Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Esquilax]

Now I'm not here to say the arguments and evidence in support of theism is airtight and compelling. My familiarity with them leads me to conclude that they are at the very least, not weak. However, I think to a lot of people the issue is not of evidence, it's of an unwillingness or disinterest in rationality. Rather there are some extra-rational factors going on. To test this, you need to ask the following:

"If you found evidence that, for instance, Islam was true, would you immediately bow the knee to Allah, accept Mohammed as the prophet, and submit to the Islamic rules and regulations?"

Most people would say "Hello no!" And this is DESPITE being convinced (hypothetically) that Islam (or whatever) were true.

So obviously it's more than merely being rational. There's something emotional there. And I think it's fair to admit as much given one's own answer to this question.

Well, I think the issue is that you're conflating two questions as one, because believing something exists doesn't necessarily entail that it requires worship. The question should probably run along the lines of "if you found evidence that Islam was true, would you accept that the god of Islam exists? And would you worship him as that religion prescribes?"

My answer to the first question would be yes: I would believe in the existence of any god that provides evidence sufficient to my standards. My answer to the second would require a bit of self questioning first: do the beliefs of the Islamic god earn my respect? What are the consequences of belief vs disbelief? What actions would I be required to carry out on behalf of that belief? Is this god worthy of worship?

I don't find any god really worthy of worship based around those criteria, but who knows? Perhaps my instinct for self preservation would kick in and I'd worship to avoid punishment; I don't know, I've never been in a position to find out what I'd do. But even if I never worshiped, I would no longer be an atheist at that point; I'd be a skeptical theist.

Now given your final response, it's good that you've faced up to the whole burden of proof thing. But I think it begs the question I asked Rahul: What constitutes "sufficient evidence"? Is it a subjective measure or objective? How do you know the standard and expected nature of evidence is appropriate? Is someone being rational when they expect scientific evidence for a historical event or scientific evidence for a mathematical claim? Any thoughtful atheist relishes these questions and seeks out a coherent epistemological theory on which these evidences (and lack thereof) can hang.

There's a touch of subjectivity involved in what constitutes sufficient evidence, to my mind; some people are convinced that ghosts exist because they watch that laughable ghost hunter program, and they evidently have very low standards of evidence. Whether that's a good thing or a bad one depends on who you ask, but I will say that there's an objective framework for these things too. For example, if I was standing right in front of you and you refused to believe I was there, your standards of evidence are altogether too high; if you believed I could fly simply because I told you I could, your standards would be too low. We can zero in on a band of acceptable standards from there.

That gets modulated to the claim, too: I don't need too much evidence to accept that your name is Vinny, right now, because that's a mundane claim made without too much risk attached to it. If you claimed you were an astronaut, well, astronauts exist, so I can at least accept the premise, but to fully accept it I'd need further demonstration, like information about the job that corroborates with other sources, or pictures of you being trained, stuff like that. If you then claimed to be able to survive in space sans space suit, well, then you'll probably need to demonstrate that before it becomes fully believable, because that goes against everything we know about space and human bodies.

This process is a little bit inductive, and a little bit subjective, but it's really the best we have. Everyone has their own standard as to what counts as sufficient evidence, but we also have our own standard about whether the standards of others are adequate; that's why we're here, trying to explain our positions. We're trying to flesh out the argument so that it doesn't make us seem credulous, while at the same time judging the arguments of others for the same reason. The credibility of our argumentation relies upon this process.

[Tonus]

Let's start with whatever evidence convinced you that there is a god. That's the evidence that will be examined by those you are trying to convince.

No, let's not.

I think that all of Vinny's posts come down to this.

[Airyaman]

Scientist A: "Blargoxium is the newest element, I have discovered it"
Scientist B: "I will now find evidence to deny this".

^^ When does this ever happen in reality? Rather, its

Scientist A: "Blargoxium is the newest element, I have discovered it"
Scientist B: "Interesting. What information do you have to support your claim?"

Actually, the discussion is more like this:

Scientist A: "I have discovered the newest element Blargoxium!"
Scientist B: "You have provided insufficient proof of your discovery! I do not believe Blargoxium exists!"
Scientist A: "What is sufficient proof?"
Scientist B: "No idea! Whatever proof you bring, is insufficient!"

I was talking about the methodology that is typically employed to show something is real or has been discovered. If you want to talk about god, particularly the major ones, its like this:

Scientist A: "Blargoxium is the newest element, I have discovered it"
Scientist B: "Interesting. What information do you have to support your claim?"
Scientist A: "I have this book that says it exists. More than one person wrote in this book, therefore it must be real!"
Scientist B: "OK, have fun with that, I have more serious endeavors to occupy my time."

