Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[Moral Orel]

I don't think the burden of proof is either synonymous with or implicative of falsity. That is to say, just because someone has the burden of proof does not mean that their position is assumed to be false. It just means that, within the dialogue, theirs is the position that primarily requires more argument or evidence.

I agree it is not synonymous, but I disagree that it is not implied. Something is assumed to be false until the burden of proof is met. And the person with the burden is requires the most argument and evidence because whoever they are trying to convince assumes that the proposition is false, and that their belief is true.

As noted, it is something like saying that the person with the burden of proof should go first in the debate.

And your example there simply states that the majority of people assume their belief is true, so the person who challenges the majority has the most people to convince that his belief isn't false.

 

[variant]

So what it is saying, in my opinion, is not only should we generally suspend judgement when a side fails to prove itself, but if there isn't proper proof or evidence to support Christianity when the Burden of Proof is on it, it becomes a Logical Fallacy crudely named Appeal From Ignorance.

The problem is that Christianity can't suspend judgement as all the claims of Christianity require the claim "God exists" to be true. If you suspend judgement on that point, there is no compelling support for any further points.

If an atheist suspends judgement on the point such as I do you just become an agnostic atheist. This means that I don't think God is in evidence and thus find no compelling reason to believe in it. The further claims of christianity go into the catagory of "unsupported" and I move on.

I don't need to disprove God to be an atheist, just lack belief in one, which is why I don't accept burdens to disprove God from people who haven't supported their ideas on God.

 

[timbo3]

Gullibility (accepting ideas and speculation without sound evidence) is something no person should want to be charged with (but in reality, this is very common). To avoid this requires that a person find what is the truth about life through serious research and sound evidence, to see whether we (and the universe with its wide diversity of life on the earth) is just a series of random events or that we (and the universe with its wide diversity of life on the earth) are the intentional act of a Supreme Designer. Life hangs in the balance.

So, where does the burden of proof lie ? With both parties. As in a court case, both sides must prove their case with sound evidence, that theirs is the right view. But only one side can win the case, the one who has sound evidence that can be logically confirmed. The other side would have to realize that their case is fraught with errors, though perhaps believing it as "truth". This also requires that a person(s) humble himself, recognizing that their case is a series of inaccuracies, in which they drew the wrong conclusions.

So, is there proof of an Almighty God ? An ancient lawyer said that "every house is constructed by someone". He could readily see by confirmation that all the homes people lived in, no matter how shabby, were not the product of a series of random accidents, but that they were "constructed by someone".

But upping this, the universe is of such complexity and incomprehensibility that it could be said that it is the product of chance ? Where should logic and sound evidence lead us ? For example, reason tells us that if we found "John 1800" engraved into a rock, that it must have an intelligent mind as its source. So, should not the infinitely more complex and meaningful information found in, say DNA, be the creation of "someone", who is far more capable and intelligent that any of us ?

Life is built on a set of programs that determine who we are, what we look like and often how we act. For instance, has any program ever created itself and then written itself within the realm of a computer ? Programs requires a programmer, not an "accident". So can life, being built upon the foundation of a "blueprint" or program within our DNA that sets each of us apart as unique, be successfully argued that it is result of an "accident" and that all life is just an evolutionary "trip down the river" ?

Too, it is well known that life only comes from life, not from abiogenesis. Case in point, life is built from proteins (that is a string of amino acids that must be in an exact order or fail to function) that must be folded in an exact three dimensional shape through a subtle interaction with water to properly do its "job" within a cell. But what are the odds of just one protein coming about at random ?

According the New York Times, in 1996, scientists around the world, "armed with the best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life....The result, succinctly put, was this: the computer lost and the proteins won....Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10 (followed by 27 zeroes or a billion billion billion) years".(New York Times, March 25,1997) This is longer than the universe has been in existence and this is for just one protein, not the many thousands that must work in harmony within a cell in order for life to exist. The ante just went "over the edge".

Now comes the role of logic and reason. This places a Creator into the picture, for within a living cell, there are some 50,000 proteins that serve as enzymes and provide other services, much less the construction cells into specific organs that are organized into a living organism, that functions as "one", working in harmony together for the benefit of the person or animal or otherwise.

