Here is the most important reason anyone (well most) is a atheist. Our default stance is to disbelief in something until it meet the burden of proof

Burden of proof Wrote:Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

.

Now religion has a heavy burden because of the extraordinary claims made, and the reason we disbelief is because no evidence that is properly verifiable has been offered to to date.
It's not because we are immoral or want to sin or hate god, but many think that so I'd thought I'd clear this up

Now to make one final point, in order to meet the burden of proof (regarding your chosen belief system as a whole) as a theist you must do three things.
1. Proof there is a god.
2. Prove that it is your god and all other gods are fake.
3. Demonstrate that your god is worthy of worship in the prescribed manner.

But according to Vinny G. and Rational AKD, we either have a burden of proof or it's illogical and fallacious to not believe in God if his existence hasn't been disproven. Now why that doesn't apply to all the other gods they don't believe in, I have no idea...

What? You're not an atheist because you enjoy eating babies?

(October 8, 2013 at 11:08 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: What? You're not an atheist because you enjoy eating babies?

The barbecue baby brought me here, but the other sinning keeps me here.

The baby was indeed delicious (Christian babies really have a wonderful flavor), but there are no reasons why I am an atheist. My atheism is a lack, not a gain. I just never saw anything interesting, believable, or useful in religion. I never chose this state. It's like asking me the most important reason why my eyes are brown. It's the way they are. I don't have a choice. If you held a gun to my head and tried to make me believe, I would try my best, but I'd fail. And unlike most of you, I don't even know what it feels like to believe.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:09 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Here is the most important reason anyone (well most) is a atheist. Our default stance is to disbelief in something until it meet the burden of proof

Burden of proof Wrote:Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

.

Now religion has a heavy burden because of the extraordinary claims made, and the reason we disbelief is because no evidence that is properly verifiable has been offered to to date.
It's not because we are immoral or want to sin or hate god, but many think that so I'd thought I'd clear this up

Now to make one final point, in order to meet the burden of proof (regarding your chosen belief system as a whole) as a theist you must do three things.
1. Proof there is a god.
2. Prove that it is your god and all other gods are fake.
3. Demonstrate that your god is worthy of worship in the prescribed manner.

It looks like you got this definition from the Philosophical Burden of Proof from Wikipedia and I do have one concern about it, or perhaps what I desire is a clarification.

You say that religion has the burden of proof due to the nature of its claims, which I 100% agree with, not because of the nature of its claims, but because its the side making any sort of claim at all. What concerns me about the definition of the burden of proof is the phrase I've underlined:

Quote:Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

By this definition, the (predominately Christian/theist) community could fulfill the burden of proof by determining that it is met by faith alone and, due to the above statement in the definition of the burden of proof, they would then be meeting it, correct? After all, the community would be developing this evidential standard, so if the community concludes that faith alone meets the evidential standard than they've completed their task, no?

I'm not saying that this approach is honest, and it is certainly not evidence of anything, but the wikipedia definition you provided seems to allow for this sneaky kind of loophole.

I'm not very well read with regards to philosophy so I could be completely missing the mark here. Could you expound on how this is not the case?

(October 8, 2013 at 11:58 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

Quote:Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

By this definition, the (predominately Christian/theist) community could fulfill the burden of proof by determining that it is met by faith alone and, due to the above statement in the definition of the burden of proof, they would then be meeting it, correct? After all, the community would be developing this evidential standard, so if the community concludes that faith alone meets the evidential standard than they've completed their task, no?

They tried this once. It was called the Dark Ages. That's why we don't let churches run science any more.

That's perfectly fine but only works when you're assuming materialism to begin with, there isn't a good reason why you have to assume that to begin with though it's just you're own opinion really.

Do you assume your computer will turn on and work if all the components are cared for and in working order? If so, then you are assuming naturalism, and there's nothing dishonest about that.

I can't say much about materialism though. Care to expound upon the idea that we are making claims to this philosophy somehow?