|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 29, 2023 15:11:46 GMT
Who do you think has the burden of proof?
The person who says God exist. The person who says God don`t exist Both Neither
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 29, 2023 16:35:21 GMT
Since there is no jury (or equivalent fact finder) that must decide, no one has a burden of proof.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 29, 2023 16:37:20 GMT
Well typically the person making the claim has the burden (atheism isn't a claim despite what a lot of people want to believe). Imagine if our court system worked that way, people would get thrown in prison even if there was no evidence they committed a crime, but they couldn't disprove it either ("Well you can't prove you didn't commit the crime!"). It would be beyond absurd.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 29, 2023 17:18:14 GMT
Well typically the person making the claim has the burden (atheism isn't a claim despite what a lot of people want to believe). Imagine if our court system worked that way, people would get thrown in prison even if there was no evidence they committed a crime, but they couldn't disprove it either ("Well you can't prove you didn't commit the crime!"). It would be beyond absurd. Hard atheism is a claim. IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2023 17:22:10 GMT
Nobody.
Just be kind, live in harmony, and follow the golden rule (treat others as you want to be treated ✌️)
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 29, 2023 17:24:57 GMT
Well typically the person making the claim has the burden (atheism isn't a claim despite what a lot of people want to believe). Imagine if our court system worked that way, people would get thrown in prison even if there was no evidence they committed a crime, but they couldn't disprove it either ("Well you can't prove you didn't commit the crime!"). It would be beyond absurd. Hard atheism is a claim. IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position. "Hard atheism is a claim." No it actually isn't. I'm very dismissive of the idea of leprechauns existing, that doesn't mean that's also a claim. "IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position." Sure, in the same way not believing in leprechauns needs a justification of sorts (requiring evidence and dismissing the idea until evidence is present)
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 29, 2023 19:23:52 GMT
Hard atheism is a claim. IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position. "Hard atheism is a claim." No it actually isn't. I'm very dismissive of the idea of leprechauns existing, that doesn't mean that's also a claim. "IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position." Sure, in the same way not believing in leprechauns needs a justification of sorts (requiring evidence and dismissing the idea until evidence is present) this is an interesting one, as it seems like the definition is changing, I felt that hard athiesm was actively saying there is no god. If someone says 'there is no god' they are making a claim and therefore the burden of proof is on them, it differs from simply dismissing the idea of a god, I would say it's there is no god as opposed to I do not believe in a god
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 29, 2023 22:06:00 GMT
Well typically the person making the claim has the burden (atheism isn't a claim despite what a lot of people want to believe). Imagine if our court system worked that way, people would get thrown in prison even if there was no evidence they committed a crime, but they couldn't disprove it either ("Well you can't prove you didn't commit the crime!"). It would be beyond absurd. Law did used to work that way, in some times and places. According to Christians and Muslims they are compelled to spread their message which puts the burden of proof on them. Curiously though, none of the prophets or apostles were expected to have faith in the existence of god. Muhammad, Paul, John, Peter, Mary, etc., were all given proof. For some reason, faith is only for the peasants of religion.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 29, 2023 22:11:41 GMT
Hard atheism is a claim. IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position. "Hard atheism is a claim." No it actually isn't. I'm very dismissive of the idea of leprechauns existing, that doesn't mean that's also a claim. Brother, why don’t you stop with the constant silly atheist cliches? Hard atheism is the assertion ”there is no God”. Anybody that makes such a claim places the burden of proof on themselves. This isn’t even debatable within philosophical circles. No really, even soft atheists(lack of belief) need some kind of justification. Here’s an argument I got from Vlogger Steve Mcrae, who’s an atheist btw. 1) ALL beliefs to be rational (excluding properly basic depending on who you ask) require justification to be rational. 2) If you believe you are not justified to assign a truth value to the proposition of theism (Theism is TRUE or theism is FALSE) then that belief ALSO requires a justification. 3) Since that justification is NOT on a belief about the actual proposition itself, it is a SECOND ORDER justification. This is supported by a peer reviewed paper in the Journal of Philosophy. .
