The nature of evidence

[Edwardo Piet]

That would certainly be a lot less work for you rather than demonstrate your positive claim to be true, wouldn't?  I can see why it appeals to you.

That is not what I was saying at all.  And I don't think your assumptions about my motivations is accurate or particularly useful here.

Any misinterpretations are unintentional.

[RoadRunner79]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.   If you are claiming that something is false, then you have the burden to show the reasons/evidence for that claim.  I have run into a fair number of people who didn't understand this.  Atheist do have the burden of proof, as soon as they make any claim which is not agnostic.

However, I as an atheist am not claiming that something is false. I'm asking you (or whoever) to demonstrate that it's true. I am making no claims in this area, so I have nothing to prove.

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying anything about you personally, or any particular claim (or lack thereof) of yours.   Just something, where I have seen the "burden of proof" argument misusued with others.   And they made very similar statements to the one you had made.

[LadyForCamus]

That would certainly be a lot less work for you rather than demonstrate your positive claim to be true, wouldn't?  I can see why it appeals to you.

That is not what I was saying at all.  And I don't think your assumptions about my motivations is accurate or particularly useful here.

As always, I am happy to be corrected.

[LadyForCamus]

That is not what I was saying at all.  And I don't think your assumptions about my motivations is accurate or particularly useful here.

Any misinterpretations are unintentional.

Thanks, bestest turtle. [emoji41]

[Cyberman]

@RoadRunner
Then remove me from the equation. I only used myself as an example to demonstrate my take on the position, as I'm the one I know best. I understand that this isn't personally addressed to me. On the other hand, it is the standard atheist position, so whatever else you may have seen is likely something accreted to it, rather than atheism per se.

[Edwardo Piet]

Any misinterpretations are unintentional.

Thanks, bestest turtle.  [emoji41]

I only ever see good intentions in my friends

ETA: Oh, and you're welcome.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

RoadRunner,

May I suggest you read Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, to better understand why we don't consider disbelief in a claim to be a positive assertion, in itself?

An example: if I tell you that faeries are real, as indicated in the Gaelic and Germanic mythologies, without providing you any solid evidence other than those stories, and you tell me that I'm full of crap... what proof would you offer to me that faeries are not real, as claimed?

However, that said, we do offer you evidence against your position, all the time. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) does this, by submitting claims of paranormal (including all forms of deity-magic) to scientific testing that eliminates bias and shows how and why the claims are the product of human psychology, rather than descriptions of actual phenomena. We also compare patterns of claims, between your religion and others, and see that common themes exists in the mutually-exclusive claims, which is highly suggestive of a human tendency to make shit up.

Finally, even though you don't accept the word of professional scientists on the nature of our universe, in particular where biologists have solidly determined through multiple, potentially conflicting (but in fact agreeing) methods, that we share common descent with the rest of the mammals (and other creatures) on the planet, it is strong evidence to us that there are many humans who prefer a good story over verifiable facts, if those facts ask them to question their pet mythology. The mental gymnastics to which people will stoop in order to deny these facts is honestly astounding to me.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Yeah, and in this case it's based on the fact that a large body of people claims to know things with no way of showing that they're true, or any real effort to do so. It's a lie to claim to know something that can't be shown to be true. Knowing only pertains to that which is true.

I think that's stretching the idea of a lie past the breaking point. People can just be wrong. Being stubbornly wrong is worse, but it's not lying. The first thing our brains do when presented with new information that contradicts our core beliefs is get to work on preserving that core belief system. It's human nature. I would stick to lying being saying something you know isn't true with the intent to deceive.

And for the record, someone CAN know something is true without being able to show that it is true. Think about it.

I wasn't necessarily using the strictest definition of "lie" here. Knowledge requires truth, so to say that you know something even though it can't be proven true is either a deliberate lie or a misuse of the word "knowledge."


When I say Christianity is a lie, I generally mean that it isn't true even though a large number of people try to assert it as true without sufficient evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

"telling the truth" doesn't imply actually saying something true, it just means saying something you honestly believe.

You can "tell the truth" and say something that is bullshit, and you can lie and say something that is true.

Knowledge indeed implies truth, but it doesn't imply honesty.

A true polygraph test would not only be a lie detect but a belief detector.

When evaluating the social cost of deception, one must consider all of the misdeeds — marital infidelities, Ponzi schemes, premeditated murders, terrorist atrocities, genocides, etc. — that are nurtured and shored-up, at every turn, by lies. Viewed in this wider context, deception commends itself, perhaps even above violence, as the principal enemy of human cooperation. Imagine how our world would change if, when the truth really mattered, it became impossible to lie.

The development of mind-reading technology is in its infancy, of course. But reliable lie-detection will be much easier to achieve than accurate mind reading. Whether on not we ever crack the neural code, enabling us to download a person’s private thoughts, memories, and perceptions without distortion, we will almost surely be able to determine, to a moral certainty, whether a person is representing his thoughts, memories, and perceptions honestly in conversation. Compared to many of the other hypothetical breakthroughs put forward in response to this year’s Edge question, the development of a true lie-detector would represent a very modest advance over what is currently possible through neuroimaging. Once this technology arrives, it will change (almost) everything.

Source: https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2009/01/0...detection/

Full article: https://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_print.html#harrissam

I'm sure you know all this already, Redbeard. I'm just a pedantic bastard and want to make this clear to those who don't know it.

[The Valkyrie]

No, that's your projection. Think of it in a courtroom situation - the only position held by the attorney for the defence is "the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence against my client to meet the burden of proof". Sure, if Joe Blow didn't do it someone else must have,but that's neither the purview of the defence nor the issue under discussion.

Theists have a burden of proof, since they are the ones with something to prove. Atheists, in matters pertaining to atheism, do not.

I really can't make it any simpler without using crayons.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.   If you are claiming that something is false, then you have the burden to show the reasons/evidence for that claim.  I have run into a fair number of people who didn't understand this.  Atheist do have the burden of proof, as soon as they make any claim which is not agnostic.

Reality doesn't work that way.

I stated I don't believe in deities and that I'm an atheist (you may have heard the term "agnostic atheist").  Atheism doesn't make a specific claim that deities don't exist.  It's simply a non belief.

Religionists, however, DO claim, categorically, that their deity exists.  Therefore, burden of proof is on you.