Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[Dave Ellis]

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.

I think the important factor is does the god in question actually exist? If this can't be proven (or if the god in reality does not exist), then it's a non starter. Something that we can't rationally justify believing in is not worthy of belief.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Not sure why you think so. Despite your attempts at quote mining I haven't answered either of your questions. As I mentioned before, I don't believe that such leading questions are helpful. If you have a point I'm sure you can make it without those kinds of rhetorical tricks.

You believe it is a claim?

No, I never said that. I said that I am able to. But also said I'm not playing along with these sorts of leading questions. If you want to respond to what I actually wrote, feel free. If you have a point get to it already. But honestly, the more believers have to resort to these sorts of word games the less it seems like there is any substance to what they are trying to show.

 

[zippy2006]

I think the important factor is does the god in question actually exist? If this can't be proven (or if the god in reality does not exist), then it's a non starter. Something that we can't rationally justify believing in is not worthy of belief.

Obviously atheists believe that God is not worthy of belief. Yet getting them to admit this seems to be very hard.

Despite your attempts at quote mining I haven't answered either of your questions.

Perhaps I was mistaken then. It would seem that anyone who is incapable of answering such simple questions lacks intellectual honesty.

If you have a point I'm sure you can make it without those kinds of rhetorical tricks.

Asking and answering questions is not a rhetorical trick, it is the basis of dialogue. If the atheist must depend on avoidance of obvious questions in order to achieve his aim, then his position is dire indeed.

You are of course free to read the exchange with Tagliatelli to see why such questions are pertinent and how he has avoided answering them.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Obviously atheists believe that God is not worthy of belief. Yet getting them to admit this seems to be very hard.

Are you talking about worthy of worship, or worthy of belief?

Anything which has not met its burden of proof is not worthy of belief. That goes for god, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, and anything else we have little evidence for.

Worthy of worship is a different question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Faith is defined as nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it.

No. Faith is what you need to accept something as true, when you don't have reasonable evidence to support it as true.

If such evidence existed, there would be no need for faith.
For example, take the idea that if you jump from the Eiffel Tower without a chute, you'll plummeth to your death. You don't need "faith" for that. Nobody expresses that belief "on faith". Instead, people call it "knowledge".

It's knowledge that applies in India, in Israel, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, France, the US, the UK, Australia, ... no matter the geographic or cultural setting.

It's been known for quite some time. No faith required.

At this point, he has demonstrated the burden of proof for his claim, so it is reasonable to form the belief that he can do this, yet there is a difference between having that belief and being willing to get in the wheelbarrow. As you are crossing, the wheelbarrow can sway and give you reason to doubt what reason has established that he can cross safely, but having faith him is about having the will to keep your mind focused on the fact that it has been established that he can cross safely.

No. That's not religious faith. That's more like getting on a plane and "having faith" that you will get to your destination safely.

That is not belief without reasonable evidence. It's not even really a belief.
Rather, it is a reasonable expectation based on an actual demonstrable track record.

For this "faith" to be comparable, you'ld have to remove all the knowledge of his previous attempts and just get in the wheelbarrow blindly. Without actually knowing in advance that the dude is able to do it.

And even then, you still have more to go on then with religious faith.
Because you know the dude exists, the rope exists, the wheelbarrow exists and you also KNOW that there are quite a few performers out there who can do some crazy stuff by balancing on a rope.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is true that plenty of people believe incorrect things, but not one of them has been convinced by what they considered to be bad reasons

I don't doubt people's sincerity. I'm sure most of the people who believe false things on bad evidence don't realise that they are believing things on bad evidence.

That doesn't change reality however.
Just because you believe you have good reasons, doesn't mean that you actually have good reasons.

In fact, if they realised that they are wrong about the quality of their reasons, they probably would stop believing.

If they didn't consider the burden of proof to be met then they would never have formed the belief in the first place

Heavily disagree. A 5-year old believes pretty much anything his/her parents tell him/her. I doubt a 5-year old understands the concept of the burden of proof and/or reasonable justification for beliefs.

That's called indoctrination / brainwashing.

For example, two people examine the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and one person is convinced while the second person is not. The first person considers the burden of proof to be met while the second does not. A third person coming in to judge whether the burden has been met would judge according to whether they personally found the evidence to be convincing, so popular opinion doesn't change anything, and we must all decided for ourselves whether the burden has been met.

So, what are you saying.... that everyone is correct in their beliefs in their own particular way?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For the first 4,000 years of our existence God was more actively involved in our existence. The recorded evidence of that interaction is undeniable.

It is just as deniable as the "recorded interaction" of the gods of any other religion, which you deny also.

Almost every culture has reference to God or gods in some form.

