|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 30, 2023 1:19:50 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 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.
You have no idea who the prosecution was in Kitzmiller v. Dover, do you? You know the prosecution has the burden of proof, right?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 1:22:14 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 1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.
Theism assumes a living relation of God to his creatures, but does not define it. It differs from deism in that the latter is negative and involves a denial of revelation, while the former is affirmative, and underlies Christianity. One may be a theist and not be a Christian, but he cannot be a Christian and not be a theist. [Century Dictionary] www.etymonline.com/word/theism
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 30, 2023 1:22:59 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. If you're referring to the "So help me God" part when being put under oath, I don't think invoking God is actually required.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 1:26:47 GMT
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. If you're referring to the "So help me God" part when being put under oath, I don't think invoking God is actually required. The pledge of allegiance and on our money.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 30, 2023 1:29:44 GMT
If you're referring to the "So help me God" part when being put under oath, I don't think invoking God is actually required. The pledge of allegiance and on our money. You may have something there.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 1:35:22 GMT
The pledge of allegiance and on our money. You may have something there. From wikipedia
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 30, 2023 1:52:23 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. 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. . "Brother, why don’t you stop with the constant silly atheist cliches?" So don't make cogent, sound arguments. Got it. "Hard atheism is the assertion ”there is no God”." Well no, "hard atheism" isn't necessarily an assertion perse, it's rather how unconvinced you are of the concept of a God. "Soft atheist" would say "Well maybe there is a God, I'm not sure, but I currently don't believe in one, while a hard atheist would say "I find it very unlikely there is a God". What you're probably thinking of is "gnostic atheist" (" I know there is no God") which while I do think is a philosophically unattainable position (unfalsifiable position), I'm pretty sure most atheists are agnostic (which isn't a knowledge claim) "No really, even soft atheists(lack of belief) need some kind of justification." Yes and a lack of belief in leprechauns requires some kind of justification (lack of evidence). I dunno how this contradicts what I said. "Here’s an argument I got from Vlogger Steve Mcrae, who’s an atheist btw." I'm well familiar with Steve McCrare, not sure why your quoting him, he would most likely disagree with what you're saying "1) ALL beliefs to be rational (excluding properly basic depending on who you ask) require justification to be rational." Yes and atheism isn't a belief (it's a lack of a belief), so this rule doesn't really apply now does it? "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." You do realize justifications and beliefs are not the same thing right? You seem to be misconflating the two. Again I think my LACK OF BELIEF in leprechauns is justified (no evidence has ever been presented). That's not a claim, that's a rejection of a claim "This is supported by a peer reviewed paper in the Journal of Philosophy." Yes and you seem to be misundertanding what it was actually saying
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 30, 2023 2:05:16 GMT
You may have something there. From wikipedia As your link points out, those laws are all unconstitutional and unenforceable. So, I don't see that a burden of proof question comes up. I take the OP to mean a simple debate on the existence of God. Absent a factfinder who has to settle the question, there's a clash of ideas, but no burden of proof on either side.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 2:17:11 GMT
As your link points out, those laws are all unconstitutional and unenforceable. So, I don't see that a burden of proof question comes up. I take the OP to mean a simple debate on the existence of God. Absent a factfinder who has to settle the question, there's a clash of ideas, but no burden of proof on either side. Even so, an atheist does not have to defend their absence of belief in God, a specific deity in three exclusive religions with three different salvation narratives, the way a theist must if they want to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 30, 2023 2:25:41 GMT
As your link points out, those laws are all unconstitutional and unenforceable. So, I don't see that a burden of proof question comes up. I take the OP to mean a simple debate on the existence of God. Absent a factfinder who has to settle the question, there's a clash of ideas, but no burden of proof on either side. Even so, an atheist does not have to defend their absence of belief in God, a specific deity in three exclusive religions with three different salvation narratives, the way a theist must if they want to be taken seriously. Yes, for such theists it is uphill. But, in fairness, there have been theists willing to take their shot at it.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 2:38:10 GMT
Even so, an atheist does not have to defend their absence of belief in God, a specific deity in three exclusive religions with three different salvation narratives, the way a theist must if they want to be taken seriously. Yes, for such theists it is uphill. But, in fairness, there have been theists willing to take their shot at it. Philosophically, you can make a case for God. Theism is first a study, so it requires a rationale for the belief, like something cannot come from nothing. Anyone who has never questioned the existence of God or any other supernatural being is not really a theist, because they do not believe through reason, but via superstition.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 3:24:38 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 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. Given your statement you don't have to, you have not made a claim. If you had made a claim like "God does not exist" then you are making a claim and must be able to provide evidence. I will never tell you to shut up and prove god exists, unless you make the claim that god does not exist, ie you present it as a fact as opposed to an opinion or a belief. I would expect the same if I were ever arrogant enough to say that god does exist.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 3:30:15 GMT
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 1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.
