Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[KCfromNC]

It really would be easier if he's just present the justification for his beliefs rather than going on and on and on about stuff people never said. Wonder why that isn't what's happening?

 

[zippy2006]

I accept the standard definition of burden of proof.

Take Merriam-Webster:

Burden of Proof -

the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge.​

You throw out the word "disputed"; you think every assertion or charge has the burden of proof.

 

[zippy2006]

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

I brought it up because it provides a counterexample to the proposition brought forward by Dave. That is quite obvious.

I'm afraid I am going to give priority to the folks who are willing to answer questions. The "risk takers," you might say.

 

[HitchSlap]

Take Merriam-Webster:

Burden of Proof -

the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge.​

You throw out the word "disputed"; you think every assertion or charge has the burden of proof.

Ultimately, yes. That's what burden of proof, means.

I need to be honest here, I'm starting to get the feeling you're just Poeing around. Give me something to make me think that you're not.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

Every atheist I've ever met believes that God is not worthy of belief. Indeed the only way that we would not consider this part of the definition of atheism is if we would call infants atheists. That is, if we would call people who have never reflected on their belief or non-belief in God as atheists--people who don't even know they are atheists. Are people who do not know they don't believe in God atheists? I think not. So it is part of the definition.

There are no claims associated with atheism. That is the point.

That's your dogma. Unfortunately you have yet to offer an argument.

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.

And it is a claim. "I have no justification to accept the idea that a God exists as a true claim," is itself a claim. This is elementary.

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.

You have yet to offer a counterargument to my position, and I have offered many. Here's another:

Burden of Proof -

the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge.​

The definition is not the absurd idea that every truth claim has the burden of proof, it is that (certain) disputed assertions or charges have the burden of proof.

 

[zippy2006]

Ultimately, yes. That's what burden of proof, means.

The burden of proof relates to disputed claims; claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims; therefore claims which command ubiquitous consent do not have the burden of proof.

Yet you claim that they do.

I need to be honest here, I'm starting to get the feeling you're just Poeing around. Give me something to make me think that you're not.

Feel free to leave. I don't see how anyone can honestly say the things you are saying and ignore the arguments I've provided. If anyone is "Poeing around," it's certainly not me.

 

[HitchSlap]

The burden of proof relates to disputed claims;

You claim god/s exist. I dispute your claim.

claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims;

This isn't a thing. It's know as "argumentum ad populum," and it's a logical fallacy.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

therefore claims which command ubiquitous consent do not have the burden of proof.

Negative. I just demonstrated this to be fallacious reasoning on your part.

Yet you claim that they do.

Correct, the burden of proof resides with the one making a claim, even if 99.99% percent of a population accepts it as fact.

Feel free to leave. I don't see how anyone can honestly say the things you are saying and ignore the arguments I've provided. If anyone is "Poeing around," it's certainly not me.

I just destroyed your argument, as argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it, at some point you'll have to accept responsibility of the burden of proof for your god/s.

 

[zippy2006]

Negative. I just demonstrated this to be fallacious reasoning on your part.

Wonderful. Let's look at that since your whole post depends on it:

claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims;

This isn't a thing. It's know as "argumentum ad populum," and it's a logical fallacy.

What isn't a thing? I employed the premise, "Claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims." Is this premise true or false?

You claim I have committed a fallacy of popularity. But I don't think the premise is true because lots of people say so. I think it's true because the predicate is contained in the definition of the subject. If you think the premise is false, then say why (by giving an example of a disputed claim that commands ubiquitous consent). If you think I've appealed to popularity as an argument for my premise's truth, then quote where I have done so.

(This is another example of blissful ignorance of the actual content of a fallacy. When faced with defeat the atheist desperately links Wikipedia and calls it a day, without any mention of how such a fallacy applies.)

 

[HitchSlap]

Wonderful. Let's look at that since your whole post depends on it:

Correct.

What isn't a thing? I employed the premise, "Claims which command ubiquitous consent" are not disputed claims." Is this premise true or false?

"Claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims," is patently false. We never would have made any scientific advancements or human progress since the Enlightenment if courageous people didn't dispute "claims which command ubiquitous consent. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever read of a more retarded assertion than your "ubiquitous consent" canard.

Ask Copernicus about disputing "ubiquitous consent." It's not a thing.

The Emperor's New Clothes - Wikipedia

You claim I have committed a fallacy of popularity.

Indubitably.

But I don't think the premise is true because lots of people say so.

Yes, you do. It's know as argumentum ad populum, and it's a logical fallacy. Quit using it.

I think it's true because the predicate is contained in the definition of the subject.

Word salad. This is ad hoc nonsense, and doesn't work in the way you think it does. Another logical fallacy on your end.