Because as humans, we have evolved a tendency to engage in type 1 cognition errors (the false positive) and also have a tendency to infuse purpose and intent into everything.

In short, we are by nature, superstitious.
It's a psychology thing.

Quite possibly many saw the nephilim as gods

Or aliens! Don't forget the aliens!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Under any circumstance, the guy reported it has no burden to prove to you anything.

That's just utterly false.

It's your life, it's your decision. It's you who will suffer from if the claim is true. What you should examine is not the claim itself but the reliability of the one who convey the message. That's how humans should react.

No.
In this specific case, it's about an evaluation of the plausibility of the claim which will trigger your split second decision.

So when a guy screams "terrorist bomb", more then likely you'll run.
When the same guy screams "invisible dragon!!", you'll look at him funny and just go about your business.

Ask yourself why.

That said, your example here is not accurate. An invisible dragon is a passive being which has no intention nor capability to hide from the encounter of humans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Rather it's you who choose to argue against the obvious by applying your intellectual dishonesty. Such as the example of your invisible dragon!

Burden of proof is about a situation where you have a neutral point to stand as your stance. It's never about a claim which could potentially endangers your own life!

This reply has nothing whatsoever to do with my point concerning the difference between making a claim and responding to a claim.

They are not the same thing.

Theists make claims.
Ahteists respond to the claims of theists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

That is just false again.

Historical events, the acceptance thereof that they actually happened, are based on more then just a mere testimony. They are based on independend and contemporary sources. They are also based on non-testimonial evidence, such as artifacts and / or archeological finds.

For example... Let's take the "testimony" of a Roman who says that a guy named Julius Ceasar marched north with a bunch of legions and did battle with Gallia and conquered it.

We can actually go to Gallia and find other, independend sources there saying the same things. We can go to the locations of the alledged battles, dig down and find remains of said battle: dead soldiers, armor, ruins / remains of camp sites, etc.

We don't determine history based on just some single random "testimony".

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

So... do you also find it "more difficult" to believe that Islam survived and flourished without Mohammed having direct revelation and/or flying to heaven on a winged horse?

How about Scientology? Don't you find it harder to believe that it's nonsense, instead of Hubbart actually discovering our immortal inner Thetan?

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.

That's only true if you insist on engaging in black and white thinking.
You could also just say "there is insufficient evidence to accept this as true OR false, so I'll withhold belief until we gain more intel".

Which, as an atheist, is exactly who I look upon theistic claims.
Well... the "vague theistic" claims anyway. When talking fundamentalist readings of scripture, it's obviously demonstrably false.

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.

The standard of evidence is also in direct proportion with the nature of the claim.

If someone says they had eggs for breakfast - fine. Millions of people eat eggs for breakfast everyday.

If someone says they had dragon eggs for breakfast - not so fine.

I'm sure you heared the phrase "extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence". Well, that's exactly the kind of claims that phrase is talking about.

Naturally, things that are harder to believe require stronger evidence before we consider it to be sufficiently established

Yup! Exactly!

, but it is unreasonable to refuse to believe anything until it has been definitively proven.

It is also unreasonable to believe things that aren't sufficiently established.
I don't require "absolute certainty" to accept something as very likely correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I just told you that I can meet that burden by pointing at all the shortcomings of theistic claims.

I also told you that it is irrelevant to the point at hand, since it is not a claim concerning the existance or non-existance of gods.

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

Again, no....
Someone first has to claim such a chair is in said room, before I can disbelieve said claim.

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.

And that is the result of an evaluation of the arguments given for theistic claims.
It is NOT a claim concerning the existance or non-existance of gods.

So now we are agreed that there are two claims in a debate, and that atheists make claims just like theists.

No. Not "just like theists".
Theists make claims concerning the existance of gods.
Atheists disagree with those claims.

Do you still want to hold that both sides have the burden of proof

For the 5th time: I can meet my burden of proof easily, by pointing at the shortcomings of theistic arguments.

First, why do you think this matters?

Because those claims (existance / non-existance of gods) are the claims wich are the topic of discussion here.

Atheists make no such claims. They respond to such claims.

Second, it is a claim concerning the belief in the existence or non-existence of God

Nope, not even that. It is a claim (a response really, but whatever) about the arguments given in support of theism.

Indeed it is perfectly parallel to the theist's claim, "God is worthy of belief."

It's not.

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.

And atheists can meet their burden of proof easily.
Theists... can not.

A debate always involves two contradictory claims.

No. A debate is about a single claim. One in favor and the other side not.

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

You didn't "show" anything. You merely asserted.

Second, atheism makes claims that stand alone.

Nope. Atheism only exists in a world where theism exists.
Someone needs to make claims about gods, before I can disagree with said claims.
This is the difference between a "stand alone claim" and a response to one.