A once well noted atheist, Antony Flew (1923-2010), after examining the evidence surrounding DNA, announced on a DVD entitled "Has Science Discovered God ?" that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views. DNA research, he said, "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved".(source - The New York Times, April 16, 2010)

Hence, the ancient lawyer, named Paul, also wrote that "the one who constructed all things is God" (whose personal name is Jehovah; Heb 3:4) Thus, some have decided to reconsider their belief structure, and like a jury that is intent on looking at the evidence objectively rather than with bias, realizes that we and the universe is not a series of random accidents called evolution but from Jehovah God.

Michael Behe, who serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania (and author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"), said over ten years ago: "In my view it is a failure of nerve to back away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply because you think it has unwelcome philosophical implications".

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So, where does the burden of proof lie ? With both parties. As in a court case, both sides must prove their case with sound evidence, that theirs is the right view.

In a court case, if both sides are utterly inept then the verdict is "not guilty." The burden is on the state. You're an American so you should know this.

Why, though, is the burden on the state? Because the state is the one making the actual claim. The defendant doesn't say, "I am innocent of a murder from 21 years ago but please put me on trial so I can defend myself."

The burden in the religious debate is on the one making the claim.

So, is there proof of an Almighty God ? An ancient lawyer said that "every house is constructed by someone". He could readily see by confirmation that all the homes people lived in, no matter how shabby, were not the product of a series of random accidents, but that they were "constructed by someone".

But upping this, the universe is of such complexity and incomprehensibility that it could be said that it is the product of chance ? Where should logic and sound evidence lead us ? For example, reason tells us that if we found "John 1800" engraved into a rock, that it must have an intelligent mind as its source. So, should not the infinitely more complex and meaningful information found in, say DNA, be the creation of "someone", who is far more capable and intelligent that any of us ?

There cannot have been a first cause. That argument is incoherent.

Causality, as laid out by Aristotle, involves several causes but the two we're interested in are material cause and efficient cause. A man scultps a statue: the man, or the chisel, is the efficient cause and the marble slab is the material cause.

All causality that we know of works like this, so if you want to argue that the Big Bang required a cause "just like" everything else then you have a big problem. And yet you must treat the Big Bang just like other causes or else the syllogism of the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.

If we imagine that there's God and nothing else, what did God act on to create all of us? What is the material cause? Did he act on himself? Then we are all part of God. I don't think you believe that. Did he act on the universe... before the universe existed? Clearly not. But then... what? He acted on nothing? What is the difference between acting on nothing and doing nothing? No difference. Then God did nothing. Which means, at best, you can only say that God was present and observed the universe coming into existence for no reason and with no cause. There cannot have been a cause.

This is also seen if we define causality in terms of modern physics: causality is the net result of all forces acting on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time. And time came into existence during the Big Bang, which means that time does not exist absent the Big Bang, which means that causality does not exist absent the Big Bang, which means that the Big Bang cannot have been caused.

The only possibility for a cause is if our universe was born from some pre-existing ambient space and time with its own form of causality, but then the existence of such a universe is extraneous in the Christian worldview to the point that it casts doubt on your theology (unless, I guess, if you want to call that the spiritual realm... and then that is a can of worms...).

Life is built on a set of programs that determine who we are, what we look like and often how we act. For instance, has any program ever created itself and then written itself within the realm of a computer ? Programs requires a programmer, not an "accident". So can life, being built upon the foundation of a "blueprint" or program within our DNA that sets each of us apart as unique, be successfully argued that it is result of an "accident" and that all life is just an evolutionary "trip down the river" ?

jjItf DuNAxf i5s int7elmlidgedntzwly ddes2yiglnkedq ctod5e th7eni wxhy doe9s it wloofk likde tkhis?d

Too, it is well known that life only comes from life, not from abiogenesis. Case in point, life is built from proteins (that is a string of amino acids that must be in an exact order or fail to function) that must be folded in an exact three dimensional shape through a subtle interaction with water to properly do its "job" within a cell. But what are the odds of just one protein coming about at random ?

Chemistry is not random. If I pour a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen into a vat, will I ever get H54O112? I should, since I typed those numbers at random. Except it will all be H2O because chemicals do not interact randomly. Your entire premise is completely wrong.

According the New York Times, in 1996, scientists around the world, "armed with the best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life....The result, succinctly put, was this: the computer lost and the proteins won....Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10 (followed by 27 zeroes or a billion billion billion) years".(New York Times, March 25,1997) This is longer than the universe has been in existence and this is for just one protein, not the many thousands that must work in harmony within a cell in order for life to exist. The ante just went "over the edge".

