons87]

Ok, recently I have read in a thread somewhere that the burden of proof on the topic of deities is apparently on atheists! Can someone please explain to me how this is the case?

I have no doubt that this would have been brought up before, but I would like an up to date thread on it.

Well, yes, in a sense. If we have a conversation and I say, "God", then you must have something to back it up to say that you don't believe it's God. It could be "physics" or "emotions" or "myths" or "psychology" or "reason", but you have to back up my claim that something is "godly" with something that is "not godly".

You prove something to be in the negative by proposing (and proving) an alternative and exclusive positive explanation. For example, if I say 1 + 1 = 3, you can't "disprove" me per se. But by proving that 1 + 1 = 2 and nothing else, you disprove 1 + 1 = 3. And the burden of proof is on you to prove 1 + 1 = 2. I hope that makes sense!

 

[mulimulix]

The evidence that supports a belief in a loving Creator is subjective. I have experienced the evidence for God in my life, but I cannot put it on the table for someone else. Each of us must find their own evidence. Finding evidence often involves being open to and seeking evidence. If one rejects all evidence as evidence, then they will not see any evidence.

Yes, the evidence is subjective, but the evidence which is presented to individuals cannot be confirmed by anyone else and, as a result, can be false. Even if the person is telling the truth and did see/hear a deity talking to them, this would not prove anything for these reasons:

• It could easily be a hallucination. The times I often hear people seeing god is in the hospital after receiving multiple doses of morphene/other similar drugs. If they have a hallucination about something other than a deity, it is considered a hallucination, but when all the symptoms for a hallucination are there, but a deity is involved, it is suddenly a message from god.
• You or others may have had a vision of god talking to you and you consider it to be the Christian god talking to you, but what about the vision a man in Pakistan just had of Allah/Mohammed talking to him? Is he simply hallucinating?

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but our Founding Fathers spoke correctly when they declared such things to be a "matter of private conscience." IOW, proof for me is not proof for you, and vice-versa. Or as Billie Holiday sang, "God Bless the Child Who's Got His Own."

Are they the same founding fathers who wanted a separation of church and state?

How do you come to that conclusion?

So, if in court both sides cannot prove a crime, it should just be let go and forgotten about?!

Yes! Our legal system is based on the fact that if their is no evidence of a crime, he/she is not charged! If I was convicted of murder, but there was no evidence that I did it or didn't do it, of course I would not go to jail. You are innocent until proven guilty. Likewise, The concept of a god is not true until proven so.

begt: you're new here. Let me advise you of the rules. CF makes it kinda hard to find them lately, but the only non Christian (NC) allowed to post in this particular sub-forum is the OP. In other words, not you. Some could take great exception and report you for blasphemy in what you just said. That's not the way I'd like to see this place run, because I suspect you have legitimate concerns to deal with, just like everybody else. So I'd rather just say things this way, and ask you to look over our dizzying array of sub-forums a little closer, as there are certainly places you can interact.

Peace

I would really like to address this point and say that I think it should not be against the rules for a non-Christian to post. If an OP is happy for a non-Christian to reply, maybe you could write in the title of the thread, something like "[NC accepted]. Just a thought, but I have had times where non-Christians have had some insightful things to say.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I don't see the difference between it being irrational and then not believing. If something is irrational, is it not assumed that you should not believe it?

I am a bit confused about your explanation of how you get from it being irrational to saying it is irrational to saying "You shouldn't believe in it."

Because you're taking it as an assumption that the only things worth believing in are those which fit the criteria of rationality. That isn't necessarily an assumption everyone makes and in order to demonstrate why it is preferable one needs to argue that it is so.

That is, one needs to demonstrate why the only things worth believing in are those which can be demonstrated to fit within empiricism and/or rationality. Otherwise it's just assertion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

No, atheism is not a belief that requires proof, it's simply a view on one issue. Why do people always have difficulties with this?! The starting position to every claim is non-belief until proven otherwise.

The only "difficulties" I see here is that you had to change the context of my post to fit this argument.
I said:
It is still a belief or rather a disbelief that requires proof when one promotes or claims what they think defiantly about God.

This means when one crosses the boundary of un-belief into the realm of an Anti-belief or an Anti God position then you by all rights are required to manifest the same type of "evidence" you would demand from one who believes. Make no mistake you are no longer in the realm of simple disbelief when you promote claim that definitively defines the existence or non existence of God.

This is the modified version of Atheism that all of the atheist evangelist here seem to subscribe to.

Modified version of atheism? That's how most atheists view the world.

Actually, no. The world views atheists according to the definition found in the dictionary. As i just pointed out your definition of atheism does not fit the dictionary definition.

That billions of people think there's a god is irrelevant because they cannot provide any proof that it's true. It just means that they share the same delusion. The whole world used to think that the world was flat, now we know that it is not.