Analytic–synthetic distinction - Wikipedia

If you think the premise is false, then say why (by giving an example of a disputed claim that commands ubiquitous consent).

I just did.

If you think I've appealed to popularity as an argument for my premise's truth, then quote where I have done so.

see above

(This is another example of blissful ignorance of the actual content of a fallacy)

You mean like "burden of proof?"

 

[zippy2006]

"Claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims," is patently false.

O really? If a claim commands ubiquitous consent then everyone believes it.

You are saying that something can be believed by all and still be disputed. So tell us then, if something is believed by everyone, then who exactly is disputing it?

We never would have made any scientific advancements or human progress since the Enlightenment if courageous people didn't dispute "claims which command ubiquitous consent.

If a courageous person is disputing a claim, then clearly the claim doesn't command ubiquitous consent. Kinda obvious.

In fact, I'm not sure I've ever read of a more retarded assertion than your "ubiquitous consent" canard.

I assume you didn't intend this to be ironic?

Indubitably.

Yes, you do. It's know as argumentum ad populum, and it's a logical fallacy. Quit using it.

Word salad. This is ad hoc nonsense, and doesn't work in the way you think it does. Another logical fallacy on your end.

Analytic–synthetic distinction - Wikipedia

You know, it doesn't get us anywhere for you to link to fallacies you don't understand.

Zip: Whoever gets the most votes wins the election.
Hitch: Fallacy! Argumentum ad populum!
Zip: The bigger army will usually win the war.
Hitch: Fallacious appeal to popularity!
Zip: The larger the state, the more representatives it receives.
Hitch: Fallacious nonsense!
Zip: Majorities are majorities.
Hitch: Argumentum ad populum!
Zip: ...MAJORITY!
Hitch: ...FALLACY!
Zip: Majority Majority Majority!
Hitch: Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy!
Zip: It seems like every time I make use of the idea of a majority you think I've committed a fallacy.
Hitch: Argumentum ad populum!
Zip: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”​

The fallacy of argumentum ad populum occurs when someone infers that something is true due to it being popular. It does not occur when someone infers other things from popularity. Popularity has many effects on the world, it just so happens that truth isn't one of them. Some of these effects include: election-winning, war-winning, gaining representatives.

Inferring the lack of a burden of proof from ubiquity is not the same as inferring truth from ubiquity. "Claim X has the burden of proof," and "Claim X is true" are two different things!

If you think the premise is false, then say why (by giving an example of a disputed claim that commands ubiquitous consent).

I just did.

You utterly failed to give an example of a disputed claim that commands ubiquitous consent. Not only do you fail to understand the fallacy, you seem ignorant of basic argumentation.

If you think I've appealed to popularity as an argument for my premise's truth, then quote where I have done so.

see above

You have also utterly failed to provide a quote where I have appealed to popularity as an argument for my premise's truth. Are you having trouble reading?

 

[HitchSlap]

O really? If a claim commands ubiquitous consent then everyone believes it.

You are saying that something can be believed by all and still be disputed. So tell us then, if something is believed by everyone, then who exactly is disputing it?



If a courageous person is disputing a claim, then clearly the claim doesn't command ubiquitous consent. Kinda obvious.



I assume you didn't intend this to be ironic?



You know, it doesn't get us anywhere for you to link to fallacies you don't understand.

Zip: Whoever gets the most votes wins the election.
Hitch: Fallacy! Argumentum ad populum!
Zip: The bigger army will usually win the war.
Hitch: Fallacious appeal to popularity!
Zip: The larger the state, the more representatives it receives.
Hitch: Fallacious nonsense!
Zip: Majorities are majorities.
Hitch: Argumentum ad populum!
Zip: ...MAJORITY!
Hitch: ...FALLACY!
Zip: Majority Majority Majority!
Hitch: Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy!
Zip: It seems like every time I make use of the idea of a majority you think I've committed a fallacy.
Hitch: Argumentum ad populum!
Zip: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”​

The fallacy of argumentum ad populum occurs when someone infers that something is true due to it being popular. It does not occur when someone infers other things from popularity. Popularity has many effects on the world, it just so happens that truth isn't one of them. Some of these effects include: election-winning, war-winning, gaining representatives.

Inferring the lack of a burden of proof from ubiquity is not the same as inferring truth from ubiquity. "Claim X has the burden of proof," and "Claim X is true" are two different things!




You utterly failed to give an example of a disputed claim that commands ubiquitous consent. Not only do you fail to understand the fallacy, you seem ignorant of basic argumentation.



You have also utterly failed to provide a quote where I have appealed to popularity as an argument for my premise's truth. Are you having trouble reading?

