Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[Peter1000]

If it makes you feel better.

It is a rather neurtral feeling.

It is great that you have faith in things like this. Any reason people should think your faith is based on anything back here in reality?

I have not met very many atheists, but the ones I have met are leaning towards haughty, irreverent, party-hardy types that have no respect for God. I believe they are trying to convince themselves that God does not exist for fear that He does and they will regret their attitudes.

Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

If the Shuvs and the Zuuls would have listened to their Karat (holy men), they would have been able to avoid being roasted in the depths of the Slor. Good story.

 

[Peter1000]

I didn't think we were discussing Tiamat here, but if that's the road you want to go down I'm fine with it.

Tiamat was an idiot, and you really don't want to follow in his path.

 

[Peter1000]

If that's what you think atheists are, then you don't know what atheists are.

I don't know many atheists, but the ones I know are hiding from God in a world of disbelief.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a god. That necessarily means that we don't believe there is a god that handed down rules for us to rebel against.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God. That necessarily means that they are hoping there is not a God that hands down rules that they are rebelling against.

If someone is purposefully rebelling against a god, that necessarily means they think a god exists, and by definition that person is not an atheist. They'd be a disillusioned theist of some type.

There are few atheists as you describe. Mos are a disillusioned theist of some type. You I don't know, but deep down in your darkest corner of your body, covered by tons of self hypnosis, quiver at the sound of the word 'God', but for some reason you will not let go and come to the surface and enjoy the light of God. It is much more enjoyable that the dark recesses of forced disbelief.

Besides, if a god really does exist and he plans on torturing me forever for not believing in him when he provided no rational basis for me to accept belief, then he's a moral monster. One would hope if a god exists and is truly a moral being, he would look on you based on how you lived your life and treated your fellow humans. I think that would be a necessary requirement for any god deserving of respect, if a god truly does exist.

This paragraph is the example of a person that has received bad information about God and how He operates. Why would you creator want to burn you in fire for eternity if you don't believe Him? He wouldn't. So come to the surface, and learn about the real God of the universe. The God that loves you even if you reject Him.

 

[zippy2006]

Sure. And I can motivate that, by pointing at all the shortcomings of what theists present as "evidence". However, and this is the important part... that's not a claim about the existance of gods or the supernatural.

It is a claim and according to your own reasoning it therefore has the burden of proof.

Let me rephrase that in something more accurate:
Every atheist considers the arguments in support of theistic claims to be insufficient to justify accepting those claims as true or likely true.

Another claim.

No, it isn't.
Let's again give an example to illustrate.

Let's imagine a room without windows and a locked door. Neither you nor I can enter that room or look inside.

You claim "there is a golden chair in that room".
I respond with "I have insufficient evidence to accept that claim as true".

I'm not making any claims about what is or is not in the room.
I'm just responding to your claim about what is or is not in the room.

It's a claim and it stands alone. "There is insufficient evidence to accept that there is a golden chair in the room."

That is exactly what it means.

Nope. As already noted, every atheist holds to the claim that God is not worthy of belief. This is a claim that is necessary for atheism, and holds in every case.

As above: fine. And I can motivate it as well. I can explain why I find the theistic claims unconvincing.

So now we are agreed that there are two claims in a debate, and that atheists make claims just like theists. Do you still want to hold that both sides have the burden of proof or do you want to venture into the real world and start talking about who has the burden of proof?

It is not a claim concerning the existance or non-existance of gods.

First, why do you think this matters? We are talking about whether a claim is made.

Second, it is a claim concerning the belief in the existence or non-existence of God. Indeed it is perfectly parallel to the theist's claim, "God is worthy of belief."

Indeed. But the theist-atheist debate is not a debate concerning contradictory claims.
It is a debate about a SINGLE claim, made by the theist.

You've already admitted that atheists make a claim. Atheists say, "God is not worthy of belief," and theists say, "God is worthy of belief." Perfectly contradictory claims.