[Rahul]

I personally wouldn't say atheists can say that they have not been provided evidence because this suggests no evidence has been provided. Rather they may say they haven't been provided sufficient evidence, which presumes evidence that may be too weak to warrant belief on it's own, but cumulatively with other evidences might make for an interesting case.

Hrm. Trying to think. Off the top of my head I can't even remember insufficient evidence. Only unsupportable statements. Can you provide me with any evidence as an example?

You're right about the conception of God, too. I like the philosophical concept of God, as discussed in Philosophy of Religion. Minimally featured. Omniscient, omnipotent, maybe omnibenevolent. Certainly non-physical. Are you familiar with philosophy?

I took a class on it in college. I'm not big on it though. I never found it that interesting. More annoying than anything. But I'll consider philosophical ideas some. But I've read philosophical ideas that apparently support the idea that movement is impossible so it's not something I put a lot of weight on.

Now how to we go about finding the definition for god?

[gall]

A few atheists here disagree about this, so I'll put my reasoning down here. But first some points:

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.
-Proofs only exist in mathematics and alcohol. In the context of theism and atheism, we go by reason and evidence.
-Nevertheless, this is a burden of proof argument, so far as "burden of proof" means "You can't just make baseless assertions".

This entire argument depends on one axiomatic assumption:
-Positive claims carry a burden of proof.

Now the standard definition of atheism is "The denial of the existence of God, or the belief in the non-existence of God". This is a negation of theism which is "The affirmation or belief in of the existence of God".

Somewhere along the line, clever atheists discovered atheism was untenable with that definition. They couldn't prove or disprove squat about God. But they wanted to keep calling themselves atheists. So they redefined the word.

New definition: "lack of belief in God". This is clever. It effectively allows the atheist (or so they think) to escape any burden of proof. The theist has a burden, the atheist doesn't, and all the atheist has to do is claim the burden has not been met. Easy intellectual cop-out.

But I don't believe any position can successfully avoid a burden of proof, and to show why, I'll use atheism as an example. While atheism is defined as "a lack of belief" and thus makes no positive claim, atheism itself does not escape positive claims. What positive claim?

There are several, and they are all implicitly entailed by atheism.
a) The claim that the burden of proof for the existence of God has not been met.
b) The claim that atheism is a more rational position than theism.
(sometimes) c) The claim that theism is irrational.

You cannot be an atheist without affirming (a) and (b), and sometimes ©.

So if you are an atheist, you must affirm (a) and (b), and since they are positive beliefs, they entail a burden of proof.

Signing off,

Vinny G.

You do realize how big a load of shit this is right? It could not hold water on its tightest days...

I had about 20 paragraphs typed up got it out of my system and realized I felt good about it. Deleted it and just wanted to say you made me laugh at how obvious old school and weak this drivel is.

Guess you forgot your high school debate class.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Now I'm not here to say the arguments and evidence in support of theism is airtight and compelling. My familiarity with them leads me to conclude that they are at the very least, not weak. However, I think to a lot of people the issue is not of evidence, it's of an unwillingness or disinterest in rationality. Rather there are some extra-rational factors going on. To test this, you need to ask the following:

"If you found evidence that, for instance, Islam was true, would you immediately bow the knee to Allah, accept Mohammed as the prophet, and submit to the Islamic rules and regulations?"

Most people would say "Hello no!" And this is DESPITE being convinced (hypothetically) that Islam (or whatever) were true.

So obviously it's more than merely being rational. There's something emotional there. And I think it's fair to admit as much given one's own answer to this question.

Well, I think the issue is that you're conflating two questions as one, because believing something exists doesn't necessarily entail that it requires worship. The question should probably run along the lines of "if you found evidence that Islam was true, would you accept that the god of Islam exists? And would you worship him as that religion prescribes?"

My answer to the first question would be yes: I would believe in the existence of any god that provides evidence sufficient to my standards. My answer to the second would require a bit of self questioning first: do the beliefs of the Islamic god earn my respect? What are the consequences of belief vs disbelief? What actions would I be required to carry out on behalf of that belief? Is this god worthy of worship?

I don't find any god really worthy of worship based around those criteria, but who knows? Perhaps my instinct for self preservation would kick in and I'd worship to avoid punishment; I don't know, I've never been in a position to find out what I'd do. But even if I never worshiped, I would no longer be an atheist at that point; I'd be a skeptical theist.