Name example of "ubiquitous consent."

 

[zippy2006]

Name example of "ubiquitous consent."

The hypothetical doesn't require concrete instantiation to function as an argument, but nevertheless, I can give a number of examples:

• The Earth exists
• Humans need water to live
• The Sun is hot
• Hydrogen is combustible
• 2 + 2 = 4
• Lions are predators
• etc.

Earlier in the thread (71 & 97) I gave others:

• I perceive (something)
  
• Something exists rather than nothing
  
• I exist

(These were given as examples of things that have never had the burden of proof)

I also provided weaker examples that serve a more general argument:

• The Earth is round
  
• Objects fall due to gravity
  
• Australia is an island

 

[HitchSlap]

The hypothetical doesn't require concrete instantiation to function as an argument, but nevertheless, I can give a number of examples:

• The Earth exists
• Humans need water to live
• The Sun is hot
• Hydrogen is combustible
• 2 + 2 = 4
• Lions are predators
• etc.

Earlier in the thread (71 & 97) I gave others:

• I perceive (something)
  
• Something exists rather than nothing
  
• I exist

(These were given as examples of things that have never had the burden of proof)

I also provided weaker examples that serve a more general argument:

• The Earth is round
  
• Objects fall due to gravity
  
• Australia is an island

And which of these did not require burden of proof prior to them enjoying your fictitious "ubiquitous consent"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Every atheist I've ever met believes that God is not worthy of belief.

Meaning, that every atheist remains unconvinced about the claims of theism.
Derp-di-derp

Indeed the only way that we would not consider this part of the definition of atheism is if we would call infants atheists.

Infants ARE atheists.
An atheist is a person without a positive belief in gods and/or the supernatural.
An infant couldn't even conceive of such entities, so how could they have any positive beliefs about it?

That is, if we would call people who have never reflected on their belief or non-belief in God as atheists--people who don't even know they are atheists.

An atheist is any person who doesn't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe god/the supernatural exists?".

A theist is a person who answers that with "yes".
Just like I've been telling you all this time...

You need to believe something specific to be a theist.
An atheist is just a person without belief in that specific something for whatever reason.

If the Krakken was a god, you'ld be an atheist concerning the Krakken.
So tell me, do you think you have a burden of proof concerning anything about your disbelief that the Krakken exists?

I'll go ahead and assume that you don't hold any positive beliefs about the existance of the Krakken.

Are people who do not know they don't believe in God atheists?

Yes.

It's a rather binary position. You are either a theist or you aren't.
You either have a positive belief in the existance of gods/the supernatural or you don't.
If you do, you're a theist.
If you don't, you're an atheist.

It's not hard.

That's your dogma. Unfortunately you have yet to offer an argument.

I've been explaining it to you for eleventyseven pages already.
You either HAVE a belief in gods or you DON'T.

You either accept the claims of theism as true, or you do not.

And for the upteenth time, saying "I don't accept claim X as true", is NOT the same as saying "I believe claim X is false"

And it is a claim. "I have no justification to accept the idea that a God exists as a true claim," is itself a claim.

We've been over this.
It is a claim about the arguments offered in support of the claims of theism. It is not a claim about theism itself or gods or the supernatural.

It's, quite simply, motivating why one remains unconvinced of the claim at hand.

You have yet to offer a counterargument to my position

Your position is dishonest and I've been explaining why for several pages now. But it seems your record is broken. It seems you insist on knowing better what my beliefs or non-beliefs are, then I do.

Burden of Proof -

the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge.​

And as an atheist, I dispute the assertions of theism.

The definition is not the absurd idea that every truth claim has the burden of proof

Every truth claim DOES have a burden of proof.
But not every truth claim will be challenged in everyday life and nobody is going bother meeting those burdens on things that everybody already agrees on.

But in principle, yes, every truth claim has a burden of proof.
This means that whenever there is a dispute or a challenge, it will be upto the person who makes the truth claim, to step up and support his claim to resolve the dispute and/or challenge.

, it is that (certain) disputed assertions or charges have the burden of proof.

In practice, that's when it will come up, yes.
And, as said, as an atheist, I dispute the assertions of theism.
Guess where the burden lies, in that case.

 

[KCfromNC]

Every atheist I've ever met believes that God is not worthy of belief.

Yep. Like I've mentioned before, that's a claim about the internal mental state of the person saying so. That makes the burden of proof quite different for it compared to the burden on people who claim that their god exists in shared objective reality.

 

[HitchSlap]

The hypothetical doesn't require concrete instantiation to function as an argument, but nevertheless, I can give a number of examples:

• The Earth exists
• Humans need water to live
• The Sun is hot
• Hydrogen is combustible
• 2 + 2 = 4
• Lions are predators
• etc.

