On atheists having a burden of proof
this is going around in a never ending circle... I realize you don't have a claim that God doesn't exist, but you've still claimed that such a proposition is more rational than saying "God exists." so nice try, you still can't avoid burden of proof.
24 comments
Just because you can't meet your burden of proof does not mean it automatically defaults to us.
Quite simply, I don't believe you, and if you want me to believe you, meet your burden of proof to convince me.
Or:-
Why oh why must there be atheists? And, dear Lord, why oh why must they keep making me look like a right tonker? It's just not fair! I'm reduced to blubbing inanely because they won't believe my gullible fantasies. All I'm left with is the toothless repetition of idiotic assertions that makes me look even more like a dweller under a bridge than I already do.
O dear Lord, come quickly! Wah-Wah! I j-just once...blubber...I w-want...snivel...I want...whimper...to be th-the one who's right. Mommy! Sky Daddy!
A circle is by definition never ending, stupid.
It's just as (ir)rational to say "God exists" as it is to say "Ganesha exists". We atheists can just say "So what? I don't believe that.", and as you're the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof. As there is no tangible evidence for the existence of ANY gods, it's more rational to be skeptical about the existence of gods.
"Well, the prosecution hasn't made a convincing case for the defendant's guilt, so... defense counsel, either you prove your client's innocence or he's going to jail!"
As Arctic Knight put it, failure to meet the burden of proof doesn't mean it defaults to the other side- it means YOU'VE LOST.
Saying "There's no evidence for God so I don't believe in him" is far more rational than saying "God exists even though there's no evidence he does." If you can't understand that, then you might as well go through life believing in the Tooth Fairy until someone can completely prove that it doesn't exist.
Of course, when I pointed out to AKD that he was using the same fallacy he accused others of because he doesn't believe in Zeus, he used special pleading.
Okay OP, here I'll explain.
You're the one claiming that the so called "God of Abraham" is real. Similarly a Hindu would have the position that their deities are real. Atheists don't claim a god is real.
In argument, the null (where no claim is made is made) is assumed true until the claim is proven. For example, Bob might make a claim that x = y. Anne hasn't done the homework yet so she assumes that x =/= y until Bob shows his work to her.
Bob might be right, but Anne would rather see how Bob arrived at the conclusion then just copying the answer.
This is why experimentation has so much documentation, science doesn't blindly follow the conclusion section, it examines the data.
As atheism is the null position (no gods have enough evidence to believe in), and theism makes a claim(a god/some gods has enough evidence to believe in), the burden of proof will lie with the theist until they provide data.
Russell's Teapot.
It firmly - and finally - puts the Burden of Proof squarely on you fundies.
...that, and a little piece of Scripture called 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV): 'Prove all things.'
Yes, that's right (Ir)Rational: Your own Scripture forces you to destroy Scripture.
We're not the ones who say that a 'God' exists after all, therefore it's you who have to convince we Atheists otherwise, and to our satisfaction. Like I say: Russell's Teapot.
But only the burden of proof for that statement - that of the rationality of belief. Given that believers have consistently failed to meet the burden of proof, the only rational position is disbelief. Point proven. Back to you, sunshine.
"This is going around in a never ending circle."
Well, at least you know how we feel about this whole 'debate'.
you've still claimed that such a proposition [God doesn't exist] is more rational than saying "God exists."
Sure. Just like it's more rational to say "Pluto isn't a giant meatball" than to say "yes it is", and for the same reason: a complete lack of evidence. No sane person believes everything just because it can't be disproved. That's called the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.
Where's your evidence that Hinduism isn't the One True Religion? I realize that your claim isn't that Hinduism is false but you're still claiming that it's more rational to disbelieve in Hinduism than it is to believe in it. So nice try, but you still have the burden of proof and if you can't prove Hinduism false then it's true by default.
So you want proof that it's more rational to not believe in God? Okay.
1. It is irrational in believe something without evidence.
QED
What, prove there is no evidence for God? Okay. Show me the evidence. If you can, that is.
You're right, we can't possibly avoid the burden of proof because of all the fundidiots that keep ignoring it and forcing it our way.
That doesn't mean it's ours though.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
