Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Mr.wizard]

Why are they all so fucking illogical and idiotic? Moreover, why are so many people dumb enough to be "persuaded" by them?

Arguments for the existence of god(s) are generally what they are, because they don't need to be any better. People worshiping imaginary parent figures, that grant eternal life, don't do it because they were "persuaded" by logic. They do it because they crave promised rewards and fear punishment. And because of instincts that govern human social interactions and relations - especially infant-parent - going into "overdrive".

Any faint attempts at post-rationalizations are only meant to keep up appearances of intellectualism and academic diligence among believers, rather than to convince actual rationalists. It's difficult - and also completely unnecessary - to reach intellectual highs, when pandering to the semi-illiterate. And that's what most religions would like their followers to be/remain.

Great post, I think this is spot on.

[robvalue]

If you say you believe something, and you want to be taken seriously, then you should be able to give evidence and/or reasons why. If you don't believe something, then again you can explain why you don't, which is normally simply that there is not enough evidence. If you don't care whether your beliefs make sense, then there's nothing to even discuss.

A claim of knowledge rather than belief is obviously stronger and will always require a burden of proof.

You could be considered irrational for not believing something given conclusive evidence (such as evolution) just as much as believing something with no evidence (religion).

[Mr.wizard]

I have a question about atheists and the burden of proof:
If the theist claims - "God exists" - Obviously it's evidence or GTFO
But what if the atheist claims - "God is bullshit", or "God doesn't exist", or even "God probably doesn't exist" - Doesn't this shift the burden of proof? After all and if I'm not mistaken the scientific method states that if you make a negative claim (that something doesn't exist) you still need to provide proof

So my question is - Don't atheists have the burden of evidence as well when we make claims? For example - If we say "atheism is rational and theism is not" I think we should be required to provide evidence to explain why atheism is better than theism (Not that it is hard or anything)

Atheists mostly don't need to provide proof, and we are well aware of that, specially when theists claim their religion is right or that god exists; but often we will make claims like "Your religion is false" or "Your god is evil" and it is my opinion that there's no reason to not shift the burden of proof here.

Because atheism is not a positive claim, it is only saying we don't believe the god claim, it is not a positive assertion that gods do not exist. Antitheism makes the claim that gods do not exist and in doing that they do accept a burden of proof. Atheism is not making any claim its simply a response to a claim that has not met its burden of proof.

[Dystopia]

I have a question about atheists and the burden of proof:
If the theist claims - "God exists" - Obviously it's evidence or GTFO
But what if the atheist claims - "God is bullshit", or "God doesn't exist", or even "God probably doesn't exist" - Doesn't this shift the burden of proof? After all and if I'm not mistaken the scientific method states that if you make a negative claim (that something doesn't exist) you still need to provide proof

So my question is - Don't atheists have the burden of evidence as well when we make claims? For example - If we say "atheism is rational and theism is not" I think we should be required to provide evidence to explain why atheism is better than theism (Not that it is hard or anything)

Atheists mostly don't need to provide proof, and we are well aware of that, specially when theists claim their religion is right or that god exists; but often we will make claims like "Your religion is false" or "Your god is evil" and it is my opinion that there's no reason to not shift the burden of proof here.

Because atheism is not a positive claim, it is only saying we don't believe the god claim, it is not a positive assertion that gods do not exist. Antitheism makes the claim that gods do not exist and in doing that they do accept a burden of proof.

But atheists can make positive claims; you may not assert that gods don't exist, but you can assert, for example, that someone's religion is false, that religion is bad, or that believing in god is illogical. You have to provide proof.

As for the definition of atheism, it is the positive assertion that gods do not exist or the rejection of god claims (for me) so the agnostic principle doesn't apply always.

[robvalue]

Atheism is generally defined as just the rejection of God claims. As far as I know that is the main usage of the term in the atheist community. You can go further and make strong atheism but you don't have to. At that point you have gone beyond just atheism.

[Mr.wizard]

Because atheism is not a positive claim, it is only saying we don't believe the god claim, it is not a positive assertion that gods do not exist. Antitheism makes the claim that gods do not exist and in doing that they do accept a burden of proof.

But atheists can make positive claims; you may not assert that gods don't exist, but you can assert, for example, that someone's religion is false, that religion is bad, or that believing in god is illogical. You have to provide proof.

As for the definition of atheism, it is the positive assertion that gods do not exist or the rejection of god claims (for me) so the agnostic principle doesn't apply always.

That is not the definition of atheism, because its a response to a claim.

[robvalue]

The problem is, an awful lot of people don't undstand the difference between weak and strong atheism. Theists, mainly, who have been "educated" by apologists and such. Even authors of apologetic books often don't know the difference, or deliberately mislead.

[Mr.wizard]

Because atheism is not a positive claim, it is only saying we don't believe the god claim, it is not a positive assertion that gods do not exist. Antitheism makes the claim that gods do not exist and in doing that they do accept a burden of proof.

But atheists can make positive claims; you may not assert that gods don't exist, but you can assert, for example, that someone's religion is false, that religion is bad, or that believing in god is illogical. You have to provide proof.

As for the definition of atheism, it is the positive assertion that gods do not exist or the rejection of god claims (for me) so the agnostic principle doesn't apply always.

Atheists as individuals can make any claim they want and if they do they accept a burden of proof. What your confusing is that claims that an atheist would make does not change atheism. Atheism in itself is a position in response to single claim. Claim=god exists Atheism=don't believe you , that's it.

[robvalue]

Right. I can be a car owner who does or not put air conditioner in it. But that's not essential to just be a car owner.

[Mr.wizard]

Right. I can be a car owner who does or not put air conditioner in it. But that's not essential to just be a car owner.

I don't know why the burden of proof is so confusing, people use the same logic regarding other claims all the time. If you come to me an say, "My dog can fly." my initial position is to not believe until you prove it. If we took the position of believing until proven false, we would have to believe every claim, which is impossible.