Earlier in the thread (71 & 97) I gave others:

• I perceive (something)
  
• Something exists rather than nothing
  
• I exist

(These were given as examples of things that have never had the burden of proof)

I also provided weaker examples that serve a more general argument:

• The Earth is round
  
• Objects fall due to gravity
  
• Australia is an island

You forgot a few: Theory of Evolution, no global flood, no adam and eve, no ark, etc...

I assume we're done here? There seems to be "ubiquitous consent" that your horse is dead now.

 

[zippy2006]

And which of these did not require burden of proof prior to them enjoying your fictitious "ubiquitous consent"?

The middle three. Honestly, do you even read the posts?

And what point are you attempting to make? You have done nothing to undermine the syllogism I presented:

The burden of proof relates to disputed claims; claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims; therefore claims which command ubiquitous consent do not have the burden of proof.

...well I shouldn't say "nothing." You made the absurd claim that claims which everyone believes are at the same time disputed, and you resurrected the old bogey of a falsely attributed fallacy.

Your assertion that every claim has the burden of proof is manifestly false.

 

[zippy2006]

Meaning, that every atheist remains unconvinced about the claims of theism.
Derp-di-derp



Infants ARE atheists.
An atheist is a person without a positive belief in gods and/or the supernatural.
An infant couldn't even conceive of such entities, so how could they have any positive beliefs about it?




An atheist is any person who doesn't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe god/the supernatural exists?".

A theist is a person who answers that with "yes".
Just like I've been telling you all this time...

You need to believe something specific to be a theist.
An atheist is just a person without belief in that specific something for whatever reason.

If the Krakken was a god, you'ld be an atheist concerning the Krakken.
So tell me, do you think you have a burden of proof concerning anything about your disbelief that the Krakken exists?

I'll go ahead and assume that you don't hold any positive beliefs about the existance of the Krakken.



Yes.

It's a rather binary position. You are either a theist or you aren't.
You either have a positive belief in the existance of gods/the supernatural or you don't.
If you do, you're a theist.
If you don't, you're an atheist.

It's not hard.

I think you're wrong. I don't think infants are atheists.

But let's just ignore that disagreement. My point is not affected. All self-conscious atheists make the claim that God is not worthy of belief, therefore this belief forms part of the identity of a self-conscious atheist (and thus is part of the definition). This means every atheist on any religious forum, including you, Hitch, KC, etc. According to your definition of "burden of proof," you all have the burden of proof for your claim that God is not worthy of belief.

We've been over this.
It is a claim about the arguments offered in support of the claims of theism. It is not a claim about theism itself or gods or the supernatural.

I don't care what kind of a claim it is. My argument does not require that it be this kind of claim or that kind of claim. It is a claim. That's all that matters. You say that all claims have the burden of proof, you are committed to various claims about belief in God, therefore you have the burden of proof for these claims.

Every truth claim DOES have a burden of proof.

Not according to the definition of "burden of proof." You're living in a fantasy world. Your atheism is causing you to say all sorts of absurd things.

 

[zippy2006]

Yep. Like I've mentioned before, that's a claim about the internal mental state of the person saying so. That makes the burden of proof quite different for it compared to the burden on people who claim that their god exists in shared objective reality.

"God is not worthy of belief" is not a claim about the internal mental state of the claimant (and even if it was, your conclusion fails to prove anything substantial). It could be rendered in various ways:

• "Legitimate justification does not exist for the belief in a God"
• "No one is justified in believing in the existence of a God"

It is a claim about the possibility of rational justification for belief in God, namely that there is no such possibility. It is not about the mental state of the claimant. "I do not believe in God" would be a claim about the mental state of the claimant.

 

[HitchSlap]

The middle three. Honestly, do you even read the posts?

Unfortunately. And unlike wine, they get more asinine every time you post.

And what point are you attempting to make?

That "ubiquitous consent" is not a thing. Stomp your feet and shake your Crayola stuffed hands all you want, ad hoc definitions to support paper thin syllogisms will get you nowhere.

You have done nothing to undermine the syllogism I presented:

I'm still waiting for anything resembling a sound syllogism from you.

...well I shouldn't say "nothing."

How does the old adage go... 'better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?'

You made the absurd claim that claims which everyone believes are at the same time disputed,

I don't care how many people believe something; they could all be wrong, they could all be right. However, I bet even you could tell us how we should decide which is right and wrong.

Your assertion that every claim has the burden of proof is manifestly false.

Yep. You claim a god/s exist ... have at it.

Until such time you meet that burden of proof, I will remain atheist.

So get to it. You wouldn't want me to go to hell and all.

Last reply BTW.

Carry on.