Illustrating the burden of proof - pay me!

[Belacqua]

Do you think this dialogue would be an interesting way to illustrate the burden of proof?

To me it seems like an example of both sides avoiding real discussion.

"Burden of proof" is a legal term and is seldom useful in talking about metaphysics. Thinking adults who want an honest discussion should have reasons for their positions, and be willing to state these reasons. This applies to religious people and atheists alike.

For example, if your friendly neighborhood Christian asserts "God loves you!" You might respond "Ha! prove it! That's on you! Can't do it, can you!?" I suppose this might feel good if your goal is to "win" somehow.

But it makes a better, more productive discussion if you explain to him the reasons why you find his claim unpersuasive. As a thinking adult, you will surely have reasons.

This is assuming you want to have a good-faith discussion, which I realize often isn't the case on the Internet.

[ignoramus]

As thinking adults, shouldn't people realize that there is no empirical proof to support any God claim(s) either way.
You can't have a logical discussion about a topic which revolves around "faith" and expect productive results. One can only have a philosophical discussion about the merits or otherwise of holding such positions .

If "thinking adults" can't get past first base, then there's no discussion to be had.

[Mister Agenda]

I think 'I don't believe you've met your burden of proof' is a perfectly cromulent reason for me not believing some claim is justified. Not in the philosophical sense, but in the general sense of what sorts of things I should believe. If you convince me that you have met your burden of proof, I'll believe the claim. Conversely, if you convince me that something I do believe isn't rationally justifed (or in the case of something necessarrily not completely rational, like politics, not consistent with my own values), I'll stop believing it. Like I stopped believing in big L Libertarianism. When it comes down to what I do or don't believe, there's an unavoidable personal element. Is my skepticism set at the ideal level to 'let the most true stuff in and keep the most rubbish stuff out'? I'm not sure, I'm just making my best guess in each situation.

[Angrboda]

How do you meet in the middle when deciding who has the burden of proof for the claim that both share the burden of proof?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I wish people took the Principle of Sufficient reason as seriously as they did the burden of proof. They seem like two sides of the same coin to me.

[brewer]

I wish people took the Principle of Sufficient reason as seriously as they did the burden of proof. They seem like two sides of the same coin to me.

Isn't what an individual considers sufficient reason subjective? I don't need to accept/believe if it does not meet my criteria, especially when it comes to religions/gods.

And yet the religion/god people expect me to accept their reason without doubts,............argument,....... alternative sufficient reasons.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I wish people took the Principle of Sufficient reason as seriously as they did the burden of proof. They seem like two sides of the same coin to me.

Principle of Isn't Sufficient and is used by people who just want to dodge having any actual evidence of the beliefs

---

To me it seems like an example of both sides avoiding real discussion.

Nah its an example of one side spewing bullshit and the other side not falling for it. There is no further discussion.

Burden of proof" is a legal term and is seldom useful in talking about metaphysics. Thinking adults who want an honest discussion should have reasons for their positions, and be willing to state these reasons. This applies to religious people and atheists alike.

Nope, it's a commonsense principle that is useful for anything and there are dishonest or non-adult about demanding people who spew unsupported bullocks back it up or shut up. Nor is the person who is calling out the BS under any obligation to take a position other than the BS spewers inability to support his.

For example, if your friendly neighborhood Christian asserts "God loves you!" You might respond "Ha! prove it! That's on you! Can't do it, can you!?" I suppose this might feel good if your goal is to "win" somehow.

No, it's an example of one person spewing rubbish and the other person being totally reasonable. Sorry if the Christain doesn't like that.

But it makes a better, more productive discussion if you explain to him the reasons why you find his claim unpersuasive. As a thinking adult, you will surely have reasons.

Nope, you are under no obligation to take a position it the theist backs up his claim then he best not go around making claims. There is nothing un-adult about that. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

This is assuming you want to have a good-faith discussion, which I realize often isn't the case on the Internet.

Good faith doesn't require you to take a position either can defend his beliefs with evidence or he can't.

[Belacqua]

I think 'I don't believe you've met your burden of proof' is a perfectly cromulent reason for me not believing some claim is justified. Not in the philosophical sense, but in the general sense of what sorts of things I should believe. If you convince me that you have met your burden of proof, I'll believe the claim. Conversely, if you convince me that something I do believe isn't rationally justifed (or in the case of something necessarrily not completely rational, like politics, not consistent with my own values), I'll stop believing it. Like I stopped believing in big L Libertarianism. When it comes down to what I do or don't believe, there's an unavoidable personal element. Is my skepticism set at the ideal level to 'let the most true stuff in and keep the most rubbish stuff out'? I'm not sure, I'm just making my best guess in each situation.

Here I think you're using haven't "met the burden of proof" to mean that a person's arguments aren't sufficient to persuade you. 

That seems perfectly sensible to me. After we've listened carefully to the other side, we all judge whether they've sufficiently made their case. Then we can decide whether it's worthwhile continuing the conversation.

Some people, though, use a Burden of Proof Rule (perhaps handed down by Moses) to say that the side making the claim has to do all the work, and the side rejecting the claim doesn't have to give any reasons for their rejection. 

Again, I hold that thinking adults on both sides in a good faith conversation both have a case to make. Though I understand that the "thinking adults" thing may be a little too optimistic.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Here I think you're using haven't "met the burden of proof" to mean that a person's arguments aren't sufficient to persuade you

Or arent evidence period 

That seems perfectly sensible to me. After we've listened carefully to the other side, we all judge whether they've sufficiently made their case. Then we can decide whether it's worthwhile continuing the conversation.

Correct 

Some people, though, use a Burden of Proof Rule (perhaps handed down by Moses) to say that the side making the claim has to do all the work, and the side rejecting the claim doesn't have to give any reasons for their rejection. 

They do have to do all the work. They came to me with their rubbish, not the other way around and nor does the skeptic need to give a reason it's enough that the claimer has not proven their belief 

Again, I hold that thinking adults on both sides in a good faith conversation both have a case to make. Though I understand that the "thinking adults" thing may be a little too optimistic.

There is nothing bad faith about the above nor is it immature. You simply don't like it 

[Neo-Scholastic]

Belecqua explains bad faith. Helios gives example of it..himself.