Drill it into your head: atheism is not the claim that there are no gods.

Never said it was; thanks for another strawman.

That is just not true. A debate is more often then not about a single issue.

A debate always involves two contradictory claims. It holds in every case. Find me a real live debate that did not involve two contradictory claims.

This just hit me... I think it touches the very root of the problem / misunderstanding here...

In a previous post I said:
A response to a claim, is not a claim.

To which zippy replied:



That is utterly incorrect.

A response to a claim can not "stand alone".

How on earth could I ever say that I do not believe that X exists...unless someone first tells me about X / claims that X does exist????

Do you wake up in the morning claiming completely out of the blue that you don't believe that "uinhekahd" exists???

Obviously, you do not.

In order to even be able to discuss or think about "uinhekahd", somebody FIRST needs to define what "uinhekahd" is or is supposed to be.

Why on earth would you come up with a definition of "uinhekahd" yourself, only to then say that you don't believe it exists????

See? A response to a claim can not logically "stand alone". Because, by definition, a response needs something to respond to.

First, a response can stand alone as was shown above in your example about the golden chair.

Second, atheism makes claims that stand alone. The atheist wakes up in the morning and calls himself an atheist without responding to anyone in the room. He calls himself an atheist because he holds the claim that "God is not worthy of belief."


It should be beyond obvious by now that atheists make claims, and that these claims are part and parcel of atheism. At this point you would do well to actually provide some counterargument to my own position:

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.

 

[Khalliqa]

Can I derail for just a hot second please? Promise only a sec.. hopefully worth it..

@Nihilist Virus What's your academic training?/ profession?

Reason: Respect.. Curiosity.

Thx

 

[variant]

I have not met very many atheists, but the ones I have met are leaning towards haughty, irreverent, party-hardy types

You wouldn't likely know if you met a humble or reserved atheist who was generally uninterested in your religion.

that have no respect for God. I believe they are trying to convince themselves that God does not exist for fear that He does and they will regret their attitudes.

It would be hard to have reverence for ideas you think are unsupported or false.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Can I derail for just a hot second please? Promise only a sec.. hopefully worth it..

@Nihilist Virus What's your academic training?/ profession?

Reason: Respect.. Curiosity.

Thx

Bachelor of Science in mathematics

Some graduate coursework but I dropped out

 

[Dave Ellis]

Historical events are based upon a testimonies that can't be definitively proven, so are you suggesting that the only justified position to take is to withhold belief about all of history?

When dealing with historical events, we have more to go on than just testimony. For example, if we have multiple accounts of a battle that was fought at a particular place, then we send an archaeological team to examine the area and they find weaponry or other leftovers from the battle, then we can say the accounts are reliable.

Likewise, certain major historical events would have had to happen for history to unfold the way they did. For example, we have multiple accounts of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Had that not actually happened, the Roman civil war could not have happened as is otherwise documented, and very likely would not have happened at all.

There are times when we have a well known historian who has other works that have generally stood up to scrutiny well, and therefore can generally be called a reliable source. However even under those circumstances unless there are other accounts, we can't be certain how accurate the account is.

The bible doesn't even have that though. The gospel writers were all anonymous and likely copied sections from other gospels, and their works have been translated and edited so many times, we don't even know what the originals looked like. Paul is someone we do know wrote some of the New Testament texts, but even then a lot of things written in his name turned out to be forgeries.

Though I think the existence of God can be definitively proven through things like Aquinas' Five Ways,

How do you figure?

the issue is not about what can be definitively proven, but what can be sufficiently established beyond a reasonable doubt. Those who believe Christianity is true consider it to be a justified belief sufficiently established beyond a reasonable doubt and wouldn't not believe it to be true if we thought we weren't justified in believing it. While I find it difficult to believe that Jesus resurrected, I find it even more difficult to believe that Christianity survived and flourished without him having resurrected, but either way we're stuck believing something that is very difficult.