Chemistry is not random.

And you mention Behe which is quite bizarre. Behe himself accidentally explained how irreducible complexity can arise in his appearance on the Scott Sullivan podcast. Behe said that unnecessary traits in microbes can quickly vanish in a population (presumably because energy conservation is very important in a single-celled organism) and so he essentially stated that there could have been organic scaffolding for the flagellum which originally served some other purpose but then became irrelevant with the emergence of the motor function.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My usual argument talks about everything we see around us. Or miracles. Things of that nature. But to non-believers its just words with no actual evidence

And those non-believers are correct about that.

If I point out for example that the big bang is not current real time evidence and just words, they are good at countering it by saying "science says".

They might say "but the big bang theory is science", true.
But the fact that it is science, implies certain things.
First, the big bang theory is a model of reality. A body of explanation of sets of facts.
The model has a pile of data to back it up. The model also makes testable predicts, so you can actually go out and conduct experiments (of various complexity) to see if the model, as a body of explanation, holds up against actual reality.
Your arguments about "things around us" or "miracles" aren't anything like that.
Those arguments, indeed, are just words.

Granted I tell them sciences has no evidence other then assumptions.

Which is wrong.
You can actually go out and measure the microwave background radiation - which is predicted to be there by the very model of explanation-, for example.
And you know what... if you go out and try to measure it and do NOT detect it... then you'll have succesfully punched a hole in the entire model.

So on either side you could say theres a stalemate. Neither side likes the other sides evidence

Please don't pretend as if the models of explanation that science comes up with are in any way comparable to religious stories we read in religious books.

But someone taught me christians often go about things the wrong way. If a atheist asks for me for evidence, I don't have to prove it but instead should counter with "Show me evidence that He doesn't exist!". Which often leaves the person stumped because they have no real way to disprove He exists since even they know Hes beyond what we can see (in terms of visual evidence).

That would be a combination of multiple logical fallacies.
First, you're asking to prove a negative.
Second, you're shifting the burden of proof.
Third, by doing so, you're actually exposing the fact that you have nothing that even resembles real evidence. Otherwise, you'ld just give that evidence instead of trying to run from your responsability.

And last but not least... this confirms once more that the religious case is completely unfalsifiable and therefor meaningless and without merrit.

Unfalsifiable models are infinite in number, only limited by our own imagination.

For example: prove that we don't live in the matrix.
Would it be rational to believe that we DO live in the matrix because we can't show otherwise?

Which is why I tend to avoid answering their questions and turn the tables since most people already know the christians responses, but few bother to ask for the non-believers evidence to the contrary.

Only because most people understand how "bothering" with that only exposes the ultimate weakness of your side of the table.

It's a sign of defeat.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think this is an accurate approach to the burden of proof: it falls on the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative. In the Western world the atheist is the challenger of the status quo, which is clearly Christianity. Thus the burden of proof lies on the atheist, which should be unsurprising given the way so many atheists fight tooth and nail to try to dethrone Christianity.

Completely disagree.

I'ld say the status quo is about what can actually be shown to be true. Not about what people happen to believe. Beliefs can be wrong.
In the theist "debate", we have 2 groups of people.
1 group saying that a god exists.
The other group saying "we don't believe you" in response to the first group.
In what kind of universe could the burden of proof EVER be on the second group??

They aren't making a claim... They are responding to one.

Responding by saying "this claim hasn't met its burden of proof, therefor it can not be rationally accepted". That's it.

Simply because the first group invokes "faith" (= accepting claims as true, despite those claims not having met their burden of proof!) to accept said claims, doesn't mean that it's somehow upto those not believing it to show them to be wrong... that makes no sense.

Consider a court case.
The defendant is either guilty or innocent.
However, only the question of guilt is addressed.
The defendant is not required to "prove" his innocence... it's the other way round... It's upto the accuser to demonstrate his guilt!

"innocent until proven guilty" is what that's called.

When a jury sets the defendant free, they don't vote "innocent". Nope... they vote "not guilty".

I, as an atheist, vote god being "not guilty" of existing.

And I do so for the same reason as a jury would vote "not guilty": there isn't sufficient evidence to establish guilt.

Does that mean that I rule god "innocent" of existing (ie: non-existant)? Nope, not at all... Just like the ruling in a court of law doesn't establish innocence by ruling "not guilty".