This point is made moot because you are attempting to share a definition that has no bearing on the modified version of Atheism that I am speaking of.

People have had different gods for thousands of years, and all of them have regarded their god as the right one and been absolutely convinced it's the right one. Obviously not all religions are correct....Clearly the human mind is able to trick itself into believing all sorts of stuff under special circumstances.

The EXACT same observation can be made about your version or non-belief in God.

 

[begt]

The only "difficulties" I see here is that you had to change the context of my post to fit this argument.
I said:
It is still a belief or rather a disbelief that requires proof when one promotes or claims what they think defiantly about God.

This means when one crosses the boundary of un-belief into the realm of an Anti-belief or an Anti God position then you by all rights are required to manifest the same type of "evidence" you would demand from one who believes. Make no mistake you are no longer in the realm of simple disbelief when you promote claim that definitively defines the existence or non existence of God.

This is the modified version of Atheism that all of the atheist evangelist here seem to subscribe to.


Actually, no. The world views atheists according to the definition found in the dictionary. As i just pointed out your definition of atheism does not fit the dictionary definition.


This point is made moot because you are attempting to share a definition that has no bearing on the modified version of Atheism that I am speaking of.
The EXACT same observation can be made about your version or non-belief in God.

No, the lack of belief requires no proof. Why are you so stubborn on this? Just as I don't think that Bigfoot exists (no evidence) I don't think a god exists. It's a huge claim to say that an omnipotent god exists. Obviously the one claiming that has the burden of proof.
It would be a big claim to say that there's a giant teapot in orbit between mercury and the sun. Why should anyone think that it's true without any evidence? You are an atheist when it comes to such orbiting teapots. Same thing with god(s), but it's even more unlikely. We know that giant teapots can exist, at least we can create such objects, and could potentially be put into orbit around mercury and the Sun. No god has ever been proven to exist so the god claim is obviously even bigger than the teapot claim...

But I don't claim absolute certainty that there's no god. I think you should watch the Atheist Experience, they deal with these issues rather well. I use the definition that they are using.
The dictionary definition that you provided doesn't fit with the atheists I´ve encountered. It seems to be a very rigid old-fashioned definition. In fact I´ve never met any atheist who says there's no chance that there's a god.

"The EXACT same observation can be made about your version or non-belief in God." It's not the same because the position of non-belief is based on rational thinking and evidence.

 

[drich0150]

No, the lack of belief requires no proof. Why are you so stubborn on this?

Because the subject matter YOU interrupted was not one of the lack of belief. The original discussion you made yourself apart involved me identifying point by point something more than the simple lack of belief, but it was being represented as such.

You seem to be stuck on defending all atheism as a simple lack of belief. This is the dictionary definition, but as I have pointed out several times already what has been represented in this thread and others like it, is far more than a lack of belief. This is why I deemed it necessary to re-identify those efforts as a modified version of Atheism.

Just as I don't think that Bigfoot exists (no evidence) I don't think a god exists. It's a huge claim to say that an omnipotent god exists. Obviously the one claiming that has the burden of proof.
It would be a big claim to say that there's a giant teapot in orbit between mercury and the sun. Why should anyone think that it's true without any evidence? You are an atheist when it comes to such orbiting teapots. Same thing with god(s), but it's even more unlikely. We know that giant teapots can exist, at least we can create such objects, and could potentially be put into orbit around mercury and the Sun. No god has ever been proven to exist so the god claim is obviously even bigger than the teapot claim...

As i demonstrated in your last post your efforts in identifying true atheism is moot at this point because this is not apart of the discussion you joined.

But I don't claim absolute certainty that there's no god. I think you should watch the Atheist Experience, they deal with these issues rather well. I use the definition that they are using.
The dictionary definition that you provided doesn't fit with the atheists I´ve encountered. It seems to be a very rigid old-fashioned definition. In fact I´ve never met any atheist who says there's no chance that there's a god.

This discussion is not about what you believe it was about identifying the need for proof in what is being called "Atheism" here on this web site.

"The EXACT same observation can be made about your version or non-belief in God." It's not the same because the position of non-belief is based on rational thinking and evidence.

Again the same can be said about what we believe. Because "Proof and rational thinking' is not a commodity limited to one signal POV. If this were the case then their would not be a need to ever have or hold a trial.

 

[begt]

"Again the same can be said about what we believe. Because "Proof and rational thinking' is not a commodity limited to one signal POV. If this were the case then their would not be a need to ever have or hold a trial."

I think you have to explain this a bit more. How can you get to that conclusion?

The only rational thing is to not believe a god exists until it's proven otherwise. There's no evidence of an omnipotent god, there's no evidence of anything super-natural. It defies reason in many ways. So who has the burden of proof? The believer or the non-believer?... The answer is obvious.

