The burden of proof fallacy?

[ianb321red]

Definitions:
Atheism – believing there is no God or gods
Theism – belief in the existence of God or gods

Common objection to theism:

Theist: "God exists - there is sufficient evidence and therefore sufficient reason to believe that this is true. (Some may add to this something like "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does".)"
Atheist: "You are the making the assertion that God exists, therefore the burden of proof lies is on you to demonstrate that this is true"

Is position A correct to shift the burden of proof here?

Surely the absolute claim of alpha theos/ "no god" has to be a claim of some kind of knowledge in order to support or substantiate this claim? Just as much as the claim that there IS a god is likewise a claim to knowledge?

As this is the case , then surely both propositions require just as much justification as each other?

Is it therefore not a fallacy to hold position A and then attempt to shift the burden of proof to position T?

If it is not then atheism cannot be understood correctly as "believing there is no god. " and should instead be understood as "not believing that there is a God" - which is merely a lack of knowledge something that infants and animals also share, and only deals with beliefs rather than whether something (God) actually exists or not..

 

[Received]

There seems to be the supposition that agnosticism is a default position, and being such it doesn't require justification. Except it does: claiming that agnosticism is the default position is a claim, and therefore the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Maybe a better question for the OP would be: why is agnosticism the default position?

 

[Received]

Also: does the burden of proof have a burden of proof?

(Shut up, quatona.)

 

[Ken-1122]

Definitions:
Atheism – believing there is no God or gods
Theism – belief in the existence of God or gods

Common objection to theism:

Theist: "God exists - there is sufficient evidence and therefore sufficient reason to believe that this is true. (Some may add to this something like "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does".)"
Atheist: "You are the making the assertion that God exists, therefore the burden of proof lies is on you to demonstrate that this is true"

Is position A correct to shift the burden of proof here?

Surely the absolute claim of alpha theos/ "no god" has to be a claim of some kind of knowledge in order to support or substantiate this claim? Just as much as the claim that there IS a god is likewise a claim to knowledge?

As this is the case , then surely both propositions require just as much justification as each other?

Is it therefore not a fallacy to hold position A and then attempt to shift the burden of proof to position T?

If it is not then atheism cannot be understood correctly as "believing there is no god. " and should instead be understood as "not believing that there is a God" - which is merely a lack of knowledge something that infants and animals also share, and only deals with beliefs rather than whether something (God) actually exists or not..

With so many possible definitions of God, it is almost impossible to say what a Theist might call God does not exist. The fact that I do not call it God makes me an atheist.

Ken

 

[keith99]

If your claims of God put no burdens on me I have no problems with the OPs position.

BUT if you want me to worship your God and pay tribute to your God to the tune of 10% of what I make then the burden is on you to show that it is probable that you God exists and for that matter that he actually expects what those claiming to speak for Him say he does.

 

[Paradoxum]

If it is not then atheism cannot be understood correctly as "believing there is no god. " and should instead be understood as "not believing that there is a God" - which is merely a lack of knowledge something that infants and animals also share, and only deals with beliefs rather than whether something (God) actually exists or not..

When people say that only theists have the burden of proof they do mean that compared to a weak atheism (a lack of belief in God).

I'd think most atheists would say that they don't believe in God, rather than saying that there definitely is a God.

Personally I'd say I hold a weak atheism, but also say that there probably is no God. I would of course have to give reasons for thinking the latter.

There seems to be the supposition that agnosticism is a default position, and being such it doesn't require justification. Except it does: claiming that agnosticism is the default position is a claim, and therefore the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Maybe a better question for the OP would be: why is agnosticism the default position?

Claiming that agnosticism is the default position is a claim... agnosticism (weak atheism?) itself isn't.

It's hardly a crazy thing to claim unless someone is extremely biased. Babies can't form abstract concepts like God, or the attributes of God. I'd think babies have very simple beliefs, if they have any beliefs at all... you can't make special exceptions for the idea of God.

The more important point is that if there isn't sufficient justification for a belief, then the thing to do is to withhold assent to that belief.

 

[Received]

The more important point is that if there isn't sufficient justification for a belief, then the thing to do is to withhold assent to that belief.

I can dig this only for pragmatic reasons: because accepting some things without sufficient justification leads to bad things. But clearly this isn't always the case, and if we dig deeply enough and talk about axiomatic things -- things that are by definition "before" reasoning -- then we've accepted a lot of things with good outcomes without rational justification. Another point: what even constitutes justification?