To summarize...
Concerning the existance of X, there are only 2 options:
- X exists (analogous to "X is guilty")
- X does not exist. (analogous to "X is innocent")

But we only address the first claim. The claim of guilt.

 

[zippy2006]

Completely disagree.

I'ld say the status quo is about what can actually be shown to be true. Not about what people happen to believe. Beliefs can be wrong.
In the theist "debate", we have 2 groups of people.
1 group saying that a god exists.
The other group saying "we don't believe you" in response to the first group.
In what kind of universe could the burden of proof EVER be on the second group??

They aren't making a claim... They are responding to one.

Responding by saying "this claim hasn't met its burden of proof, therefor it can not be rationally accepted". That's it.

Simply because the first group invokes "faith" (= accepting claims as true, despite those claims not having met their burden of proof!) to accept said claims, doesn't mean that it's somehow upto those not believing it to show them to be wrong... that makes no sense.

Consider a court case.
The defendant is either guilty or innocent.
However, only the question of guilt is addressed.
The defendant is not required to "prove" his innocence... it's the other way round... It's upto the accuser to demonstrate his guilt!

"innocent until proven guilty" is what that's called.

When a jury sets the defendant free, they don't vote "innocent". Nope... they vote "not guilty".

I, as an atheist, vote god being "not guilty" of existing.

And I do so for the same reason as a jury would vote "not guilty": there isn't sufficient evidence to establish guilt.

Does that mean that I rule god "innocent" of existing (ie: non-existant)? Nope, not at all... Just like the ruling in a court of law doesn't establish innocence by ruling "not guilty".

Addressed here (atheists do make a claim).

A debate includes two positions. What you described is a monologue, not a debate. Fortunately the atheist-theist exchange is a debate since atheists do have a positive position.

And you ignored the whole topic. Who has the burden of proof when two contradictory claims are made? If Bob says "X is true," and Joe says "~X is true," who has the burden of proof?

To summarize...
Concerning the existance of X, there are only 2 options:
- X exists (analogous to "X is guilty")
- X does not exist. (analogous to "X is innocent")

Answered here (there are cases where the assumption of non-existence does not hold whatsoever, and never did).

Another problem with your view is this. Consider two claims, one of existence and one of non-existence: "The Earth is spherical (a spherical Earth exists)," and "The Earth is not spherical (a spherical Earth does not exist)." Who has the burden of proof today, in 2017?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Addressed here (atheists do make a claim).

And you ignored the whole topic. Who has the burden of proof when two contradictory claims are made? If Bob says "X is true," and Joe says "~X is true," who has the burden of proof?



Answered here (there are cases where the assumption of non-existence does not hold whatsoever, and never did).

Another problem with your view is this. Consider two claims, one of existence and one of non-existence: "The Earth is spherical (a spherical Earth exists)," and "The Earth is not spherical (a spherical Earth does not exist)." Who has the burden of proof today, in 2017?

Atheists don't insist that Christianity is false, but that it hasn't been shown to be true. You're talking to an atheist right now who says he is making no claim and yet you insist on stuffing a claim into his mouth.

Obviously it must be either true or false - you and I have explored that in excruciating detail. It is unknown which is the case, and that is the entire point of atheism. Christians make the only truth claim in the discussion, and yet, astonishingly, you place the burden of proof on the atheists.

And if you think that atheists are making positive claims when they say that a certain theistic argument is wrong, merely present such an argument and I will happily fulfill my obligation.

 

[zippy2006]

Atheists don't insist that Christianity is false, but that it hasn't been shown to be true. You're talking to an atheist right now who says he is making no claim and yet you insist on stuffing a claim into his mouth.

Obviously it must be either true or false - you and I have explored that in excruciating detail. It is unknown which is the case, and that is the entire point of atheism. Christians make the only truth claim in the discussion, and yet, astonishingly, you place the burden of proof on the atheists.

And if you think that atheists are making positive claims when they say that a certain theistic argument is wrong, merely present such an argument and I will happily fulfill my obligation.

Feel free to continue our discussion which you abandoned.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Feel free to continue our discussion which you abandoned.

OK, and under your proposed model, trials would work in quite a different manner. We'd poll some group of people to determine whether they think a defendant is guilty, and if they do then he has to prove his innocence - which, in some circumstances, is impossible.

Such a shifting of the burden of proof would make our legal system an even bigger circus than it already is.

