Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Doubting Thomas]

Like I said, convince me beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I don't see why I should. I'm not interested in converting you to any particular religion.

But if I were interested, you still haven't answered the question asked of you: What constitutes reasonable doubt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGsisoMRsqQ

[pocaracas]

Had they met their burden, we wouldn't be here.

That doesn't seem true. It assumes without evidence that meeting the burden of proof instantly converts atheists to theists.

Instead, it could very well be that the burden of proof expected of them is inappropriate. Or abnormally high.

Or atheists could just move the goalposts further, arbitrarily increasing the burden.

Oops...

Each atheist has his/her own measure for the proof required to change their minds, true...
But we're not talking about convincing individual persons that there is a god.
That only requires a good con man.
And is hence not a good measure of the applicability of that proof.

We're talking about showing beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a god.
Kind of like gravity... Is there anyone who denies that gravity exists?

How about this? Any position that has nothing to support it is less rational than the opposite position.

You still haven't proven that theism has nothing to support it. That's a pretty bold claim. I imagine the burden of proving it will be pretty high.

Oh?
What does theism have to support it, then?
Besides lots of wishful thinking?
Do tell, I'm open minded on this...

ooops

Oops indeed.

When you stop and think about it, your allegations are unsupported. Heck, the whole burden of proof game is unsupported. The most sensible position is assess each position on it's own merits.

Assess each position on its own merits?...

• Shamanism - A human representative of the afterlife capable of contacting the "other side", the spirit world. The spirits of the dead, the spirits of the trees, the land, etc...
  
• Celts - in tune with their surroundings; could read signs from plants, or animals and ascertain future events... or so they claimed.
  
• Ancient Egyptians - Myriad gods, half human, half animal... some representing "forces of Nature", such as the sun or the moon. A very human pharaoh would be the divine representative on Earth and had to be considered a god himself.
  
• Ancient Greeks - Myriad gods, very very anthropomorphized, each representing something from Nature, or human nature, such as the Sea, Love, Thunder...
  
• Vikings - Myriad gods, similar to the greeks, but more warlike.
  
• Hindus - Myriad gods, similar to the Egyptians, but less anthropomorphized. No human representative posing as a god.
  
• Mesopotamics - Myriad gods, anthropomorphized, with a clear hierarchy, with the 3 main on top. One of those was the father god.
  
• Judaism - One single god, the father god.
  
• Christianism - Like judaism, but with a human representative that is claimed to be a god himself.
  
• Muslim - Like judaism, but with a human representative who claimed to have direct contact with the father god.
  
• MANY MORE!!!
  
  
• Atheism - gods do not seem to be around.
  

Now, I look around me...

• gravity works in a predictable manner
  
• volcanoes work in a... not very predictable, but an understood manner
  
• Lightning works in an understood manner
  
• Earthquakes work in an understood manner
  
• Projectiles work in a predictable manner
  
• physics works in a predictable manner
  
• chemistry works in a predictable manner
  
• Life seems to work in a predictable manner
  
• no gods are required
  
• no gods have been measured
  

None of these religions, except atheism, fits the bill of the observed world.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

That doesn't seem true. It assumes without evidence that meeting the burden of proof instantly converts atheists to theists.

Instead, it could very well be that the burden of proof expected of them is inappropriate. Or abnormally high.

Or atheists could just move the goalposts further, arbitrarily increasing the burden.

Oops...

Each atheist has his/her own measure for the proof required to change their minds, true...
But we're not talking about convincing individual persons that there is a god.
That only requires a good con man.
And is hence not a good measure of the applicability of that proof.

We're talking about showing beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a god.
Kind of like gravity... Is there anyone who denies that gravity exists?

So what qualifies as showing "beyond the shadow of a doubt"? Do you expect this same high standard of proof for all your beliefs, or only for the one you wish was not true?

You still haven't proven that theism has nothing to support it. That's a pretty bold claim. I imagine the burden of proving it will be pretty high.

