Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Edwardo Piet]

So, in conclusion:

"Are atheists using intellectually dishonest arguments?"

Sometimes. But not usually. Usually that's more of a theist thing.

[RoadRunner79]

Yes but this is just one topic. Could you agree that the burden of proof doesn't exempt one to make an argument but obliges him to make it ?

So, if the state claims you committed a murder, do you share an equal burden to prove you're innocent? No, because you're not making the positive claim.

That is exactly what it is.

Apparently neither of you actually understands the burden of proof.

You can look it up if you like... but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Any claim; it’s up to the making it to support it. .

Now if you are not making any claims except for your own mental state, then you have no burden of proof for that.

[Ravenshire]

So, if the state claims you committed a murder, do you share an equal burden to prove you're innocent? No, because you're not making the positive claim.


Apparently neither of you actually understands the burden of proof.

You can look it up if you like... but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Any claim; it’s up to the making it to support it. .

Now if you are not making any claims except for your own mental state, then you have no burden of proof for that.

From your support of the claim that the burden of proof is used by us to avoid supporting a claim, you don't seem to actually understand that. Even if you do, reading comprehension still seems to be a challenge for you. See the bolded above.

I, like the vast majority of atheist, do not make the claim that there is/are no god(s). There could be one out there somewhere. But, until given sufficient reason, why should I be bothered to believe in one?

[Edwardo Piet]

So, in conclusion:

"Are atheists using intellectually dishonest arguments?"

Sometimes. But not usually. Usually that's more of a theist thing.

And p.s. Calling an imaginary friend an imaginary friend is not intellectually dishonest. Oh, he's your father and not your friend? Okay well, in that case, calling an imaginary daddy an imaginary daddy, is not intellectually dishonest. Oh the father thing is just a metaphor and he's your creator? Okay, well, in that case.... calling an imaginary creator an imaginary creator.... is not intellectually dishonest.

Same fucking difference. Theism is already childish. And calling a spade a spade is the opposite of intellectual dishonesty. It's intellectual honesty at its finest and most direct.

But calling a spade a spade, is something theists are less likely to do, especially the apologist types who claim atheists are being intellectually dishonest even when they're not... and the theists just don't like the demeaning labels used against theism, even when said labels fit perfectly and are exactly as demeaning as they should be.

I tell it like it is. How's that intellectual honesty for ya, eh?

[Whateverist]

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".

If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.

I see your point , but what bothers me is that some just use this to avoid providing an argument wich in fact is contradictory. I think the burden of proof is a statement that clearly says people should back up their stance with an argument.

Not believing in the mind boggling thing you call 'God' isn't quite my "stance".  Not being convinced you're not just talking gibberish dosn't really tell you much about what I think.  It's more commentary on your weird idea.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Why on earth should anyone need to give a reason not to believe in something ?

And that is precisely the reason in a nutshell for burden of proof.

What theists forget is that there are so many competing beliefs. The default is not to have a belief in any of them. But there are things that are demonstrable and reproducible that we do actually know.

Therefore the burden of proof is on those who seek to change the default.

For example, I know that if I jump out the window then I will fall to the ground. That is essentially the default belief. It is silly to call it a belief but until I have jumped out the window then I don't know for sure that gravity will prevail. But if you believe in some magic ability that can cause you to levitate, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that such a magic ability exists.

The burden of proof is more obviously a good thing in a scientific context when there will always be a myriad of failed hypotheses before hitting upon the correct solution. Without testing each hypothesis we wouldn't make any progress.

[notimportant1234]

This escaleted quickly.
1. I was not discussing strictly the God debate, I was speaking more in general.
2. I do know that the person that makes the claim needs to prove it, but I wanted to discus the semanthycs, how the burden shifts and that you can't use this as an counter argument.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I can understand why it can be seen as a lazy get-out clause but maybe it helps to think of it as a burden of effort.

Take Huggy's recent claims in the Odin thread about there being photographic proof of his god's work. He did not present the evidence before then telling us that we needed to now find ways to counter his claims. That was deliberately intended to put us in an impossible situation. How can we refute something when we don't even know what we're supposed to be refuting? He was trying to make it look like we couldn't refute his claims because they could not be refuted rather than because he had not provided any details. So we pushed for him to provide evidence. He finally acquiesced and then it became trivial to point out why it was complete and utter bullshit.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-53753-p...pid1712968

[notimportant1234]

I know that it is helpfull in many cases like the one of Huggy but this was a thread about intellectually dishonest arguments, I just wanted to poin out that the burden of proof was missused in some cases.

Personally I like to debate so I rarely use the burden of proof .

[Succubus]

This escaleted quickly.
1. I was not discussing strictly the God debate, I was speaking more in general.
2. I do know that the person that makes the claim  needs to prove it, but I wanted to discus the semanthycs, how the burden shifts and that you can't use this as an counter argument.

This short exercise will show whether or not you understand the BoP.

The claim: Tarot cards can foretell your future.

The counter claim: No they can't.

Who carries the BoP; the claimant, the denier  or both?