Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[HitchSlap]

Presumably for the same reason you believe a claim everyone accepts as true has the burden of proof. I have no idea what that reason might be.

Ok... your point is?

 

[zippy2006]

No, it's not a response. I purposefully said "claim X" to disconnect it from any other topic we've brought up on here so far. I specifically called it a claim, and nowhere it was ever said to be a response to anything.

It is a response. "Claim ~X" is a response to "Claim X." I've stipulated that it is a response. Therefore there are responses that are also claims. Therefore not all responses are non-claims. Therefore your so-called "definition" fails.

 

[zippy2006]

Ok... your point is?

My point is that your position reduces to absurdity. It leads to the conclusion that claims which command ubiquitous consent have the burden of proof.

 

[HitchSlap]

It leads to the conclusion that claims which command ubiquitous consent have the burden of proof.

Yep, even then.

 

[zippy2006]

Yep, even then.

Then I leave you to your absurdity, which contradicts every dictionary definition of "burden of proof," and of course common sense. Evidenced is a basic lack of understanding of what burden of proof means.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then I leave you to your absurdity, which contradicts every dictionary definition of "burden of proof," and of course common sense. Evidenced is a basic lack of understanding of what burden of proof means.

I accept the standard definition of burden of proof.

 

[KCfromNC]

You can't seem to make up your mind:

The fact you have to heavily edit my posts when quoting them tells me all I need to know about the seriousness of what you're writing. If there was anything of substance your questions were leading to you'd have gotten there long ago. Instead you have to pretend I'm somehow afraid of them - instead of the reality which is I'm bored by yet another diversion into word games to avoid the obvious fact that there's no "there" there.

 

[KCfromNC]

Both of the claims in question are assertions of fact.

At best they're claims about the internal mental states of the person making them. Which makes them categorically different than claims about external realities as made by religious believers wrt the existence of their gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Obviously. But you are going on a derailment here.

The large point being made, is that none of those claims are what defines atheism.
Atheism is ONLY defined by not believing the claims of theism for whatever reason.

There are no claims associated with atheism. That is the point.
Hence why I noted that whatever claims I make, they aren't about the existance or non-existance of gods. It's theists that make such claims. And it's the acceptance/making of those claims that defines someone as theist.

I don't have to claim anything to be an atheist.

The best way I can express it to illustrate this, is by saying:
- a theist is trying to sell you something.
- as an atheist, I'm just not buying what theists are trying to sell.
- as an atheist, I'm not trying to sell something myself.

To be a theist, you need to believe a certain specific something.
NOT believing that something, is what makes you an atheist.

Responses to claims exist and are themselves claims.

No, they are not.

Claim: "a god exists!"
Response: "I have no justificatyion to accept that as a true claim".

This response is not a claim.

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.

I rephrased it. My claim, at best, is that the arguments in support of theism are lacking.
However, that claim does not define my atheism.

Which is what the whole "claim" thing is about in the first place.

You need to accept/make claims to be a theist.
Being an atheist is the exact opposite: NOT accepting/making those claims.

Not making a claim is ... not making a claim.

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:

I completely disagree with your idea of what the burden of proof is.

In the linked post, you are basically saying that anyone who says anything that is contrary to popular belief, has a burden of proof.

Implying that one doesn't have a burden of proof if what is being claimed happens to also be popular opinion/belief.

That is completely incorrect.

The burden of proof deals with evidential support for claims, not with popular opinion/beliefs.

To put it simplisticly: every truth-claim has a burden of proof. No matter how many people "already believe" the claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Were you fearful for Tagliatelli when he answered them? Perhaps you should have warned him of the imminent danger. I have to admit, he is a bit naive, honestly answering questions and all... I don't think he will make a very good atheist in the long run due to these lapses of judgment.

I suggests you stop with these juvenile comments.

 

[KCfromNC]

I completely agree with you, which is why I'm trying to parse this out with him so he understands.

I think there's more going on than a lack of understanding. Several people have posted justifications for lacking belief in claims where the burden of proof hasn't been met, and yet he's still going on and on and on and on about how non-believers must have justification for their lack of belief as if it has never been addressed. And he's doing this to the exclusion of providing justification for believers beliefs. I think it is pretty obvious why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both of the claims in question are assertions of fact.

...about the claims of theism and the proposed arguments supposedly in support for said claims.

They are not assertions about gods or the supernatural.

The "burden of proof" for the claims about the claims of theism and the arguments for it, is easily met by simply pointing at all the flaws in the logic and other shortcommings in theistic claims/argumentation.

According to your own definition, you hold to two positive assertions.

none of which, define atheism.

As far as atheism vs theism goes, the burden of proof for the claims that define those positions, lies with the theist.

 

[KCfromNC]

I suggests you stop with these juvenile comments.

Don't have him stop on my account. Like I said, the fact that this is the best he can do to respond to the points raised in my posts says a lot.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay. Further, given two propositions:

1. God is worthy of belief.
2. God is not worthy of belief.

In America it is the atheist who has the burden of proof, since he is the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of the Western and American societal narrative of the ubiquity of religion. The burden of proof in Europe may be legitimately different.

Once again...

Popular opinion has no effect on who has the burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course, it's incumbent on the one making a positive claim.

Seriously, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

I believe the point is good ol' obfuscation.

 

[KCfromNC]

"Claim ~X" is a response

The post you were responding to didn't include "Claim ~X". It mentioned "I don't believe claim X". Try again.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is a response. "Claim ~X" is a response to "Claim X."

It is a possible response, just not the one being discussed here. Why bring it up instead of addressing the points actually made?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's because that part of your definition is arbitrary and therefore illegitimate. "A positive claim is an assertion of fact. Except when you're responding to a positive claim; in that case it doesn't count!" That makes no sense.

The only reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you apparantly really (and still) don't understand the difference between making a claim and responding to a claim.

They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.

You can't just arbitrarily exclude responses from the species of positive claims.

It's not arbitrary. It's sensible.
A response to a claim, is not a claim. It is a response.

These words are not synonymous.

 

[KCfromNC]

I believe the point is good ol' obfuscation.

Sure, neither of us have justification for our beliefs on the subje .... oh look, squirrel!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The post you were responding to didn't include "Claim ~X". It mentioned "I don't believe claim X". Try again.

Indeed, earlier in the thread I had to explain this to him as well.

I even gave the example of a secret coin toss where a person then claims "It is heads!" to wich another responds with "I don't have enough justification to accept that as true" and how that does not mean in any way that the one responding therefor beliefs that it is tails instead.

I even went to the courtroom example where a priori, we can say that a defendent is either guilty or innocent, but that only the claim about guilt is addressed. And that when a jury rules a verdict, they rule "guilty" or "not guilty". They don't rule the defendant "innocent".

Because not being convinced of X doesn't, in any way, imply that one is instead convinced of ~X

It is, off course, completely unsurprising to see him again fall back on this same nonsense, eventhough it has been pointed out to him that this simply isn't how logic works.

Next to not understanding the difference between making a claim and responding to one, he apparantly also doesn't understand the difference between "I don't believe X" and "I believe X is false".