Should theists have the burden of proof?

[Ron Gurley]

And the beat goes on...!

 

[bhsmte]

And the beat goes on...!

Indeed it does. And when one side has to declare others just lack spirtual discernment to make a point, the point falls woefully short. Labeling others is easy, demonstrating these labels have any validity besides opinion, different story.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Have y'all figgered it out?? The side that has the "burden of proof" LOSES.

Why? Because matters of SPIRIT / SOUL are IMPOSSIBLE to "prove" / "DISS-prove" with empirical / "scientific EVIDENCE.

A-theists cannot PROVE their BELIEF SYSTEM.

Theists , without the Bible, CAN by logic and debate PROVE their BELIEF SYSTEM.

 

[bhsmte]

Have y'all figgered it out?? The side that has the "burden of proof" LOSES.

Why? Because matters of SPIRIT / SOUL are IMPOSSIBLE to "prove" / "DISS-prove" with empirical / "scientific EVIDENCE.

A-theists cannot PROVE their BELIEF SYSTEM.

Theists , without the Bible, CAN by logic and debate PROVE their BELIEF SYSTEM.

What specifically is the belief system of atheists? By what kind of logic exactly, does a theist prove their beliefs, which are wildly varied?

 

[Ron Gurley]

Post #144: "Q1:What specifically is the belief system of atheists?
A1: "There is no God"

Q2: By what kind of logic exactly, does a theist prove their beliefs, which are wildly varied?
A2: See my long prior post herein.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Post #127 herein

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As most people know, atheists will typically place the burden of proof on the theists in a debate

Obviously... Since in the atheist/theist debate, the subject is the claims of theism.

Atheism becomes the default when theists fail to persuade the atheists.

Yep. Just like not believing Visjnoe is real is the default when Hindu's make their Visjnoe claims and fail to persuade you.

Now I agree that atheism should be the default. I believe this, because atheist beliefs are a subset of theist beliefs.

Hmm, no. Atheism is not a set of beliefs and most definatly not a "subset" of theism.
Theism is accepting a set of beliefs.
Atheism is... not accepting that particular set of beliefs.

Atheists believe in science, history, etc.

Not all, mind you. Atheists don't have a monopoly on rational thinking or rationality in general. Plenty of atheists believe all kinds of nonsense.

I know this one guy who's absolutely convinced that there are no gods, but that the "gods" and "angels" in the various religions are really just space aliens who visited those ancient cultures.

Nothing scientific or historical about that....

Theists also believe in these things, but they want to add extra beliefs such as gods, life after death, angels, etc. It is the theists who are trying to increase the shared set of beliefs with new beliefs, therefore the theists have the burden of proof.
Opinions?

I can only agree with that part.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the burden of proof is actually in the atheistic side. even dawkins admit this in is book "the blind watchmaker". this is because as far as we know: a self replicating watch that made from orogoanic components is evidence for design. so atheist need to prove that such a watch can evolve naturally.

Confusing atheism with biology again?

 

[cloudyday2]

Hmm, no. Atheism is not a set of beliefs and most definatly not a "subset" of theism.
Theism is accepting a set of beliefs.
Atheism is... not accepting that particular set of beliefs.

I just wanted to clarify what I meant when I wrote that atheism is a subset of theism. I was referring to the entire set of everything a person believes about reality. For example "1+1=2" is believed by atheists and theists alike. Virtually everything a typical atheist believes will match what a typical theist believes. However, the theist believes just a little bit more ("Jesus was resurrected"....) So in that sense atheism is a subset of theism. Therefore it should be the default. It is the theists who are trying to add new beliefs.