 

[zippy2006]

OK, and under your proposed model, trials would work in quite a different manner. We'd poll some group of people to determine whether they think a defendant is guilty, and if they do then he has to prove his innocence - which, in some circumstances, is impossible.

Such a shifting of the burden of proof would make our legal system an even bigger circus than it already is.

There is no reason to believe that the mechanics of the burden of proof and the workings of the justice system are one and the same--you are committing a fallacy of equivocation. Presumption of innocence is a legal construct and has nothing to do with the general concept of the burden of proof.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There is no reason to believe that the mechanics of the burden of proof and the workings of the justice system are one and the same--you are committing a fallacy of equivocation. Presumption of innocence is a legal construct and has nothing to do with the general concept of the burden of proof.

There is no difference except that there is a declared winner of the argument and there are real-world consequences. But it is still an argument revolving around logic, evidence, and a well-defined system to place the burden of proof.

 

[juvenissun]

How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?

It is not an issue. Christianity can not be proven. The reason is simple, God can not be proven.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Addressed here (atheists do make a claim).

I just explained to you how that is false. Atheism doesn't come with claims.

Sure, some atheists will claim that there are no gods. But those claims aren't an inherent part of atheism. Atheism is the response to the claim of theism.

Atheism isn't about selling anything.
Theism is the thing that tries to sell something.
Atheists are just those people that aren't buying what theism has to sell.

You don't need to believe something to be an atheist.
You need to believe something to be a theist.

I don't know how to put it in even simpler terms. I even gave you an analogy of court rulings to illustrate. What about this, exactly, is tripping you up??

A debate includes two positions

Yes. Two positions, about a single claim/topic.

In this case, the claim is "a god exists".
The theist position is that that claim is accepted as true.
The atheist position is the opposite. Which is that the claim is not accepted as true.

Which is not the same as claiming the opposite.

Consider this... you flip a coin and without showing me the result, you claim "it is heads!".
I say that I can't accept that claim as true, because I don't have a good enough reason to accept it as true. That does not mean that I claim that it is tails instead!

Fortunately the atheist-theist exchange is a debate since atheists do have a positive position

Yes, I have a position as an atheist... a position about the claims of theism.

And you ignored the whole topic. Who has the burden of proof when two contradictory claims are made? If Bob says "X is true," and Joe says "~X is true," who has the burden of proof?

Both.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim.
It is NOT on the one who responds to a claim.
And as explained multiple times now, atheism is a response to the claims of theism.
A position on the claims of theism.

It is not a claim on its own.
Somebody FIRST needs to make god-claims, before I can disbelieve said claims.

Answered here (there are cases where the assumption of non-existence does not hold whatsoever, and never did).

You missed to next sentence it seems. Where I said that only the first claim is addressed.

Another problem with your view is this. Consider two claims, one of existence and one of non-existence: "The Earth is spherical (a spherical Earth exists)," and "The Earth is not spherical (a spherical Earth does not exist)." Who has the burden of proof today, in 2017?

Both.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists don't insist that Christianity is false, but that it hasn't been shown to be true. You're talking to an atheist right now who says he is making no claim and yet you insist on stuffing a claim into his mouth.

Crazy, isn't it?

Indeed, here we are... making it clear in great detail on how my atheism (=disbelief of theistic claims) is not dependend on any claims of non-existance, but purely a response to claims of theism.

And yet, he insists on saying otherwise. I don't know what else to tell him. Apparantly, he thinks he knows better how my own (dis)beliefs work then I do.........

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no reason to believe that the mechanics of the burden of proof and the workings of the justice system are one and the same--you are committing a fallacy of equivocation. Presumption of innocence is a legal construct and has nothing to do with the general concept of the burden of proof.

Actually.... it has everything to do with it.

It's because the accuser makes a claim about the defendant.
It's upto the accuser to make his case and convince people that his accusation is true (or very likely true). He has the burden of proof.

Sure, it will certainly help if as a defendent you could prove your innocense. But it's not required. Because to get to a conviction and a vote of "guilty", the accuser actually needs to come up with the evidence to justify that ruling!

 

[zippy2006]

I just explained to you how that is false. Atheism doesn't come with claims.

Sure, some atheists will claim that there are no gods. But those claims aren't an inherent part of atheism. Atheism is the response to the claim of theism.

Atheism isn't about selling anything.
Theism is the thing that tries to sell something.
Atheists are just those people that aren't buying what theism has to sell.

