Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Amarok]

On this we must disagree

Why ? I don't see it normal for me to answer your argument with a blunt " No, this is false" justified by the burden of proof in a healty conversation.

Because i'm not saying that it's false ' I'm saying it has yet to be justified .

---

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".

If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.

I see your point , but what bothers me is that some just use this to avoid providing an argument wich in fact is contradictory. I think the burden of proof is a statement that clearly says people should back up their stance with an argument.

So could but that does not invalidate the idea. Not it says people who make positive claims should . Why on earth should anyone need to give a reason not to believe in something ?

[notimportant1234]

Why ? I don't see it normal for me to answer your argument with a blunt " No, this is false" justified by the burden of proof in a healty conversation.

Because i'm not saying that it's false ' I'm saying it has yet to be justified .

Yes but this is just one topic. Could you agree that the burden of proof doesn't exempt one to make an argument but obliges him to make it ?

[GrandizerII]

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".

If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.

I see your point , but what bothers me is that some just use this to avoid providing an argument wich in fact is contradictory. I think the burden of proof is a statement that clearly says people should back up their stance with an argument.

Personally, I'm happy to bear the burden. I've made arguments against God various times in these forums. But no atheist here is obliged to if all they're saying is they have no good reason to believe God exists, because honestly there just aren't any (so far).

[Magilla]

I don't really like how the"burden of proof thing" is used by most people. I mean some just throw it out and expect the other part to do all the talking.
No, this is not the case. If two people are talking and one says he is an atheist  and the other says he is a theist, the burden of proof should fall on the person who challenges the oposite belief.
I see this as a tool  used to make people argument their position . If I make a statement and you say it is false you have to argument it, but in order for me too disprove your argumentation I need too make an argument, I can't say " no this is certainly false".


As for the intellectual dishonesty , it depends on what you claim.

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".

If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.

Agreed, Grandizer. To be a theist a person has to learn some concepts - like what is a god? what's the reason for believing in such a thing? Next, to be a theist, the person has to acknowledge the god-concept in mind, and accept it as true. If you don't buy into the part where you accept the reasons for belief, then you are an atheist. You do not have to say that such a thing as the god does not actually exist, you only have to say that you don't accept the reasoning and arguments so far. If there has to be a burden of proof, it is the one who makes the positive claim, who has it, (the burden).

An extension of this is that if the non-believer has some burden of proof, then it would mean that we all have to accept as true, any concept that we could not show to be false. Can I show it to be false that there is not a race of green and purple striped turd-shaped beings called Plattes, living on the planet Utok, which is beyond the reach of any of our telescopes? If the burden of proof lies with me, then I must accept as true, that there is such a race of beings.

Surely, such a proposition is poppycock - I don't have to prove that Plattes do not exist, to take the position that the burden of proof has not been met by those who would tell me that they do, (if there were any Plattist believers here on earth).

If the atheist goes a step further, and says: "Nope - there are no gods, no place", and if the atheist wants to be rational and convince others of that as truth, then that class of atheist has a burden of proof.

One last thing. If the theist goes so far as to define their god-concept, and give it properties which manifest in the natural world, then it is possible to disprove the truth of the existence of that god. Such a god can be disproved, if it is internally inconsistent, conflicts with known evidence, is logically impossible etc.

[notimportant1234]

Yes guys , I do se your points but sometimes I have seen people use the burden of proof in order to avoid giving an counter argument, wich seems wrong for me.

[Amarok]

Because i'm not saying that it's false ' I'm saying it has yet to be justified .

Yes but this is just one topic. Could you agree that the burden of proof doesn't exempt one to make an argument but obliges him to make it ?

No i disagree . If a person is not making a positive claim . Then they don't have a burden . If a person is making a positive claim they do.

---

Yes guys , I do se your points but sometimes I have seen people use the burden of proof in order to avoid giving an counter argument, wich seems wrong for me.

Whether some people use it  wrongly  does not invalidate people who use it honestly

[Edwardo Piet]

LOL from the blog quoted in the OP

1.5 Persistent dishonest characterization of God as some kind of “cosmic tyrant” or “cosmic oppressor” (interestingly enough. the position of Satan).

What irony. That's clearly dishonesty on the theist's part because the Bible very much portrays God as an oppressive tyrant... and compared to God Satan is rather benign.



This blogger sure loves shooting himself in the foot with his own intellectual dishonesty.

[Amarok]

5 Persistent dishonest characterization of God as some kind of “cosmic tyrant” or “cosmic oppressor” (interestingly enough. the position of Satan).

Really has this person read the old testament . The  Khan's  has nothing on Yewah . This person should just be honest and just confess they don't like god in that role not that it's not a valid description.

[polymath257]

On this we must disagree

Why ? I don't see it normal for me to answer your argument with a blunt " No, this is false" justified by the burden of proof in a healty conversation.

I do feel it justified to reply to a claim with the question 'why do you believe that?' And to have that countered by 'you can't prove me wrong' is dishonest.

[Ravenshire]

Because i'm not saying that it's false ' I'm saying it has yet to be justified .

Yes but this is just one topic. Could you agree that the burden of proof doesn't exempt one to make an argument but obliges him to make it ?

So, if the state claims you committed a murder, do you share an equal burden to prove you're innocent? No, because you're not making the positive claim.

I see your point , but what bothers me is that some just use this to avoid providing an argument wich in fact is contradictory. I think the burden of proof is a statement that clearly says people should back up their stance with an argument.

That is exactly what it is.

Apparently neither of you actually understands the burden of proof.