Burden of proof on us?!

[mulimulix]

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.

 

[Spiritlight]

Proof and truth are always subjective. It is like chasing your tail round and round. One day you finally give in and just believe something regardless.

 

[Tim Myers]

Technically, the "burden of proof," as you say, should be on the one who says something is true, rather than the one who claims it is untrue.....

Such as in a court of law.....

Unfortunately, when dealing with the subject of whether or not God exists, neither side can "prove" anything.....

 

[mulimulix]

Technically, the "burden of proof," as you say, should be on the one who says something is true, rather than the one who claims it is untrue.....

Such as in a court of law.....

Unfortunately, when dealing with the subject of whether or not God exists, neither side can "prove" anything.....

And therefore, no one should believe in a god.

 

[Tim Myers]

"And therefore, no one should believe in a god."

And why would you say that??

Are you trying to impose your lack of belief on everyone else??

 

[mulimulix]

"And therefore, no one should believe in a god."

And why would you say that??

Are you trying to impose your lack of belief on everyone else??

I'm not imposing anything; I am saying that a lack of proof to add to your claim would suggest that there is no reason to believe it exists.

 

[Tim Myers]

Well, lack of proof to add to your claim would suggest that here is no reason not to......

 

[mulimulix]

Well, lack of proof to add to your claim would suggest that here is no reason not to......

I don't understand. I thought we established that the burden is on the believers. Why would I need proof against it?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The lack of proof--that is, empirical proof, that which is strictly speaking sensible--simply means there is no proof.

You can therefore say that faith is not entirely rational or reasonable, but obviously people still believe in spite of it not being an entirely rational or reasonable thing.

However in order to make the jump that because it isn't rational or entirely reasonable that no one ought to believe one has to provide some form of argumentation, not bare assertion.

At this rate I can just as easily say there is no proof that God exists, faith is not rational, therefore you should believe it.

That's simply assertion, and without any form of rationale behind that assertion it remains bare assertion and nothing else.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mulimulix]

The lack of proof--that is, empirical proof, that which is strictly speaking sensible--simply means there is no proof.

You can therefore say that faith is not entirely rational or reasonable, but obviously people still believe in spite of it not being an entirely rational or reasonable thing.

However in order to make the jump that because it isn't rational or entirely reasonable that no one ought to believe one has to provide some form of argumentation, not bare assertion.

At this rate I can just as easily say there is no proof that God exists, faith is not rational, therefore you should believe it.

That's simply assertion, and without any form of rationale behind that assertion it remains bare assertion and nothing else.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't see how that is the same thing. Where do I jump a step? You're saying that if something has no evidence for it, not believing in it is irrational?

So, by me not believing in the Loch Ness Monster, is that irrational?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I don't see how that is the same thing. Where do I jump a step? You're saying that if something has no evidence for it, not believing in it is irrational?

So, by me not believing in the Loch Ness Monster, is that irrational?

No, I'm saying that it may not be rational to believe in the Loch Ness Monster. But that doesn't sufficiently evince that one should not believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

If I understood what you said correctly, you said that if there is no proof for God then one shouldn't believe in God. My argument is that this does not adequately follow; instead what follows would be that belief in God may be unreasonable or not rational. That would be a more appropriate sequitur.

At that point what would be necessary to say that one ought not to believe in God for lack of evidence is to demonstrate how lack of evidence is sufficient reason not to have faith in any sort of divinity.

That's why I said it's bare assertion.

I wasn't saying it's not rational to not believe in God due to lack of evidence, that is quite rational. I am only arguing that if one asserts that lack of evidence is sufficient to assert one ought not believe (that is, I should not believe in God because there is no evidence of God existing that satisfies criteria of falsifiability and verifiability) one must argue why this is so rather than simply having assertion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mulimulix]

No, I'm saying that it may not be rational to believe in the Loch Ness Monster. But that doesn't sufficiently evince that one should not believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

If I understood what you said correctly, you said that if there is no proof for God then one shouldn't believe in God. My argument is that this does not adequately follow; instead what follows would be that belief in God may be unreasonable or not rational. That would be a more appropriate sequitur.