Oh?
What does theism have to support it, then?
Besides lots of wishful thinking?
Do tell, I'm open minded on this...

This is like asking "Give me proof that science works." Whether or not it works, the question is so broad, and can be answered with so many different answers, that we are spoilt for choice. I can pick something appropriate for your level of education. Are you in university? What kind of an education background do you have?

Oops indeed.

When you stop and think about it, your allegations are unsupported. Heck, the whole burden of proof game is unsupported. The most sensible position is assess each position on it's own merits.

Assess each position on its own merits?...

• Shamanism - A human representative of the afterlife capable of contacting the "other side", the spirit world. The spirits of the dead, the spirits of the trees, the land, etc...
  
• Celts - in tune with their surroundings; could read signs from plants, or animals and ascertain future events... or so they claimed.
  
• Ancient Egyptians - Myriad gods, half human, half animal... some representing "forces of Nature", such as the sun or the moon. A very human pharaoh would be the divine representative on Earth and had to be considered a god himself.
  
• Ancient Greeks - Myriad gods, very very anthropomorphized, each representing something from Nature, or human nature, such as the Sea, Love, Thunder...
  
• Vikings - Myriad gods, similar to the greeks, but more warlike.
  
• Hindus - Myriad gods, similar to the Egyptians, but less anthropomorphized. No human representative posing as a god.
  
• Mesopotamics - Myriad gods, anthropomorphized, with a clear hierarchy, with the 3 main on top. One of those was the father god.
  
• Judaism - One single god, the father god.
  
• Christianism - Like judaism, but with a human representative that is claimed to be a god himself.
  
• Muslim - Like judaism, but with a human representative who claimed to have direct contact with the father god.
  
• MANY MORE!!!
  
  
• Atheism - gods do not seem to be around.
  

Now, I look around me...

• gravity works in a predictable manner
  
• volcanoes work in a... not very predictable, but an understood manner
  
• Lightning works in an understood manner
  
• Earthquakes work in an understood manner
  
• Projectiles work in a predictable manner
  
• physics works in a predictable manner
  
• chemistry works in a predictable manner
  
• Life seems to work in a predictable manner
  
• no gods are required
  
• no gods have been measured
  

None of these religions, except atheism, fits the bill of the observed world.

[/quote]



I'll give you a chance to think carefully about your claims here. Read it again, slowly and carefully and tell me if you are 100% confident in your own reasoning, and believe it is irrefutable.

Once you are convinced it is, let me know and I will respond.

[Airyaman]

Proof of god: people said there is a god. That's really all there is. If that is proof (evidence) that meets your standards, so be it.

[Doubting Thomas]

What's so hard to understand about beyond a reasonable doubt? What would convince most people?

Perhaps if you could get this God fellow to show up at my house so I could talk to him for an hour or so, and maybe perform a few miracles so that I'd know he really was a god, then that would probably convince me. He used to appear to people in biblical times, so why not now? Having a picture of his son show up on a piece of toast is not evidence.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

What's so hard to understand about beyond a reasonable doubt? What would convince most people?

Perhaps if you could get this God fellow to show up at my house so I could talk to him for an hour or so, and maybe perform a few miracles so that I'd know he really was a god, then that would probably convince me. He used to appear to people in biblical times, so why not now? Having a picture of his son show up on a piece of toast is not evidence.

If reasonable doubt is so easy to understand, why don't you tell me more about it?

Is it the best criteria? Is it the same as "beyond the shadow of a doubt"? Should everyone have the same criteria? Can it be subjective?

[Captain Colostomy]

If reasonable doubt is so easy to understand, why don't you tell me more about it?

IIRC, you declined 'spoonfeeding' others. Now you ask for it here?

Bah.

[Bad Writer]

He's arguing for the sake of arguing. He believes besting Internet atheists in all things makes him a real boy.

[Captain Colostomy]

He's arguing for the sake of arguing. He believes besting Internet atheists in all things makes him a real boy.

The squeaky wheel doesn't get grease with me, it gets kicked to the curb with the rest of the garbage.