 

[Paradoxum]

I can dig this only for pragmatic reasons: because accepting some things without sufficient justification leads to bad things. But clearly this isn't always the case, and if we dig deeply enough and talk about axiomatic things -- things that are by definition "before" reasoning -- then we've accepted a lot of things with good outcomes without rational justification. Another point: what even constitutes justification?

We should try to make our premises as basic and simple as possible if we care about truth. God isn't a basic belief.

What constitutes justification is a good question. I don't have a ready made sentence answer to that. The arguments should be well reasoned and likely true I suppose.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Definitions:
Atheism – believing there is no God or gods
Theism – belief in the existence of God or gods

Common objection to theism:

Theist: "God exists - there is sufficient evidence and therefore sufficient reason to believe that this is true. (Some may add to this something like "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does".)"
Atheist: "You are the making the assertion that God exists, therefore the burden of proof lies is on you to demonstrate that this is true"

Is position A correct to shift the burden of proof here?

Surely the absolute claim of alpha theos/ "no god" has to be a claim of some kind of knowledge in order to support or substantiate this claim? Just as much as the claim that there IS a god is likewise a claim to knowledge?

As this is the case , then surely both propositions require just as much justification as each other?

Is it therefore not a fallacy to hold position A and then attempt to shift the burden of proof to position T?

If it is not then atheism cannot be understood correctly as "believing there is no god. " and should instead be understood as "not believing that there is a God" - which is merely a lack of knowledge something that infants and animals also share, and only deals with beliefs rather than whether something (God) actually exists or not..

If you come up to me and make an extraordinary claim, such as "I was abducted by aliens", you are responsible for providing evidence.

Same thing applies to the extraordinary claim that there is a magical being in the sky who created everything and knows everything.

 

[Ken-1122]

There seems to be the supposition that agnosticism is a default position, and being such it doesn't require justification. Except it does: claiming that agnosticism is the default position is a claim, and therefore the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Maybe a better question for the OP would be: why is agnosticism the default position?

To suggest agnosticism is a default position is a mistake. Atheism and Theism is about what you believe; agnosticism is about what you know; a totally different question.

K

 

[variant]

Also: does the burden of proof have a burden of proof?

(Shut up, quatona.)

No, there is a reason there is a burden of proof on positive claims.

There isn't a fallacy here, it's just that theists would like to assert things without meeting a burden of proof.

 

[Received]

What's the reason?

I believe in the burden of proof, at least in some contexts, but I don't know why we have to have it, you know.

 

[Ken-1122]

What's the reason?

I believe in the burden of proof, at least in some contexts, but I don't know why we have to have it, you know.

You only have to have it if you expect someone to believe what you are saying.

Ken

 

[variant]

What's the reason?

I believe in the burden of proof, at least in some contexts, but I don't know why we have to have it, you know.

You don't?

It's there because shifting the burden of proof from the claimant to the critic is just an appeal to ignorance.

The inability to disprove a claim doesn't lend it credence.

To the OP:

Atheists do not need to positively claim that "God doesn't exist" when it isn't in evidence. A lack of belief in God (which would be enough to be an atheist) doesn't require a positive claim.

 

[TillICollapse]

Atheism and Theism is about what you believe; agnosticism is about what you know; a totally different question.

K

Interesting points.

 

[TillICollapse]

What's the reason?

I believe in the burden of proof, at least in some contexts, but I don't know why we have to have it, you know.

The burden of proof does not put an invisible chain around someone to where they cannot investigate your claim for themselves. However, when you are making a positive claim with someone ... one of the factors involved is why that person should trust you in the first place. The assumption that the other person has to trust you, or has to even care about your claim in the first place ... is just that, an assumption.

The burden of proof actually can help relieve the "burden" off of the one making the claim, if they can provide evidence that speaks for itself.