Now given your final response, it's good that you've faced up to the whole burden of proof thing. But I think it begs the question I asked Rahul: What constitutes "sufficient evidence"? Is it a subjective measure or objective? How do you know the standard and expected nature of evidence is appropriate? Is someone being rational when they expect scientific evidence for a historical event or scientific evidence for a mathematical claim? Any thoughtful atheist relishes these questions and seeks out a coherent epistemological theory on which these evidences (and lack thereof) can hang.

There's a touch of subjectivity involved in what constitutes sufficient evidence, to my mind; some people are convinced that ghosts exist because they watch that laughable ghost hunter program, and they evidently have very low standards of evidence. Whether that's a good thing or a bad one depends on who you ask, but I will say that there's an objective framework for these things too. For example, if I was standing right in front of you and you refused to believe I was there, your standards of evidence are altogether too high; if you believed I could fly simply because I told you I could, your standards would be too low. We can zero in on a band of acceptable standards from there.

That gets modulated to the claim, too: I don't need too much evidence to accept that your name is Vinny, right now, because that's a mundane claim made without too much risk attached to it. If you claimed you were an astronaut, well, astronauts exist, so I can at least accept the premise, but to fully accept it I'd need further demonstration, like information about the job that corroborates with other sources, or pictures of you being trained, stuff like that. If you then claimed to be able to survive in space sans space suit, well, then you'll probably need to demonstrate that before it becomes fully believable, because that goes against everything we know about space and human bodies.

This process is a little bit inductive, and a little bit subjective, but it's really the best we have. Everyone has their own standard as to what counts as sufficient evidence, but we also have our own standard about whether the standards of others are adequate; that's why we're here, trying to explain our positions. We're trying to flesh out the argument so that it doesn't make us seem credulous, while at the same time judging the arguments of others for the same reason. The credibility of our argumentation relies upon this process.

What constitutes the criteria of "worthy of worship" in your opinion? That's been one of the fuzziest concepts for me. And I for one am glad there's at least one atheist here who is capable of tackling the issue with some degree of seriousness. Who knows? An atheist who ponders this question might very well discover that there is a God concept out there, which if obtains in our world is indeed worthy of worship, and would likewise take seriously the question to consider whether said religion is true. I think every atheist should tackle this question, at least for their own intellectual curiosity. The answers to this question would be very interesting.

On the question of subjective standards of evidence, a friend sent me this last night. I think you will enjoy the conversation, right up to the very end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGsisoMRs...e=youtu.be

But I'm glad you think that there are good or bad standards of evidence. They can be too low or too high. Re-evaluating one's standard of evidence might very well risk the atheist discovering that the burden of proof for some religion, or even for the existence of a deistic notion of a minimally-interventionist deity has been met!

How do you feel about my conclusion that these issues, namely "What constitutes worthiness of worship?" and "Is the standard of sufficient evidence appropriate?" serve as issues that a rational atheist cannot ignore?

Oh, and FTR, since I assume it will come up, I disagree with the beard with the man (WL Craig).

---

I personally wouldn't say atheists can say that they have not been provided evidence because this suggests no evidence has been provided. Rather they may say they haven't been provided sufficient evidence, which presumes evidence that may be too weak to warrant belief on it's own, but cumulatively with other evidences might make for an interesting case.

Hrm. Trying to think. Off the top of my head I can't even remember insufficient evidence. Only unsupportable statements. Can you provide me with any evidence as an example?

You're right about the conception of God, too. I like the philosophical concept of God, as discussed in Philosophy of Religion. Minimally featured. Omniscient, omnipotent, maybe omnibenevolent. Certainly non-physical. Are you familiar with philosophy?

I took a class on it in college. I'm not big on it though. I never found it that interesting. More annoying than anything. But I'll consider philosophical ideas some. But I've read philosophical ideas that apparently support the idea that movement is impossible so it's not something I put a lot of weight on.

Now how to we go about finding the definition for god?

I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it. But the idea you might be referring to is Zeno's paradox. And I won't lie, it mystifies me too.

But you asked me about the conception of God because, IIRC we were discussing a minimally sufficient criteria of evidence in order to justify belief in said deity.

[downbeatplumb]

Scientist A: "Blargoxium is the newest element, I have discovered it"
Scientist B: "I will now find evidence to deny this".

^^ When does this ever happen in reality? Rather, its

Scientist A: "Blargoxium is the newest element, I have discovered it"
Scientist B: "Interesting. What information do you have to support your claim?"

Actually, the discussion is more like this:

Scientist A: "I have discovered the newest element Blargoxium!"
Scientist B: "You have provided insufficient proof of your discovery! I do not believe Blargoxium exists!"
Scientist A: "What is sufficient proof?"
Scientist B: "No idea! Whatever proof you bring, is insufficient!"

