Posts: 1302
Threads: 13
Joined: October 11, 2012
Reputation:
19
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
September 30, 2013 at 1:30 pm
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2013 at 1:39 pm by Gilgamesh.)
(September 27, 2013 at 9:38 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Okay, so you affirm my statement of (b), that an atheist must also affirm that "atheism is more rational than theism", or at minimum, "atheism is rational." "b) the claim that atheism is a more rational position than theism" is not a claim that I put forward and indeed wouldn't be entirely correct in and of itself. However, atheism is a more rational position than theism in the event that the atheist is given a claim by a theist, but the claim goes unsupported. The atheists lack of belief, in that event, is rational.
Quote:You're saying atheism is rational and theism is irrational because no evidence has been presented for theism?
The position of atheism, yes; the lack of belief in the theists god claim.
Quote:How does that reasoning work, for, say quantum mechanics? "Prior to sixth grade, I saw no evidence for quantum mechanics. So quantum mechanics became rational in the sixth grade".
The concept didn't become rational in the sixth grade, but it only became rational for that person, in particular, to believe the concept in the sixth grade. Belief in quantum mechanics becomes rational for one when one sees support for the claims within quantum mechanics.
Good day.
Posts: 13900
Threads: 262
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
September 30, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Vinny
Atheism does not have to be a rational position.
All it demands is that someone is not a theist.
You appear to be attempting to paint us as some sort of elitists. In Britain we are pretty much the default position.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 790
Threads: 32
Joined: July 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
September 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm
(September 30, 2013 at 1:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Vinny
Atheism does not have to be a rational position.
All it demands is that someone is not a theist.
You appear to be attempting to paint us as some sort of elitists. In Britain we are pretty much the default position.
This is an interesting response. You're obviously very inclusive of the irrational. How do you differentiate between a rational atheist and an irrational one? Should there even be a differentiation, or are they all irrational as far as you are concerned?
Posts: 10455
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
September 30, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Rational is as rational does. Atheism and theism are conditions, the conditions of not believing or believing in a God or gods; not claims. Trivially, if one says they are a theist, they are making the claim that they believe gods or a God exist; but it is not itself a claim about the existence of God, just a report of an internal state.
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
September 30, 2013 at 2:28 pm
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2013 at 2:28 pm by Lemonvariable72.)
(September 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: (September 30, 2013 at 1:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Vinny
Atheism does not have to be a rational position.
All it demands is that someone is not a theist.
You appear to be attempting to paint us as some sort of elitists. In Britain we are pretty much the default position.
This is an interesting response. You're obviously very inclusive of the irrational. How do you differentiate between a rational atheist and an irrational one? Should there even be a differentiation, or are they all irrational as far as you are concerned? Who ever said all atheists are rational? Were humans being and humans are irrational creatures. So atheism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof, but doesn't mean the atheist is necessarily rational or irrational.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 790
Threads: 32
Joined: July 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm
(September 30, 2013 at 2:28 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: (September 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: This is an interesting response. You're obviously very inclusive of the irrational. How do you differentiate between a rational atheist and an irrational one? Should there even be a differentiation, or are they all irrational as far as you are concerned? Who ever said all atheists are rational? Were humans being and humans are irrational creatures. So atheism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof, but doesn't mean the atheist is necessarily rational or irrational.
If you believe in burden of proof, you need to meet your own burden of proof for your claims before applying it to others.
The two claims that need to meet the burden the most are:
-Theists haven't met their burden of proof.
-A theism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof.
I'll save you the time and point out that I don't think you can meet the burden of proof for these claims.
Posts: 19568
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
September 30, 2013 at 6:05 pm
(September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The two claims that need to meet the burden the most are:
-Theists haven't met their burden of proof. Had they met their burden, we wouldn't be here.
(September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: -A theism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof.
How about this? Any position that has nothing to support it is less rational than the opposite position.
(September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'll save you the time and point out that I don't think you can meet the burden of proof for these claims.
ooops
Posts: 790
Threads: 32
Joined: July 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
October 1, 2013 at 4:44 pm
(September 30, 2013 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: (September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The two claims that need to meet the burden the most are:
-Theists haven't met their burden of proof. Had they met their burden, we wouldn't be here.
That doesn't seem true. It assumes without evidence that meeting the burden of proof instantly converts atheists to theists.
Instead, it could very well be that the burden of proof expected of them is inappropriate. Or abnormally high.
Or atheists could just move the goalposts further, arbitrarily increasing the burden.
Oops...
Quote: (September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: -A theism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof.
How about this? Any position that has nothing to support it is less rational than the opposite position.
You still haven't proven that theism has nothing to support it. That's a pretty bold claim. I imagine the burden of proving it will be pretty high.
Quote: (September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'll save you the time and point out that I don't think you can meet the burden of proof for these claims.
ooops
Oops indeed. 
When you stop and think about it, your allegations are unsupported. Heck, the whole burden of proof game is unsupported. The most sensible position is assess each position on it's own merits.
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
October 1, 2013 at 4:52 pm
(September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The two claims that need to meet the burden the most are:
-Theists haven't met their burden of proof.
If theists had met their burden of proof, I would believe in their god. Since I don't believe in it, they failed to meet their burden of proof. All I ask is that I be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I still have lots of doubts.
Quote:-A theism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof.
So what would be rational, to believe in everything that anyone ever imagined until you can disprove it, or wait until someone meets their burden of proof before believing a claim? I take it you still believe in Santa Claus because nobody's ever proven without any shadow of doubt that he doesn't and never has existed?
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Posts: 790
Threads: 32
Joined: July 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Why atheism always has a burden of proof
October 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm
(October 1, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: (September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The two claims that need to meet the burden the most are:
-Theists haven't met their burden of proof.
If theists had met their burden of proof, I would believe in their god. Since I don't believe in it, they failed to meet their burden of proof. All I ask is that I be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I still have lots of doubts.
Quote:-A theism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof.
So what would be rational, to believe in everything that anyone ever imagined until you can disprove it, or wait until someone meets their burden of proof before believing a claim? I take it you still believe in Santa Claus because nobody's ever proven without any shadow of doubt that he doesn't and never has existed?
We're treading old ground here.
But if you are being serious, I'd question your measure of what the proper burden of proof amounts to. Is it coherent? How do you know? What does a coherent, appropriate "burden of proof" entail for a particular claim?
All this burden of proof talk comes with some serious burden of proof lol
|