At that point what would be necessary to say that one ought not to believe in God for lack of evidence is to demonstrate how lack of evidence is sufficient reason not to have faith in any sort of divinity.

That's why I said it's bare assertion.

I wasn't saying it's not rational to not believe in God due to lack of evidence, that is quite rational. I am only arguing that if one asserts that lack of evidence is sufficient to assert one ought not believe (that is, I should not believe in God because there is no evidence of God existing that satisfies criteria of falsifiability and verifiability) one must argue why this is so rather than simply having assertion.

-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."

 

[solarwave]

The burden of proof should be on those saying something is true. Weak-atheism doesn't need proof but stong-atheism does.

If we assume Christianity doesn't have any evidence/ good reason to be believed as true then it still could be rational to believe it to be true. By this I mean the belief in God at its fundamental level is a basic belief about how Reality works. People assume many things such as the existance of anything outside ourselves, that other people are conscious, that actions cause reactions, that Reality is based on a logic we understand, etc, etc. We can't prove these things but it is also fair to assume certain things. The assumption that the foundation of Reality is a 'mind' and that good and evil are real may not be totally provable, but it also doesn't make you delusional to think these things are likey true.

I don't know, I just felt like making that argument and seeing what peoples thoughts were.

 

[John Jay]

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.

The burden of proof rests with whoever is making a particular argument, particularly those arguing against an accepted norm.

If an atheist comes here to tell us how stupid we are because everybody knows there's no God, then it's up to the atheist to show evidence that there is no God, just as if we went to Internet Infidels it would be up to us to demonstrate evidence for our claims.

Of course, the atheist will say that that's a negative claim and you can't prove a negative. There are two small problems with this.

The first is that it isn't a negative statement. "There is no evidence of a God" would be a negative statement. "There is no God" is not.

The second is that, contrary to popular opinion, you can prove a negative claim. Although, in all fairness, I don't like to use words like "prove" because "proof" is largely subjective. The best you really can do is to provide evidence in a well reasoned argument and leave the "proof" up to the individual to decide.

 

[mulimulix]

The burden of proof rests with whoever is making a particular argument, particularly those arguing against an accepted norm.

If an atheist comes here to tell us how stupid we are because everybody knows there's no God, then it's up to the atheist to show evidence that there is no God, just as if we went to Internet Infidels it would be up to us to demonstrate evidence for our claims.

Of course, the atheist will say that that's a negative claim and you can't prove a negative. There are two small problems with this.

The first is that it isn't a negative statement. "There is no evidence of a God" would be a negative statement. "There is no God" is not.

The second is that, contrary to popular opinion, you can prove a negative claim. Although, in all fairness, I don't like to use words like "prove" because "proof" is largely subjective. The best you really can do is to provide evidence in a well reasoned argument and leave the "proof" up to the individual to decide.

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.

 

[drich0150]

a·the·ism

   /ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh

m] Show IPA
–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Perhaps you should take into account how the World views Atheism, and not just your own personal definition that you have constructed to suit this argument.

As it has been said because you hold a position on the Existence of God you owe any responsible argument "proof" to what it is you believe, or if you perfer to the system of belief/nonbelief that you are repersenting...

 

[begt]

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Yes because it has not been proven.

 

[John Jay]

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.

Funny, I hear atheists say this all the time.

Therefore, evidence is not required on the atheist's part.

Then don't expect us to take your claims seriously.

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.

Yes, I'm sure that would be very embarrassing.

 

[drich0150]

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Yes because it has not been proven.

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.

 

[elman]

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.

The burden of proof is on the one claiming something is fact. If you claim there is no God and that is a fact, you have the burden of proof. If a Christian claims it is a fact that God exists and not just faith, they have the burden of proof. In my opinion nothing about the spiritual realm including the existence of God can be proven. Whichever way you believe it is simply assumption, not fact that can be proven.