You don't need Jesus to have actually resurrected in order to have Christianity, you only need people to believe he did. Likewise a billion people believe Muhammad split the moon in half, and I'm sure they think their beliefs have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that thing actually happened.

Of course we should strive to hold ourselves to the highest standards of evidence, but we often have to make choices about what to believe when we do not have all of the evidence that we would like.

If you are missing key pieces of information, you don't have to make a choice about what to believe. In fact, if the available evidence doesn't conclusively point one way or the other, the only justifiable position is to say "I don't know", withhold belief and search for more evidence.

If someone told you what they ate for breakfast today, then the highest standard of evidence would be to pump their stomach to see what they ate, yet we are nevertheless justified in believing many things without having the highest standard of evidence available. Naturally, things that are harder to believe require stronger evidence before we consider it to be sufficiently established, but it is unreasonable to refuse to believe anything until it has been definitively proven.

If someone claims they had pancakes for breakfast this morning, I'll accept it because it's a trivial claim, has no bearing on me, and is a fairly common occurrence. They may still be lying to me, but I really don't care because it's meaningless to me.

If you're talking about someone coming back from the dead, then an extraordinary amount of evidence would need to be presented. All the evidence we have shows it's impossible for people to come back from the dead. Therefore if someone did, it would overturn some major facts we know about how the world works.

In that case, we'd need something very compelling in order to justify belief. The writings of anonymous authors in an old holy book simply isn't enough to justify belief.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Historical events are based upon a testimonies that can't be definitively proven, so are you suggesting that the only justified position to take is to withhold belief about all of history?

When dealing with historical events, we have more to go on than just testimony. For example, if we have multiple accounts of a battle that was fought at a particular place, then we send an archaeological team to examine the area and they find weaponry or other leftovers from the battle, then we can say the accounts are reliable.

Likewise, certain major historical events would have had to happen for history to unfold the way they did. For example, we have multiple accounts of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Had that not actually happened, the Roman civil war could not have happened as is otherwise documented, and very likely would not have happened at all.

There are times when we have a well known historian who has other works that have generally stood up to scrutiny well, and therefore can generally be called a reliable source. However even under those circumstances unless there are other accounts, we can't be certain how accurate the account is.

The bible doesn't even have that though. The gospel writers were all anonymous and likely copied sections from other gospels, and their works have been translated and edited so many times, we don't even know what the originals looked like. Paul is someone we do know wrote some of the New Testament texts, but even then a lot of things written in his name turned out to be forgeries.

Though I think the existence of God can be definitively proven through things like Aquinas' Five Ways,

How do you figure?

the issue is not about what can be definitively proven, but what can be sufficiently established beyond a reasonable doubt. Those who believe Christianity is true consider it to be a justified belief sufficiently established beyond a reasonable doubt and wouldn't not believe it to be true if we thought we weren't justified in believing it. While I find it difficult to believe that Jesus resurrected, I find it even more difficult to believe that Christianity survived and flourished without him having resurrected, but either way we're stuck believing something that is very difficult.

You don't need Jesus to have actually resurrected in order to have Christianity, you only need people to believe he did. Likewise a billion people believe Muhammad split the moon in half, and I'm sure they think their beliefs have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that thing actually happened.

Of course we should strive to hold ourselves to the highest standards of evidence, but we often have to make choices about what to believe when we do not have all of the evidence that we would like.

If you are missing key pieces of information, you don't have to make a choice about what to believe. In fact, if the available evidence doesn't conclusively point one way or the other, the only justifiable position is to say "I don't know", withhold belief and search for more evidence.

If someone told you what they ate for breakfast today, then the highest standard of evidence would be to pump their stomach to see what they ate, yet we are nevertheless justified in believing many things without having the highest standard of evidence available. Naturally, things that are harder to believe require stronger evidence before we consider it to be sufficiently established, but it is unreasonable to refuse to believe anything until it has been definitively proven.