It's interesting that you brought up trials as an example. Well, in order to convict someone evidence must be provided, until then the person in question is regarded as innocent. It's the same logic that I and many other atheists are using when reaching the pragmatic conclusion that there's no god. At least we should not think so until proven otherwise.

 

[elman]

No, atheism is not a belief that requires proof, it's simply a view on one issue. Why do people always have difficulties with this?! The starting position to every claim is non-belief until proven otherwise.

Modified version of atheism? That's how most atheists view the world.

That billions of people think there's a god is irrelevant because they cannot provide any proof that it's true. It just means that they share the same delusion. The whole world used to think that the world was flat, now we know that it is not.

People have had different gods for thousands of years, and all of them have regarded their god as the right one and been absolutely convinced it's the right one. Obviously not all religions are correct....Clearly the human mind is able to trick itself into believing all sorts of stuff under special circumstances.

Realism is not limited to what we can detect. There is no proof so far as I know of this being true, until we detect some real thing that we formerly could not detect. You argument is we should assume the default position that nothing exists except what I detect.

 

[elman]

Yes, the evidence is subjective, but the evidence which is presented to individuals cannot be confirmed by anyone else and, as a result, can be false. Even if the person is telling the truth and did see/hear a deity talking to them, this would not prove anything for these reasons:

.

Read what I said. I said we cannot prove the existence of God. Why do you continue to tell me we cannot prove the existence of God? On the other hand my experiences and conclusions might be true; and you cannot prove they are not. You may believe they are not, or have an opinon, but that is not proof. If you are going to claim it is a fact that my experiences are not true, you have the burden of proof.

 

[elman]

=begt;57395841]No, the lack of belief requires no proof.

It does if you claim non exitence is a fact.

. Obviously the one claiming that has the burden of proof.

Not if they simply claim to believe but do not claim to have proof.

It would be a big claim to say that there's a giant teapot in orbit between mercury and the sun. Why should anyone think that it's true without any evidence? You are an atheist when it comes to such orbiting teapots. Same thing with god(s), but it's even more unlikely. We know that giant teapots can exist, at least we can create such objects, and could potentially be put into orbit around mercury and the Sun. No god has ever been proven to exist so the god claim is obviously even bigger than the teapot claim...

Claiming we exist for a reason is not the same as claiming a giant teapot is in orbit.

But I don't claim absolute certainty that there's no god. I think you should watch the Atheist Experience, they deal with these issues rather well. I use the definition that they are using.
The dictionary definition that you provided doesn't fit with the atheists I´ve encountered. It seems to be a very rigid old-fashioned definition. In fact I´ve never met any atheist who says there's no chance that there's a god.

Good, then neither of us claim anything can be proven and neither of us has any burden of proof.

"The EXACT same observation can be made about your version or non-belief in God." It's not the same because the position of non-belief is based on rational thinking and evidence.

Your assumption that an assumption that we exist for a reason has no evidence of rational thinking behind it, is an incorrect assumption.

 

[drich0150]

"Again the same can be said about what we believe. Because "Proof and rational thinking' is not a commodity limited to one signal POV. If this were the case then their would not be a need to ever have or hold a trial."

I think you have to explain this a bit more. How can you get to that conclusion?

The only rational thing is to not believe a god exists until it's proven otherwise. There's no evidence of an omnipotent god, there's no evidence of anything super-natural. It defies reason in many ways. So who has the burden of proof? The believer or the non-believer?... The answer is obvious.

It's interesting that you brought up trials as an example. Well, in order to convict someone evidence must be provided, until then the person in question is regarded as innocent. It's the same logic that I and many other atheists are using when reaching the pragmatic conclusion that there's no god. At least we should not think so until proven otherwise.

Maybe you should start a new thread if you feel this topic needs to go in this direction.

 

[begt]

"It does if you claim non exitence is a fact." I don't claim absolute certainty, but for all practical purposes god doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

"Claiming we exist for a reason is not the same as claiming a giant teapot is in orbit."

What's the difference?

" Good, then neither of us claim anything can be proven and neither of us has any burden of proof." ehh, what?

"Your assumption that an assumption that we exist for a reason has no evidence of rational thinking behind it, is an incorrect assumption. " Of course we exist for a reason. But that reason is most likely not god.

 

[oi_antz]

I don't claim absolute certainty, but for all practical purposes god doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

It's crazy. So crazy you have to refute your authority before you can even make your statement just in case He does exist and you get proven wrong one day! You can't just make God go away by ignoring Him. You can make up a false impression of God by ignoring Him or only listening partially to what He says but that's totally different. God exists whether you accept it or not, and you can only know the truth about Him if you accept His terms. If you don't want to know the truth about God then why bother arguing? It must drive you atheist's crazy though to see all these joyful Christians bopping around saying how much they love Jesus.. Burden of proof? I guess it falls on whoever wants to be correct, therefore the seeker or the preacher.