In order for this to be true someone at some time would have had to bring some evidence for "god" and no one in the history of the world ever has.

All you have are stories in books made up eons ago.

But there is a nugget of truth here.
What would be evidence for god?
First you must give us a proper definition of what god actually is.
All I've seen are anthropomorphism of abstract concepts.
God is love, god is mercy, god is that feeling of relief you get after needing a wee for a long time then finally getting to go. Oh and he hates gays and made the universe by "magic".

[Mister Agenda]

A few atheists here disagree about this, so I'll put my reasoning down here

Vinny! Welcome back!

But first some points:

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.

In the academic literature, everyone knows where the burden of proof lies.

-Proofs only exist in mathematics and alcohol. In the context of theism and atheism, we go by reason and evidence.

If you'd rather call it the 'burden of reason and evidence', that's fine with me.

-Nevertheless, this is a burden of proof argument, so far as "burden of proof" means "You can't just make baseless assertions".

Well, you can, but it's not reasonable to expect people to believe you if the assertion is far-fetched and there's no ready explanation for how you would know if it's true.

This entire argument depends on one axiomatic assumption:
-Positive claims carry a burden of proof.

Or you could put it as: when you claim something exists, you should be able to provide evidence and reason to believe it actually does if you want other people to believe you.

Now the standard definition of atheism is "The denial of the existence of God, or the belief in the non-existence of God".

This is why everyone thinks you're intellectually dishonest. There are a variety of definitions of atheist, there's no 'official' standard defintion, and the one that pretty much all atheists agree is accurate is 'lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods', which you don't use because it doesn't suit your agenda.

This is a negation of theism which is "The affirmation or belief in of the existence of God".

Atheism isn't the negation of theism. It's not being a theist. It's not affirming or believing in the existence of God.

Somewhere along the line, clever atheists discovered atheism was untenable with that definition.

Paul Holbach observed in the late 1700s that 'All children are atheists, they have no idea of God'. In 1876, Charles Bradlaugh opined that 'Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God.' In 1902, G.W. Foote wrote 'Refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God....Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an ATheist is one without God. That is all the 'A' before 'Theist' really means.'

They couldn't prove or disprove squat about God. But they wanted to keep calling themselves atheists. So they redefined the word.

Recognition of nominal versus explicit atheism and negative versus positive atheism is nothing new. The atheists who are modest in their claims about God tend to be modest in their other claims as well. Note that the same person can be and often is a positive/gnostic atheist toward some God-concepts and a negative/agnostic atheist toward others. If you propose a concept of God that is self-contradictory or whose supposed deeds are contrary to the available evidence, I will by happy to state categorically that it doesn't really exist. My reticence is definitely only toward the more modest versions of God that avoid theodical problems and don't have a history that can be verifed.

New definition: "lack of belief in God".

You have a funny definition of 'new'. See above.

This is clever. It effectively allows the atheist (or so they think) to escape any burden of proof.

The diabolically clever atheist, not claiming to know what can't be known! The theists will never hit upon the intricate counter of not pretending that they know either! Bwahahaha!

The theist has a burden, the atheist doesn't, and all the atheist has to do is claim the burden has not been met. Easy intellectual cop-out.

The theist only has a burden if they assert God exists. That invites the counter: How do you know that? Since it is unknowable, the claim is a non-starter. If they made a more modest claim, like God could exist, they'd be saying something that invites further discussion. We don't expect them to be certain, we don't consider certainty any kind of virtue unless it's strongly supported.

But I don't believe any position can successfully avoid a burden of proof, and to show why, I'll use atheism as an example. While atheism is defined as "a lack of belief" and thus makes no positive claim, atheism itself does not escape positive claims. What positive claim?

This should be good.

There are several, and they are all implicitly entailed by atheism.
a) The claim that the burden of proof for the existence of God has not been met.

Not entailed by atheism. Entailed by generally accepted principles of critical thought and logic. It would be nice if those things were synonymous with atheism, but they're not. Many atheists are only passingly acquainted with critical thinking and may believe in things like astrology, ghosts, and reincarnation. The only thing implicit to atheism is not believing in any gods.

b) The claim that atheism is a more rational position than theism.
(sometimes)

If it's only sometimes, it's not implicit to atheism, now is it? What some atheists say isn't atheism.

c) The claim that theism is irrational.

What some atheists say isn't atheism.

You cannot be an atheist without affirming (a) and (b), and sometimes ©.

You don't have to affirm anything to be an atheist. Many atheists never even tell anyone they're an atheist.