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 29, 2023 22:31:48 GMT
"Hard atheism is a claim." No it actually isn't. I'm very dismissive of the idea of leprechauns existing, that doesn't mean that's also a claim. "IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position." Sure, in the same way not believing in leprechauns needs a justification of sorts (requiring evidence and dismissing the idea until evidence is present) this is an interesting one, as it seems like the definition is changing, I felt that hard athiesm was actively saying there is no god. If someone says 'there is no god' they are making a claim and therefore the burden of proof is on them, it differs from simply dismissing the idea of a god, I would say it's there is no god as opposed to I do not believe in a god True. 200 years ago, nearly all people believed in God... To say that there was No God, was the extraordinary claim, and they were the ones that needed to prove it. Even If someone were to walk into a church today, and told 100 people that God didn't exist, that person would still be told to prove it to the church. in the end, I think it is an "Eye Of The Beholder" kind of thing, with the Masses requiring the proof from the individual.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 29, 2023 22:55:30 GMT
this is an interesting one, as it seems like the definition is changing, I felt that hard athiesm was actively saying there is no god. If someone says 'there is no god' they are making a claim and therefore the burden of proof is on them, it differs from simply dismissing the idea of a god, I would say it's there is no god as opposed to I do not believe in a god True. 200 years ago, nearly all people believed in God... To say that there was No God, was the extraordinary claim, and they were the ones that needed to prove it. 200 years ago people were afraid to publicly deny god.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 29, 2023 23:12:00 GMT
Who do you think has the burden of proof? The person who says God exist. The person who says God don`t exist Both Neither The funniest thing about "burden of proof" is that if somebody doesn't want it (outside a court) it most often means they have no proof. . The people who most certainly have no burden of proof are "agnostics" in the sense that they have "no opinion" on the existence of a god. If they have no opinion, obviously no one can ask them to defend it. What some atheists try to do is join debates, which does not hold up. People with no opinion should not take either side in a debate. Outside court (actually inside too) the burden of proof falls on the party challenging the status quo. In many arguments on the internet the original claim can become lost in the scrolling away. Concerning the existence of god generally there is confusion about the status quo. A good argument can be made that a god certainly exists as much as baseball exists. There are meetings attended by millions of people in large buildings. Now it might be argued that baseball is "stupid," and I am sure many people do make that argument. But they cannot argue that baseball does not exist. If you cannot understand the point here it means you read at an extremely rudimentary level. You take things too literally. Most atheists are atheists because they cannot read above a rudimentary level. That is an extreme learning disability there. Concerning Kitzmiller v. Dover (a court decision) if you have no proof there is no god, you should not shut down speculation about one. So did the prosecution have proof, or just decide they don't need any? Maybe make a poll about that .
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 0:19:11 GMT
this is an interesting one, as it seems like the definition is changing, I felt that hard athiesm was actively saying there is no god. If someone says 'there is no god' they are making a claim and therefore the burden of proof is on them, it differs from simply dismissing the idea of a god, I would say it's there is no god as opposed to I do not believe in a god True. 200 years ago, nearly all people believed in God... To say that there was No God, was the extraordinary claim, and they were the ones that needed to prove it. Even If someone were to walk into a church today, and told 100 people that God didn't exist, that person would still be told to prove it to the church. in the end, I think it is an "Eye Of The Beholder" kind of thing, with the Masses requiring the proof from the individual. Well any actual claim has the burden of proof: "I do not believe in a God" Does not require any proof as it is simply a statement of position and does not make any claims "There is no God" Does require proof, it is a claim. Just as an aside, given that there is no actual proof either way around the existence of God, then I tend to feel that either claim (there is a god vs there is not a god) is extraordinary and so the burden of proof is on the claimant
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 1:03:20 GMT
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 1:09:23 GMT
Since there is no jury (or equivalent fact finder) that must decide, no one has a burden of proof. Not in a debate whether God exists. I don’t have to prove no gods exist because there is nothing there I can quantify to prove does not exist. But a God whose name we invoke as a civic duty upon pain of punishment, if we do not at least pay lip service homage to that God, needs evidence of existing.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 1:11:04 GMT