If someone claims they had pancakes for breakfast this morning, I'll accept it because it's a trivial claim, has no bearing on me, and is a fairly common occurrence. They may still be lying to me, but I really don't care because it's meaningless to me.

If you're talking about someone coming back from the dead, then an extraordinary amount of evidence would need to be presented. All the evidence we have shows it's impossible for people to come back from the dead. Therefore if someone did, it would overturn some major facts we know about how the world works.

In that case, we'd need something very compelling in order to justify belief. The writings of anonymous authors in an old holy book simply isn't enough to justify belief.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't know many atheists, but the ones I know are hiding from God in a world of disbelief.

Why would someone hide from something they don't think exists?

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God. That necessarily means that they are hoping there is not a God that hands down rules that they are rebelling against.

No, it doesn't. Hoping about the attributes of a god I don't think is real would be a silly waste of time.

There are few atheists as you describe. Mos are a disillusioned theist of some type. You I don't know, but deep down in your darkest corner of your body, covered by tons of self hypnosis, quiver at the sound of the word 'God', but for some reason you will not let go and come to the surface and enjoy the light of God. It is much more enjoyable that the dark recesses of forced disbelief.

Above you said you don't know many atheists, now you're telling me how most atheists think.

I have a very happy life actually, in fact there isn't much I'd want to change about it. I have no "dark recesses of forced disbelief", nor do I quiver at the sound of the word god.... why would I do such a thing? That's utterly absurd.

This paragraph is the example of a person that has received bad information about God and how He operates. Why would you creator want to burn you in fire for eternity if you don't believe Him? He wouldn't. So come to the surface, and learn about the real God of the universe. The God that loves you even if you reject Him.

Many Christians believe that's what god does, apparently you don't. You both lack evidence for your beliefs, so it really doesn't matter much anyway.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't know many atheists, but the ones I know are hiding from God in a world of disbelief.

Why would someone hide from something they don't think exists?

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God. That necessarily means that they are hoping there is not a God that hands down rules that they are rebelling against.

No, it doesn't. Hoping about the attributes of a god I don't think is real would be a silly waste of time.

There are few atheists as you describe. Mos are a disillusioned theist of some type. You I don't know, but deep down in your darkest corner of your body, covered by tons of self hypnosis, quiver at the sound of the word 'God', but for some reason you will not let go and come to the surface and enjoy the light of God. It is much more enjoyable that the dark recesses of forced disbelief.

Above you said you don't know many atheists, now you're telling me how most atheists think.

I have a very happy life actually, in fact there isn't much I'd want to change about it. I have no "dark recesses of forced disbelief", nor do I quiver at the sound of the word god.... why would I do such a thing? That's utterly absurd.

This paragraph is the example of a person that has received bad information about God and how He operates. Why would you creator want to burn you in fire for eternity if you don't believe Him? He wouldn't. So come to the surface, and learn about the real God of the universe. The God that loves you even if you reject Him.

Many Christians believe that's what god does, apparently you don't. You both lack evidence for your beliefs, so it really doesn't matter much anyway.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't know many atheists, but the ones I know are hiding from God in a world of disbelief.

Why would someone hide from something they don't think exists?

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God. That necessarily means that they are hoping there is not a God that hands down rules that they are rebelling against.

No, it doesn't. Hoping about the attributes of a god I don't think is real would be a silly waste of time.

There are few atheists as you describe. Mos are a disillusioned theist of some type. You I don't know, but deep down in your darkest corner of your body, covered by tons of self hypnosis, quiver at the sound of the word 'God', but for some reason you will not let go and come to the surface and enjoy the light of God. It is much more enjoyable that the dark recesses of forced disbelief.

Above you said you don't know many atheists, now you're telling me how most atheists think.

I have a very happy life actually, in fact there isn't much I'd want to change about it. I have no "dark recesses of forced disbelief", nor do I quiver at the sound of the word god.... why would I do such a thing? That's utterly absurd.