The atheist wakes up in the morning and calls himself an atheist without responding to anyone in the room

I never wake up calling myself an atheist.

He calls himself an atheist because he holds the claim that "God is not worthy of belief."

Which he can only do AFTER someone first proposes gods.

It should be beyond obvious by now that atheists make claims, and that these claims are part and parcel of atheism.

It should also be beyond obvious that those claims are:
- a response to theistic claims
- not claims concerning the existance or non-existance of gods.

At this point you would do well to actually provide some counterargument to my own position:

I've explained myself as clearly as I can.

It's not my fault that you seem utterly unable to understand the difference between making a claim and responding to one.

Apparantly, in your little world, a response to a claim is non-existant.
Everything is a claims and nothing is a response to a claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's all I need.

X makes claim and offers fallacious and/or bad evidence.
Y disagrees and points to the bad evidence as reason for his disbelief.

It's not hard.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's a claim concerning the proposed evidence in context of a claim for the existance of gods.
I can easily meet my burden of proof for that claim. All it takes is pointing out the utter lack of theists meeting their burden of proof for the claim I am responding to.

2. Do you believe that God is not worthy of belief? Yes or no?

I have not been given rational justification for accepting the claim that a god exists, yes.

 

[KCfromNC]

Obviously atheists believe that God is not worthy of belief. Yet getting them to admit this seems to be very hard.

Yes. As I mentioned before, such word games are pretty unconvincing so there's no point getting sucked down into them.

Perhaps I was mistaken then. It would seem that anyone who is incapable of answering such simple questions lacks intellectual honesty.

Weird. I said multiple times that I am capable of answering them. And here you are not telling the truth about what I said. It is very strange you chose to do that rather than just make whatever point you think your leading questions were leading to.

Asking and answering questions is not a rhetorical trick

Pretending I'm at fault for not answering your leading questions the correct way sure is.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, what are you saying.... that everyone is correct in their beliefs in their own particular way?

Participation trophies for everyone!

 

[zippy2006]

Weird. I said multiple times that I am capable of answering them.

Weird. Why don't you just answer them then?

Pretending I'm at fault for not answering your leading questions the correct way sure is.

You're at fault for not answering them at all--a fact which you yourself stated.

What do you think I am "leading" you into? What are you so afraid of? Why not just follow the truth wherever it leads instead of being so concerned about exactly where you will end up, where you are being led? This is precisely the kind of intellectual dishonesty I spoke of. If you think such simple questions are dangerous, then I would say you are paranoid.

 

[zippy2006]

It's a claim concerning the proposed evidence in context of a claim for the existance of gods.
I can easily meet my burden of proof for that claim. All it takes is pointing out the utter lack of theists meeting their burden of proof for the claim I am responding to.



I have not been given rational justification for accepting the claim that a god exists, yes.

Great, so you believe there are claims which atheists make, that atheists have the burden of proof for these claims, and that they are capable of meeting that burden of proof.

Thank you for the clear answer.

It's not my fault that you seem utterly unable to understand the difference between making a claim and responding to one.

Apparantly, in your little world, a response to a claim is non-existant.
Everything is a claims and nothing is a response to a claim.

Responses to claims exist and are themselves claims.

But now you've admitted that atheists make a claim (or at least that you make a claim), namely the claim that God is unworthy of belief.

The remaining point on which we disagree is whether every claim has the burden of proof or whether this describes the burden of proof. As noted, I have provided counterarguments to your own claim. You have neither answered those counterarguments nor provided your own counterarguments to my claim. If you remain unwilling to do either of these things then I think our conversation has come to an end. Here they are again:

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Weird. Why don't you just answer them then?



You're at fault for not answering them at all--a fact which you yourself stated.

What do you think I am "leading" you into? What are you so afraid of? Why not just follow the truth wherever it leads instead of being so concerned about exactly where you will end up, where you are being led? This is precisely the kind of intellectual dishonesty I spoke of. If you think such simple questions are dangerous, then I would say you are paranoid.

....because.......Zippy........................underlying all of this is the 'fact' that they.....don't have the Burden of Proof!

 

[KCfromNC]

Weird. Why don't you just answer them then?

I did answer your post, and also explained why I didn't answer the leading questions. Do you want to discuss those answers or just keep complaining that I'm not going along with the pre-planned script :

What do you think I am "leading" you into? What are you so afraid of? Why not just follow the truth wherever it leads instead of being so concerned about exactly where you will end up, where you are being led? This is precisely the kind of intellectual dishonesty I spoke of. If you think such simple questions are dangerous, then I would say you are paranoid.

So says the guy who doesn't seem to want to discuss what I actually wrote.

 

[HitchSlap]

Haven't bothered to read all nine pages, what are these "simple questions" Zippy is going on about?