So if you are an atheist, you must affirm (a) and (b), and since they are positive beliefs, they entail a burden of proof.

Except, we don't have to affirm them. Now if someone DOES affirm them, THEN they have assumed a burden of proof. It's quite reasonable to call someone to support those claims. It's just not reasonable to call out someone who hasn't just because they're an atheist.

Signing off,

Vinny G.

[Walking Void]

But Vinny, theists have the burden of proof, and never carried it.

Instead, they roll the boulder, flattening each other.

Atheists look at the boulder, say "fuck that", and go get a crane to legitimately see if they can pick up the boulder.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

A few atheists here disagree about this, so I'll put my reasoning down here

Vinny!

That's what they call me, yes.

Welcome

Thanks!

back!

Oh, are we calling out random body parts now? Shoulder!

But first some points:

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.

In

In what?

the

Just the?

ac

?

ad

??

emic

???

This makes no sense whatsoever!

Could it be that going into ever-smaller fisking units we risk losing sight of the context and broader point being made in return for meaningless sentence by sentence sparring?

Let's keep this a conversation, not a fisking orgy.

You're defending the notion of "burden of proof" in academia here. It would be good, since you do, to be able to shoulder said burden of proof. Provide some evidence of this burden of proof's consideration in various academic fields, show us how they work, and whether it is appropriately applied in context of discussions of atheism.

You've made further positive claims as well. Once you shoulder this burden, you can move on to your other positive claims. Together, you and me, we'll make sure you shoulder every burden of proof attached to every positive claim you've made in your post, even if it takes all night.

Or, you know, you can stop and reconsider the strength of your reliance on the "burden of proof".

But as far as definitions, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Useful ones and non-useful ones. Like I said earlier, defining atheism as a "lack of belief" stops making it an intellectually viable position. Having the property "lack of belief" would be akin to having "lack of bowel control".

It's simply a description of your mental/physical state and says nothing about whether your position is rational. Paul Holbach should have thought of that with his definition. If he called children atheists, he would also have to call rocks and trees atheists.

That would really pad the numbers on the census.

But what's interesting is that despite your fisking attempt, you're not really disagreeing with my argument.

All you've managed to say in response to (a) is "Well, some atheists are herp derp."

Okay, fair enough. There are two types of atheists. (a1) Idiots and (a2) regular atheists.

Idiot atheists thus bear no burden of proof, you seem to argue. They seem to bear no burden of anything.

Regular atheists, on the other hand are both atheists AND "accept the principles of critical thought and logic". But this groups would still bear the burden of proof.

After all, their logic and critical thinking entails a positive claim, and thus a "burden of proof".

So, despite your protestations, I think you agree with me. Our only difference is that I think all atheists bear the burden of proof of (a), while you think only smart atheists do. The idiots, you think can just prance about in the meadows picking daisies.

You also misattribute my (sometimes)- see what fisking does? That sometimes was attached to ©, not (b). I assume then that you agree with (b).

So I don't see what the problem is here. You're hating on Vinny, but you're not disagreeing with me!

I think that's an encouraging report for your reasoning skills, honestly.

You do claim, however that atheists can simply "avoid affirming it" as if affirming entails "declaring it out loud". But it doesn't.

All you have to do is believe something to affirm it. And if you believe atheism is rational, if you believe theism has a burden of proof, if you believe the burden of proof isn't met, then your beliefs entail a burden of proof.

Fisk me back, tell me where I went wrong!

---

But Vinny, theists have the burden of proof, and never carried it.

Instead, they roll the boulder, flattening each other.

Atheists look at the boulder, say "fuck that", and go get a crane to legitimately see if they can pick up the boulder.

There's plenty of theists (trying) to carry the burden of proof, with varying degrees of success, and at the highest level of philosophical discourse.

To simply claim there are none is, I find
-grossly ignorant
-grossly deceptive
-or grossly misunderstood about what the burden of proof entails.

I mean, just because you claim "Theistic argument A is rubbish" doesn't mean it actually is, any more than claiming "Evolution never happened" means evolution never really happened.

I mean, Alvin P, probably one of the greatest Philosophers of Religion alive (and a mentor to my favorite young atheist philosopher Bradley Monton) discussed two dozen, count it again, two dozen theistic arguments in one lecture.

Predictably, you would claim "But they're all crap arguments", much like someone would say "Dude your evidence for a round earth is all crap. Flat-eartherism 4 LYFE!"

But deep down, I hope you won't. I hope you will take the time to refute them one by one. Or, at least recognize that they are worth addressing instead of dismissing out of ignorance.

That's something theists do. Not us.