You don't need to believe something to be an atheist.
You need to believe something to be a theist.

I don't know how to put it in even simpler terms. I even gave you an analogy of court rulings to illustrate. What about this, exactly, is tripping you up??

Atheists claim that "God is not worthy of belief." What about this, exactly, is tripping you up? Do atheists not make that claim?

Again, you're confusing a debate with a monologue.

Yes. Two positions, about a single claim/topic.

In this case, the claim is "a god exists".
The theist position is that that claim is accepted as true.
The atheist position is the opposite. Which is that the claim is not accepted as true.

Then the atheist claims that the proposition "God exists" should not be accepted as true. How is that not a claim?

Consider this... you flip a coin and without showing me the result, you claim "it is heads!".
I say that I can't accept that claim as true, because I don't have a good enough reason to accept it as true. That does not mean that I claim that it is tails instead!

Then you are making the claim that "There is not a good enough reason to accept it as true." That's a claim nonetheless, and every debate requires two claims.

Both.

Both have the burden of proof? This answer is evidence that you don't understand what the burden of proof is, as both cannot have it. I suggest a dictionary.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim.

Your assertions are not convincing. You would do well to produce an argument.

You missed to next sentence it seems. Where I said that only the first claim is addressed.

How does that answer my point? To hold that the burden of proof exists on a claim is to hold that claims such as, "I exist," "I perceive," or "Something exists," have the burden of proof, which is patently absurd.

Both.

Again, I would suggest a dictionary.

Actually.... it has everything to do with it.

It's because the accuser makes a claim about the defendant.
It's upto the accuser to make his case and convince people that his accusation is true (or very likely true). He has the burden of proof.

Sure, it will certainly help if as a defendent you could prove your innocense. But it's not required. Because to get to a conviction and a vote of "guilty", the accuser actually needs to come up with the evidence to justify that ruling!

As noted here to Nihilist, "My theory accounts for your exceptions, and my theory has no exceptions." Your tactic has been to simply ignore the exceptions and problems with your own theory. Nihilist did the same thing. Do you feel happy? Blissful?

You fail to answer my counterarguments and present no counterarguments yourself. You merely assert that the burden of proof is on a claim. Yet my theory accounts perfectly for the data you present. Novel claims that have no precedent constitute a break with the societal status quo, thus requiring the burden of proof. My theory has no problem handling such a case. Yet your theory fails miserably in accounting for why well-established claims that cohere strongly with the societal status quo do not require the burden of proof (e.g. "The Earth is round," "Objects fall due to gravity," "Australia is an island," etc.). No one familiar with the Western societal narrative would claim that such propositions have the burden of proof.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Crazy, isn't it?

Indeed, here we are... making it clear in great detail on how my atheism (=disbelief of theistic claims) is not dependend on any claims of non-existance, but purely a response to claims of theism.

And yet, he insists on saying otherwise. I don't know what else to tell him. Apparantly, he thinks he knows better how my own (dis)beliefs work then I do.........

This is the type of thinking necessary to maintain theism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists claim that "God is not worthy of belief."

No. What defines my atheism is being presented with claims without supporting evidence.
I am simply not convinced about those claims. And the reason I remain unconvinced, is because it lacks the evidence to justify belief.

I disbelieve the claims of islam, hinduism, scientology, bigfoot, the lochness monster,... for the exact same reasons.

What about this, exactly, is tripping you up? Do atheists not make that claim?

Atheists make lots of claims. But none of those claims define their atheism.
Atheism is only defined by being unconvinced of the claims of theism.
It's not some concious choice that is made, nore is it the result of a claim.
It's a response to a claim. I don't know why it is so hard to understand the difference.

Then the atheist claims that the proposition "God exists" should not be accepted as true. How is that not a claim?

A response to a claim, is not a claim.
What else do you want me to tell you?

Side 1 makes a claim (implies that they accept it - why else would they make the claim??)
Side 2 is unconvinced of the truth of the claim.

Side 1 has a burden of proof.
Side 2 does not.

Then you are making the claim that "There is not a good enough reason to accept it as true." That's a claim nonetheless, and every debate requires two claims.

No. Just pointing out that there is insufficient evidence to accept the ONE claim as true.
Call that a "claim" if you want, but I don't see the point in doing that.
It matters not to the outcome. The one making the original claim has the burden of proof. When that burden isn't met, then the one responding to that is perfectly justified in rejecting that claim.