Theism assumes a living relation of God to his creatures, but does not define it. It differs from deism in that the latter is negative and involves a denial of revelation, while the former is affirmative, and underlies Christianity. One may be a theist and not be a Christian, but he cannot be a Christian and not be a theist. [Century Dictionary] www.etymonline.com/word/theismSorry are you saying I cannot be a Christian because I refuse to say that God positively exists? That the burden is on me because I claim to be a Christian and so I therefore am claiming a god exists? (just to be clear that would be a valid point, I'm just trying to clarify cos I think you quoted me, but you seemed to highlight mcDermuth)
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 30, 2023 9:41:32 GMT
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. . "Brother, why don’t you stop with the constant silly atheist cliches?" So don't make cogent, sound arguments. Got it. "Hard atheism is the assertion ”there is no God”." Well no, "hard atheism" isn't necessarily an assertion perse, it's rather how unconvinced you are of the concept of a God. "Soft atheist" would say "Well maybe there is a God, I'm not sure, but I currently don't believe in one, while a hard atheist would say "I find it very unlikely there is a God". What you're probably thinking of is "gnostic atheist" (" I know there is no God") which while I do think is a philosophically unattainable position (unfalsifiable position), I'm pretty sure most atheists are agnostic (which isn't a knowledge claim) Hard/positive atheism is gnostic atheism. If you say your position is based on a lack of evidence, the onus then falls on you to explain what evidence you would expect. greatdebatecommunity.com/2017/11/12/atheists-and-the-burden-of-proof/It’s still a position that requires justification to be rational. Again. If I say “God exists” and you say “I don’t believe you”. You have a burden of proof as to why not believing me is rational. It’s basic epistemology. BoF falls on anyone with a position. You are aware there are different types of burden of proof, right?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 10:56:58 GMT
1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.
Theism assumes a living relation of God to his creatures, but does not define it. It differs from deism in that the latter is negative and involves a denial of revelation, while the former is affirmative, and underlies Christianity. One may be a theist and not be a Christian, but he cannot be a Christian and not be a theist. [Century Dictionary] www.etymonline.com/word/theism Sorry are you saying I cannot be a Christian because I refuse to say that God positively exists? That the burden is on me because I claim to be a Christian and so I therefore am claiming a god exists? (just to be clear that would be a valid point, I'm just trying to clarify cos I think you quoted me, but you seemed to highlight mcDermuth) If say you’re a theist then you’ve said ipso facto God exists. This is philosophical position, not a faith one, therefore if asked to, you should be able to defend your position that a material god exists. However an atheist does not have to defend anything because there is nothing in existence to defend until the theist proves there is something there. If you can prove God exist, only then I will need to prove he does not. Im not saying anything about what you can and cannot be. I don’t care if you’re a sincere believer or just going through the motions without thinking about it. Of the two positions, atheism or theism, which is the default of humanity?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 11:15:48 GMT
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. Given your statement you don't have to, you have not made a claim. If you had made a claim like "God does not exist" then you are making a claim and must be able to provide evidence. I will never tell you to shut up and prove god exists, unless you make the claim that god does not exist, ie you present it as a fact as opposed to an opinion or a belief. I would expect the same if I were ever arrogant enough to say that god does exist. If I say I’m atheist, then I’m saying there is no God, yes. But if God exists in the same way gravity does, then I’d have something to work with. Therefore God does not exist because so far after 6,000 years, no one has provided any empirical evidence that one does exist. God is a character in a narrative, not a historical person.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 19:11:09 GMT
Sorry are you saying I cannot be a Christian because I refuse to say that God positively exists? That the burden is on me because I claim to be a Christian and so I therefore am claiming a god exists? (just to be clear that would be a valid point, I'm just trying to clarify cos I think you quoted me, but you seemed to highlight mcDermuth) If say you’re a theist then you’ve said ipso facto God exists. This is philosophical position, not a faith one, therefore if asked to, you should be able to defend your position that a material god exists. However an atheist does not have to defend anything because there is nothing in existence to defend until the theist proves there is something there. Im not saying anything about what you can and cannot be. I don’t care if you’re a sincere believer or just going through the motions without thinking about it. Of the two positions, atheism or theism, which is the default of humanity? Right I guess it's weird in my position because I realise there can be no proof for a god, so I avoid making the claim that god exists. I choose to interpret the universe as if it is intentionally created and I behave as if a God exists, however I think it is arrogant foolishness to state it as if it is Surely if I prove a God exists then it's game over, it's been proven. (I think this responds to your other post as well) As an atheist I feel that you are saying you do not believe in a god, which is fine, my stance is that extraordinary claims must be backed by evidence, given the lack of evidence either for or against a god, then IF you claim as a fact that god does not exists then you need to back that up with proof, as I would need to if I make the claim that God does exist. Notice that I make the distinction between soft atheism (I do not believe in a god which is a passive claim around your personal opinion) and hard atheism (there is no god, which is a truth statement), I dont expect you to back up and opinion however if you make a truth claim I would expect that it can be backed up.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 19:24:41 GMT
