What makes people irrational thinkers?

[LadyForCamus]

He owns the burden of proof.

"Burden of proof" is way overrated.

Not when we’re talking about logic. If someone makes an argument they have the responsibility of supporting it. It’s really not more complicated than that. 

It's not writ in stone. It's often used as a way to avoid defending one's own position. If the goal is to "win" something in a debate club, it may be useful. If we're trying to work out the truth, as best we can, it's an interruption.

You don’t believe that sound and valid arguments are relevant to truth? That’s kind of strange. I’m very much interested in the truth. I assume you are too. What do you consider to be the most reliable pathway to truth, Bel? 

Hart has formed an argument for what he believes is a true conclusion about the existence of God; for what he asserts with unwavering certainty atheists are terribly, fatally, irrationally misinformed about. I’m merely assessing the quality of that argument and pointing out the flaws that I notice. As someone who cares about truth, I feel I have a responsibility to try my best at that endeavor. I fail often, but I can’t realize that I’m wrong and get closer to what is reasonable unless someone assesses my critique of the argument and corrects me. I’m not trying to “win” anything. I’m trying to suss out the validity and soundness of this person’s position.  By the way, even if Hart’s argument is fallacious, that doesn’t necessarily mean his conclusion is wrong. But reason should matter to people who claim they care about whether or not their beliefs are true, and who claim that they are correct in the conclusions they’ve drawn from the premises they’ve set up. 

If he has reasons for his position, he should give them. If we have reasons why we find his position unpersuasive, we should give them. Meanwhile if we find better alternative explanations they may be useful.

I addressed both of these in post #138 and #161. I’m interested in hearing what you think.