The nature of evidence

[robvalue]

I made a video about this previously, discussing this common misunderstanding.

http://youtu.be/d34BmGnrUEI

[Angrboda]

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.

The burden of proof is on the person making an existential claim. Other types of claims depend on what is being claimed, and where the dispute lies. Burden of proof is mainly a concept that is employed when someone wants to persuade or convince others of the truth of a claim. If the atheist is trying to convince you of something, regardless of burden of proof, it behooves them to support their assertion. Failure to do so simply means the attempt to convince the other may not be successful. However, as a theist, it's known that you believe in the existence of a god. Your failure to provide support for your belief when challenged is mere cowardice. Bark about burden of proof all you want, it will simply mark you as a prevaricator.

[bennyboy]

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.

Atheists don't need to prove that God is not real. They have only to demonstrate that there are good reasons not to be theist. You have an idea, they point out the many ways in which your arguments are insufficient to sway opinion or to demonstrate the truth of your idea. In doing this, they have proven their position already, since the weakness of your argument is really the only claim they were ever making.

X-tian: There's a God, and He is real
Atheist: Show this is true
X-tian: *talk about infinite regress, or special feelings, or the definition of "evidence"*
Atheist: Okay, none of that demonstrates your idea to be true
X-tian: Prove it's not true.

This is an epic debating fail. The Atheist is not making a positive claim, but rather indicating the failure of your argument to persuade. That kind of claim is self-validating: if you had made a persuasive argument, the person would have been persuaded. You don't NEED evidence of lake of persuasion, other than the obvious fact that the listener to your ideas wasn't persuaded.

[ignoramus]

I don't blame them. Since the bibles proof is right there in the bible, then circular reasoning is good enough for them...

Once you've drank the koolaid, the rest of the time it just tastes like water....

[robvalue]

Yeah, I'm not walking around trying to convince people they should be atheists. So I have nothing to prove. I am happy, however, to explain why I want nothing to do with religions, regardless of their truth. The existence of supernatural things plays no part in my decision. Some people seem hooked on the idea that if they can convince me something big and impressive is real, I'll throw myself down in front of it and surrender myself. It seems like a primitive desire some people have to suck up to the most powerful thing available.

It's more important to me to encourage rational thought and kindness. I feel that with those two ingredients, everything else will follow.

I want people to stop and think, that's all. If they do so but then don't change their mind, absolutely fine. But if they don't think at all, and fire off knee-jerk responses, then that makes me sad.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm an evangelical atheist, that's why I never try to deconvert anyone -- it's the most effective way to deconvert people.

[Mister Agenda]

Since this fucking cunt has ignored me repeatedly and been rude to everyone else I give up trying to be nice to him.

Wryetui, I am going to ignore your posts from now on you worthless cunt.

I have started trying again. I'm too nice. Still gonna try and talk to him.

Even though I'm 99% sure he's a poe lol.

I think he said he's 18. I wouldn't want my 18-year-old self to be on record here. I thought I was the shit then, and I can't think of a single opinion I haven't changed since.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Stealing from an old cartoon:

Theist: I has a ball!
Atheist: Really? Can I see it?
Theist: YOU CAN'T PROVE I DON'T HAVE A BALL!!!

Adding:
Atheist: Wow, now I'm more skeptical that you have a ball than I was in the first place.
Theist: You're saying I don't have a ball, you're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Atheist: WTF?

[RoadRunner79]

Stealing from an old cartoon:

Theist: I has a ball!
Atheist: Really? Can I see it?
Theist: YOU CAN'T PROVE I DON'T HAVE A BALL!!!

Adding:
Atheist: Wow, now I'm more skeptical that you have a ball than I was in the first place.
Theist: You're saying I don't have a ball, you're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Atheist: WTF?

I'm not talking about doubt... I have run into a few pseudo skeptics....

[Mister Agenda]

Those are in the minority here, and you maybe should assume you're talking to a real skeptic unless they state otherwise.