Both have the burden of proof? This answer is evidence that you don't understand what the burden of proof is, as both cannot have it. I suggest a dictionary.

No. The example you gave were of TWO claims. Not one claim with a response to it.
In analogy to the secret coin flip, this would be:
- A claims it is heads
- B claims it is not heads (and thus implies that it IS tails)

Both A and B have a burden of proof for those claims.
But, as explained multiple times already, that is NOT an accurate description of the theist-atheist issue.

Going forward with the coinflip analogy, in the theist issue, that would become:
- A claims it is heads
- B responds to A that he has insufficient evidence to justify accepting that claim

B is NOT claiming that it is "not heads" or that "it is tails". He is ONLY addressing/responding to the specific claim of A.

Do you understand the difference between:
- I don't believe X is true
and
- I believe X is false

Because it sounds like you don't.

Your assertions are not convincing. You would do well to produce an argument.

I've given you explanation upon explanation and used examples to illustrate.
I don't know what else to tell you.

How does that answer my point?

I told you already... only the claim of existance is addressed.
This comes back to what I said previously... it seems like you don't understand the difference between "I don't believe X is true" and "I believe X is false". The first doesn't necessarily imply the second.

Again, I would suggest a dictionary.

I would suggest learning the difference between making a claim and responding to one.

You fail to answer my counterarguments and present no counterarguments yourself.

Your "counterarguments" are invalid.
You confuse not accepting a claim, with claiming the opposite.

 

[zippy2006]

No. What defines my atheism is being presented with claims without supporting evidence.
I am simply not convinced about those claims. And the reason I remain unconvinced, is because it lacks the evidence to justify belief.

I disbelieve the claims of islam, hinduism, scientology, bigfoot, the lochness monster,... for the exact same reasons.

You say "no" explicitly and "yes" implicitly. Your claim is that God is not worthy of belief, as I noted in post #20. "It lacks the evidence to justify the belief, therefore God is not worthy of belief." This is obvious. But you make other claims as well. "There is not sufficient evidence to justify the belief." That is a claim that atheists make. How about a little intellectual honesty?

Atheists make lots of claims. But none of those claims define their atheism.

Nonsense. Every atheist holds the belief that God is unworthy of belief. If they did not they would not be an atheist.

A response to a claim, is not a claim.

It can stand alone; it is a claim.

Side 1 makes a claim (implies that they accept it - why else would they make the claim??)
Side 2 is unconvinced of the truth of the claim.

An atheist can be unconvinced by an argument, but that doesn't mean that they don't make claims specific to atheism itself.

No. Just pointing out that there is insufficient evidence to accept the ONE claim as true.
Call that a "claim" if you want, but I don't see the point in doing that.

The point is reality and truth. According to the definition of a claim, "There is not enough reason to accept theism as true" is a claim.

It matters not to the outcome. The one making the original claim has the burden of proof. When that burden isn't met, then the one responding to that is perfectly justified in rejecting that claim.

So now you're changing your tune? First you said that all claims have the burden of proof and that if two debating parties each make contradictory claims then they both have the burden of proof. Now you've excepted yourself due to inconvenience. Granted, it was always nonsense that both sides have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is unique, which is why we use the article "the."

No. The example you gave were of TWO claims. Not one claim with a response to it.

That's what a debate is: a contest with two contradicting claims. That's what we are talking about.

Going forward with the coinflip analogy, in the theist issue, that would become:
- A claims it is heads
- B responds to A that he has insufficient evidence to justify accepting that claim

"There is insufficient evidence to justify acceptance." That's a claim, like it or not. You're spinning your wheels.

B is NOT claiming that it is "not heads" or that "it is tails". He is ONLY addressing/responding to the specific claim of A.

And in doing so he implicates himself in a claim that is capable of standing alone.

Do you understand the difference between:
- I don't believe X is true
and
- I believe X is false

Because it sounds like you don't.

Are you paying attention or even trying? "I don't believe X is true" implies "X is unworthy of belief," which is a claim. No one has said it implies the falsity of X. Again, how about some intellectual honesty?

I told you already... only the claim of existance is addressed.
This comes back to what I said previously... it seems like you don't understand the difference between "I don't believe X is true" and "I believe X is false". The first doesn't necessarily imply the second.

Your strawmen are falling like rain.