This paragraph is the example of a person that has received bad information about God and how He operates. Why would you creator want to burn you in fire for eternity if you don't believe Him? He wouldn't. So come to the surface, and learn about the real God of the universe. The God that loves you even if you reject Him.

Many Christians believe that's what god does, apparently you don't. You both lack evidence for your beliefs, so it really doesn't matter much anyway.

 

[Peter1000]

If your "evidence" contains logical fallacies, personal experiences we can't verify or flat out bald assertions, then it's not evidence.

Evidence is something that can be tested, examined or falsified in some way.

My evidence is scientifically based, and can be tested.

Are you willing to apply the same testing, examinination and falsifiability methods to: the big bang theory?

Are you willing to apply the same testing and examination and falsifiability methods to: how did the first living cell originate from non-living materials?

 

[Peter1000]

It's not my fault that you people seem to be completely incapable of understanding the difference between making a claim and responding to a claim.

Same old same old. That's all you got. It is nauseating.

 

[zippy2006]

It's not my fault that you people seem to be completely incapable of understanding the difference between making a claim and responding to a claim.

1. Is "God is not worthy of belief" a claim? Yes or no?
2. Do you believe that God is not worthy of belief? Yes or no?

 

[KCfromNC]

1. Is "God is not worthy of belief" a claim? Yes or no?
2. Do you believe that God is not worthy of belief? Yes or no?

Gods are not worthy of belief because the people making claims about them can't live up to the burden of proof about those claims.

There you go. Problem solved. No leading "yes/no only" questions needed.

 

[zippy2006]

2. Do you believe that God is not worthy of belief?

Gods are not worthy of belief...

Thank you for answering question #2.

Are you willing and able, with the requisite intellectual honesty, to answer question #1?

1. Is "God is not worthy of belief" a claim? Yes or no?​

 

[KCfromNC]

Thank you for answering question #2.

I thought I was clear that I was avoiding the leading questions.

Are you willing and able, with the requisite intellectual honesty, to answer question #1?

I believe so. Is that a claim as well?

 

[Peter1000]

Why would someone hide from something they don't think exists?

They do think God exists. All mankind have been given the light of Christ. It is engineered/programmed into their very souls. Many reject God and try hard to dampen or turn off this light that is in them, and look for other answers as to what is right and wrong, mainly because they do not think they are suited for following the rules of real happy living. But the engineering is so complete and so successful that it is impossible to be set free from it.

So the outward veneer is stoic and resolute, but the inside wants the light and wants the evidence to be so clear so they can believe in God. But God does not work that way. God is not going to come to you and say 'hello'. You must have faith in God. He has left some scientific data behind that should be sufficient to start your faith journey. Look at all the faith you need to believe in the big bang theory?
Look ar the faith that is necessary to believe that complex-beyond-imagination living cells could come from non-living cells.

Your faith on these science-driven notions is far more faith than is required to believe that a Superior Being was the designer and engineer of this universe and this earth. So give faith a try.

Above you said you don't know many atheists, now you're telling me how most atheists think.

No, all atheists have the light of Christ, so they all have the same notion that God does exist, regardless of their rhetoric or outward disgust, you included.

I have a very happy life actually, in fact there isn't much I'd want to change about it. I have no "dark recesses of forced disbelief", nor do I quiver at the sound of the word god.... why would I do such a thing? That's utterly absurd.

Some do a better job of holding their own in an outward display of disgust and disbelief.

Many Christians believe that's what god does, apparently you don't. You both lack evidence for your beliefs, so it really doesn't matter much anyway.

You need to know the real Superior Designer of the universe and the earth. The entire reason that our universe and earth exists is for you, His children. He designed and booted up an entire universe just for your progression and your happiness and joy. Experience the true God and have faith in Him and you will find a totally new level of life, with hope for a brilliant future, far brighter than a dark and cold casket in a grave and the annihilation of you. (Which BTW is indestructable).