If say you’re a theist then you’ve said ipso facto God exists. This is philosophical position, not a faith one, therefore if asked to, you should be able to defend your position that a material god exists. However an atheist does not have to defend anything because there is nothing in existence to defend until the theist proves there is something there. Im not saying anything about what you can and cannot be. I don’t care if you’re a sincere believer or just going through the motions without thinking about it. Of the two positions, atheism or theism, which is the default of humanity? Right I guess it's weird in my position because I realise there can be no proof for a god, so I avoid making the claim that god exists. I choose to interpret the universe as if it is intentionally created and I behave as if a God exists, however I think it is arrogant foolishness to state it as if it is Surely if I prove a God exists then it's game over, it's been proven. (I think this responds to your other post as well) As an atheist I feel that you are saying you do not believe in a god, which is fine, my stance is that extraordinary claims must be backed by evidence, given the lack of evidence either for or against a god, then IF you claim as a fact that god does not exists then you need to back that up with proof, as I would need to if I make the claim that God does exist. Notice that I make the distinction between soft atheism (I do not believe in a god which is a passive claim around your personal opinion) and hard atheism (there is no god, which is a truth statement), I dont expect you to back up and opinion however if you make a truth claim I would expect that it can be backed up. Beyond that first sentence, I can’t make sense of what you mean. Anyway, this would require your evidence of God’s existence requires that I, or someone who is skeptical, to test your evidence and yet arrive at the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 20:20:53 GMT
Right I guess it's weird in my position because I realise there can be no proof for a god, so I avoid making the claim that god exists. I choose to interpret the universe as if it is intentionally created and I behave as if a God exists, however I think it is arrogant foolishness to state it as if it is Surely if I prove a God exists then it's game over, it's been proven. (I think this responds to your other post as well) As an atheist I feel that you are saying you do not believe in a god, which is fine, my stance is that extraordinary claims must be backed by evidence, given the lack of evidence either for or against a god, then IF you claim as a fact that god does not exists then you need to back that up with proof, as I would need to if I make the claim that God does exist. Notice that I make the distinction between soft atheism (I do not believe in a god which is a passive claim around your personal opinion) and hard atheism (there is no god, which is a truth statement), I dont expect you to back up and opinion however if you make a truth claim I would expect that it can be backed up. Beyond that first sentence, I can’t make sense of what you mean. Anyway, this would require your evidence of God’s existence requires that I, or someone who is skeptical, to test your evidence and yet arrive at the same conclusion. I am saying that if you say "God does not exist" then you are making an extraordinary claim simply because there is no evidence either way, therefore you need to provide evidence to back up your claim. I am making the distinction between a truth claim and a statement of position ("I do not believe in a god" ) and saying one requires evidence and one does not.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 30, 2023 22:47:15 GMT
Beyond that first sentence, I can’t make sense of what you mean. Anyway, this would require your evidence of God’s existence requires that I, or someone who is skeptical, to test your evidence and yet arrive at the same conclusion. I am saying that if you say "God does not exist" then you are making an extraordinary claim simply because there is no evidence either way, therefore you need to provide evidence to back up your claim. I am making the distinction between a truth claim and a statement of position ("I do not believe in a god" ) and saying one requires evidence and one does not. I am only making what sounds like an extraordinary claim, but I am not. I am talking the physical universe which is ordinary, it is the supernatural world God comes from that is extraordinary. If God exists then he should have existed before the Big Bang. The Higgs Boson has been dubbed the “God” particle. There’s an ordinary place to start. Can you prove the Higgs Field is God. It’s a good candidate. So far all God is, is an literary character who only who walked the earth in a supernatural setting. All gods share this attribute, I can prove that God is simply another version of those mythical characters and his possible mythical evolution from several Mesopotamia and Egyptian myths. So, God as a mythical figure is quite ordinary because there are so many versions. I think we can agree, none of those other gods existed, therefore it is unlikely the God in Bible stories at least, does exist. So, no I do not believe in any mythical beings and neither do you, I’m betting. If I say Jesus never existed, then I do have some burden of proof since historically he has been accepted as someone who actually walked the Earth since the entire modern Western Civilization owes its existence to him. But what proof is there he is also God other than more unprovable literary narratives?
|
|