Well typically the person making the claim has the burden (atheism isn't a claim despite what a lot of people want to believe). Imagine if our court system worked that way, people would get thrown in prison even if there was no evidence they committed a crime, but they couldn't disprove it either ("Well you can't prove you didn't commit the crime!"). It would be beyond absurd. Hard atheism is a claim. IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position. Atheism is an absence of a claim.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 30, 2023 1:11:36 GMT
True. 200 years ago, nearly all people believed in God... To say that there was No God, was the extraordinary claim, and they were the ones that needed to prove it. Even If someone were to walk into a church today, and told 100 people that God didn't exist, that person would still be told to prove it to the church. in the end, I think it is an "Eye Of The Beholder" kind of thing, with the Masses requiring the proof from the individual. Well any actual claim has the burden of proof: "I do not believe in a God" Does not require any proof as it is simply a statement of position and does not make any claims "There is no God" Does require proof, it is a claim. Just as an aside, given that there is no actual proof either way around the existence of God, then I tend to feel that either claim (there is a god vs there is not a god) is extraordinary and so the burden of proof is on the claimant
Not everybody assumes a "concrete" definition of a god, such as a man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That is an accommodation for children who cannot understand abstract concepts. People who read at higher levels have other definitions. Notice the differences.
Specific Definitions
- The abstract or indirectly identified forces in nature and society that assist society in developing ethical codes.
- A benevolent director of spiritual or "extrasensory" phenomena such as clairvoyance, premonition, and other knowledge by revelation.
- The answer to the question how life originated on a previously molten planet, which rather obviously is not found in lifeless nature, thus "supernatural," or the preferred modern terminology, intelligent designer.
The Evidence
- To argue that there is "no evidence" for an abstract god is ridiculous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people going into and coming out of the buildings. It is important to understand that most people who attend religious services use this definition far above all others.
- Arguments for extrasensory perception are problematic in that it is so easily faked. However there are tests and evidence where first hand witnesses can see proof. If a child suddenly speaks a language never experienced or studied the mother will know it was a special revelation because she knows exactly where the child has been and with whom the child's entire life. The rest of the world will just assume the child did have exposure to the language or studied it from books. Various denominations have various attitudes to spiritual phenomena. Some recognize it being possible in the modern world ("Pentecostals" for example) and some do not.
- The intelligent designer is now a fact. Thus it is science not religion. The tornado-in-a-junkyard argument against assembly is well established. To claim there is a "false equivalence" between the biological construction and the tornado is the "backlash" that developed against the impending truth.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 30, 2023 1:12:52 GMT
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You mean like, "Life began when lightning struck mud?" That is the most extraordinary claim I have ever heard.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 1:16:14 GMT
"Hard atheism is a claim." No it actually isn't. I'm very dismissive of the idea of leprechauns existing, that doesn't mean that's also a claim. "IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position." Sure, in the same way not believing in leprechauns needs a justification of sorts (requiring evidence and dismissing the idea until evidence is present) this is an interesting one, as it seems like the definition is changing, I felt that hard athiesm was actively saying there is no god. If someone says 'there is no god' they are making a claim and therefore the burden of proof is on them, it differs from simply dismissing the idea of a god, I would say it's there is no god as opposed to I do not believe in a god All I know is there is no evidence God or any other supernatural creature exists, so why must I be forced to defend an absence of evidence? We atheists keep asking for it and the theists keep telling us to shut up or prove God doesn’t exist. Okay then give us something to work with. Saying the proof is in a book written two to three thousand years ago by multiple unknown authors is begging the question.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 30, 2023 1:16:19 GMT
Hard atheism is a claim. IMO even soft atheists need a justification of sorts for their position. Atheism is an absence of a claim.
True as long as they never show up for a debate. Once they show up for a debate that "absence of a claim" flies out the window.
|
|