 

[zippy2006]

I thought I was clear that I was avoiding the leading questions.

I don't know why atheists tend to have such a hard time answering simple questions, but you are doing much better than the others.

I believe so.

You believe it is a claim? Swell, you have answered both questions. Congratulations!

Is that a claim as well?

"I believe X is a claim" would itself be a claim, yes.

So at least one atheist holds to the claim that God is not worthy of belief. Perhaps TagliatelliMonster will be assisted in answering these obvious questions by your example. Presumably you do not hold to the strange doctrine that every claim has the burden of proof.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My evidence is scientifically based, and can be tested.

Ok, lets see it

Are you willing to apply the same testing, examinination and falsifiability methods to: the big bang theory?

Are you willing to apply the same testing and examination and falsifiability methods to: how did the first living cell originate from non-living materials?

Sure, however I'm not sure why that's relevant to god or atheism.

 

[Dave Ellis]

They do think God exists.

No, they don't. By definition an atheist is someone who does not believe a god exists. If you're talking about someone that does believe in the existence of a god, then you're not talking about an atheist.

I am someone who does not believe a god exists.

All mankind have been given the light of Christ. It is engineered/programmed into their very souls. Many reject God and try hard to dampen or turn off this light that is in them, and look for other answers as to what is right and wrong, mainly because they do not think they are suited for following the rules of real happy living. But the engineering is so complete and so successful that it is impossible to be set free from it.

How utterly arrogant is it to be so presumptuous to tell someone what their beliefs are, despite the fact they are telling you that is not what they believe. Your argument is one of fundamental dishonesty and arrogance.

If you want to engage in a proper debate and maybe change some minds, try listening to what you're being told and point out why my actual opinions are wrong rather than try to give the impression you know better than I do about what my beliefs are.

So the outward veneer is stoic and resolute, but the inside wants the light and wants the evidence to be so clear so they can believe in God. But God does not work that way. God is not going to come to you and say 'hello'. You must have faith in God.

Why would your god give us the ability to reason, understand logic and skeptically examine the world, then require us to abandon our most reliable methods to discover truth in order to find god? That's an absurd setup.

He has left some scientific data behind that should be sufficient to start your faith journey. Look at all the faith you need to believe in the big bang theory?

No faith is required

Look ar the faith that is necessary to believe that complex-beyond-imagination living cells could come from non-living cells.

I don't believe that, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

Your faith on these science-driven notions is far more faith than is required to believe that a Superior Being was the designer and engineer of this universe and this earth. So give faith a try.

If I already believe in things based on faith, then I already would have given faith a try.

However, you're telling me my beliefs are incorrect, which means faith is not a reliable method for discovering truth. So, why would I then go adopt your beliefs on faith?

No, all atheists have the light of Christ, so they all have the same notion that God does exist, regardless of their rhetoric or outward disgust, you included.

Some do a better job of holding their own in an outward display of disgust and disbelief.

Why do you think telling me my own "beliefs" is a compelling argument, when those are not actually my beliefs? You're fatally handicapping your argument right there.

It'd be like if I told you that you really believe in Satan, and all Christians believe as you do. You may outwardly believe in Jesus, but deep in your heart you know Satan is your real master.

It's a nonsense argument, because that's not what you believe. It's a waste of my time to even go down that line of argument. However, for some reason you seem to think I'd find that kind of argument compelling somehow?

You need to know the real Superior Designer of the universe and the earth. The entire reason that our universe and earth exists is for you, His children. He designed and booted up an entire universe just for your progression and your happiness and joy. Experience the true God and have faith in Him and you will find a totally new level of life, with hope for a brilliant future, far brighter than a dark and cold casket in a grave and the annihilation of you. (Which BTW is indestructable).

I'm sorry, I'm not that arrogant. It takes an amazing ego to believe the entire universe was designed specifically for people like me. I thought Christians were supposed to be humble?