Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[RoadRunner79]

---

So, just like every other Christian I've encountered RoadRunner is going to continue to insist that denying a claim is the same as making a claim, therefore shifting the burden of proof from the theist to the atheist. Jesus fucking christ it's like talking to a brick wall with these people.

It's up to you to explain why your beliefs make sense and hold up in natural world against other preexisting explanations of different phenomena. It is not up to me to explain to every tom, dick and harry why belief in magical sky gods doesn't make sense. That's not how the world of science works.

If a biologist comes up with some new idea on how cells operate in the human body, it is up to that scientist to prove to everyone else in his or her field exactly WHY this idea makes sense, if said scientist wants to be taken seriously by anyone. You can't just publish a paper saying, "Cells X, Y and Z do actions A and B because I said so, prove me wrong or accept this as the ultimate truth"... This biologist would be laughed out of any serious scientific community/circle.

Your complete lack of understanding of how we as humans attempt to explain the world around us unfortunately does not surprise me.

In what other area of life do we operate in that way? By saying, "prove me wrong, or I'm right"? Where else do we do that? Maybe if we search the annals of our elementary and preschools we will find this type of rhetoric. But in the real, adult, grown up world, we have to provide reasoning for our explanations of how things work. And what is the proposal of god if not an attempt to explain how things work?

We, as atheists, deny your claims, whether this action is neutral or active, because theists, as a whole, have failed to provide a sufficient explanation for their beliefs. Until we are presented with a proper explanation, we will continue to deny your claims. Quit muddying the waters with nonsense... neutral action this and active action that... just explain your beliefs or go away. Because the version of events I've been given up to this point sounds like a complete fucking fairy tale.

---

What you suppose about me, my intentions or my character has nothing to do with the arguments which you mostly ignored. Arguments and reasons are just as valid, whether they come from a PHD, a bum on the street, an atheist or a Christian.  You seem to be going out in all directions, to avoid what is being discussed about the OP.  I'm not falling for that bait!

The burden of proof simply states that one making a claim is responsible for supporting that claim.  Both sides in a discussion can have their own burden of proof for opposing claims.  However for the one who is not making a claim, doubt is the default position, until sufficient reason to confirm or deny is provided.  This is because the default position is ignorance, and the skeptic isn't required to justify their doubt.  They are not accepting as true, or denying as false, without reason to do so.

And as I stated before, if by "deny", you really mean "doubt", and are not making a claim, then I agree with you, but perhaps you should choose your words more wisely.

As to the claim that I am shifting the burden of proof; we can easily test this.   You just need to provide the claim of mine (in the context of this discussion), which I am not answering, but saying that you must show it is false.  You on the other hand, seem to want to deny and make claims, and expect me to accept them, until I prove you wrong.   So who is "shifting the burden of proof"

---

Yes... those would be claims that you would need to support.  However I don't think that it follows, and is a bit overreaching to come to the conclusion that said diety doesn't exist if you are successful in supporting those claims.

If someone claims that a deity exists that flooded the world for forty days, and we can establish that the world was never flooded for forty days, then we have established that the claimed deity does not exist.

We have done so.

Said deity does not exist.

That doesn't follow.

If I claim that I was streaking through the streets of Shanghai today at noon.  If you demonstrate that the claim is false; and I never left good old Penn's Woods.  It doesn't follow that I do not exist.  It's incorrect thinking, and an incorrect conclusion.

Also repeating you claim is not supporting.

And just a forewarning, but I am open to the interpretation of a localized universal flood.  But I am happy to look at your reasoning.