What I think the believer takes for granted, is that when a claim is made involving terms/concepts/etc that are not defined by consensus, or their definitions are varied ... they take for granted that it's up to THEM to define their terms and definitions. When a believer says, "God" ... they need to define what they mean by God when making a positive claim about "God". There are a million and one different voices all making claims about "God", so it's up to you to define what you mean if you are making a claim. The believer takes this for granted for some myopic reason. Even within the religion of Christianity itself there is a large variation of what people mean by "God", so saying "The Christian God of the Bible" doesn't even really do much. The believer takes a lot for granted in this regard. And I'll admit, it becomes hard to take some claims seriously when they are presented with horrific assumptions, presumptions, and myopic ignorance that doesn't take their intended audience into account. And further attempting to get a definition often breaks down because the believer can become frustrated and accusatory when the audience doesn't "speak their language like they do." It's kind of like watching tourists go into a foreign country and shout, "Why don't you understand me ? Why don't you speak my language ?" lol. The burden is on YOU to put your claim into a language that the audience can understand.

 

[Gadarene]

Definitions:
Atheism – believing there is no God or gods
Theism – belief in the existence of God or gods

Common objection to theism:

Theist: "God exists - there is sufficient evidence and therefore sufficient reason to believe that this is true. (Some may add to this something like "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does".)"
Atheist: "You are the making the assertion that God exists, therefore the burden of proof lies is on you to demonstrate that this is true"

Is position A correct to shift the burden of proof here?

Surely the absolute claim of alpha theos/ "no god" has to be a claim of some kind of knowledge in order to support or substantiate this claim? Just as much as the claim that there IS a god is likewise a claim to knowledge?

As this is the case , then surely both propositions require just as much justification as each other?

Is it therefore not a fallacy to hold position A and then attempt to shift the burden of proof to position T?

In the dialogue you produced the theist is the one opening with the claim that god exists, so why wouldn't someone expect them to then produce something to back that up?

If it is not then atheism cannot be understood correctly as "believing there is no god. " and should instead be understood as "not believing that there is a God" - which is merely a lack of knowledge something that infants and animals also share, and only deals with beliefs rather than whether something (God) actually exists or not..

This is the problem here - you simply have not defined atheism properly. Might help if you actually spoke to atheists about it.

It is simply a lack of belief in deities. Whether this is because you definitively assert no gods exist (strong atheism) or because you are simply not convinced any exist (weak atheism) is not specified by mere use of the term "atheism".

If the matching is theist vs weak atheist, then yes, the burden of proof is on the theist, as simply being unconvinced by something is not a claim regarding existence in the way theism/strong atheism is. Most of the atheists on CF are weak atheists.

This is a matter of expediency if nothing else. There is no point making the person not making an actual claim on existence go through every two-bit, shoddy argument they've ever encountered for Christianity when chances are the theist would reject most of them too. It is quickest for everyone if the theist presents their best evidence. If that does not stand up to scrutiny, then why give them credence?

 

[ianb321red]

This is the problem here - you simply have not defined atheism properly. Might help if you actually spoke to atheists about it.

I have defined atheism properly:
atheism - definition of atheism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The problem with speaking with atheists (which you assume I have not) is that they don't all agree on the definition in the first place.

I could quite easily mention some other forums I've been on the past couple of weeks which could clearly demonstrate this point about atheists/ definition of atheism...

It is simply a lack of belief in deities. Whether this is because you definitively assert no gods exist (strong atheism) or because you are simply not convinced any exist (weak atheism) is not specified by mere use of the term "atheism".

Ok so this is your problem.

Strong atheism is basically incoherant and doesn't fit with your own definition of atheism anyway
Weak atheism is simply the absence of a belief, and makes no statement of the existence of God

Theism doesn't have this muddle; there is no weak and strong theism in any comparable sense to atheism. The terms do exist but weak theism is pretty much another name for deism as it refers to God's activity/ inactivity in the world..

 

[Sayre]

We should try to make our premises as basic and simple as possible if we care about truth. God isn't a basic belief.

What constitutes justification is a good question. I don't have a ready made sentence answer to that. The arguments should be well reasoned and likely true I suppose.

Why do you think God is not a basic belief?

 

[Paradoxum]

Why do you think God is not a basic belief?

God isn't practically needed as a starting point. If we want to understand something, it's generally about the world we live in, so we have to assume that our minds can represent something true about the world through our senses. If our senses are completely false all the time then we have no starting point.

Maybe the world doesn't exist somehow, or maybe it began 5 seconds ago, but if we want to learn anything about the world we appear to live in we have to assume for now that our senses have some truth to them. Or more generally, our thoughts and sensations aren't completely false. Without that idea you have nothing to work from.