Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Whateverist]

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear.

Bullshit and dishonest. You, and the rest of your we-simply-lackers, truly believe that the proposition "God exists" is false. You're just a cowardly pussy who isn't willing to stand up for what he actually believes.

What I believe for my private consumption and what I say publicly with an expectation or at least a hope of convincing others are two different things.  I don't make any grand pronouncements regarding the status of the poorly defined thing called "God/gods" because I know nothing of them.  But what I believe is that whatever it is believers experience which reinforces their belief is misunderstood by them.  Literal gods understood as supernatural beings, undetectable from the natural world but able to manipulate it from their side of the divide, are nonsense.  The entire supernatural category is still waiting for even one uncontroversial exemplar which would be needed to even consider a god claim.  So long as you believers insist on filing your gods in the supernatural category I cannot take it seriously.

[Pat Mustard]

A condition common among religitards.

Except Christians are not atheists. They believe in a god. Atheists don't believe in any god.

Also, they don't seem to dismiss other gods for similar reasons we do. Have you not seen Huggy's terrible reasoning for why he believes Odin doesn't exist (in that recent Odin thread)?

In official correspondence the Roman Empire labelled christians as atheists. Because the christians wouldn't even go through the forms of acknowledging other gods they were considered non believers.

[Ravenshire]

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear.

Bullshit and dishonest. You, and the rest of your we-simply-lackers, truly believe that the proposition "God exists" is false. You're just a cowardly pussy who isn't willing to stand up for what he actually believes.

Why don't you go fuck yourself with the handle on that broad brush, Wooters?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

That is exactly what it is.

If someone tells me that a god or a Bigfoot is real or baseball signed by Babe Ruth is in their pocket, and don't provide evidence sufficient to convince me that they are correct, I have zero obligation to provide evidence that they are wrong. I may, in the interest of discourse, share my thoughts on their position and what kind of evidence they ought to bring if they want to convince me, but my not being convinced by their mere assertions requires no argument from me, I have no burden. And honestly, I really don't have the burden even if I say there's no way you have a baseball signed by Babe Ruth in your pocket. It's still a response to your unevidenced assertion, and I am as entitled to dismiss your unevidenced assertion as you were to make it in the first place.

Now, if you show me a photo of a baseball signed by Babe Ruth, we have something to talk about. If I say that doesn't constitute evidence that you have it in your pocket, and for some reason you don't grasp why intuitively, we can talk about why you still haven't met your burden of proof. Or I could continue just not believing you and go on my merry way, provided you'll shut up about it, and be completely justified, because the onus is on you to prove your claim that you have a baseball signed by Babe Ruth in your pocket, not on me to disprove it. Which is probably for the best, because in this particular example I could disprove it by assaulting you and emptying your pockets: if no Babe Ruth baseball rolls out, you were just bullshitting; but now I've committed a felony.

Our legal system works on this basis. If you say I owe you a million bucks and take me to court to sue me for the money, I never have to say a word to prove I don't owe you the money. You have to show evidence that I do. Only if you show evidence that a judge or jury would find convincing do I have to worry about defending my claim that I don't owe you that money. The standard for a serious criminal charges is higher: I am presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You wouldn't want to live in a society where that isn't the case.

---

[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.

Right, the null hypothesis must be overcome before taking a competing hypothesis seriously is rationally justified.

[RoadRunner79]

That is exactly what it is.

If someone tells me that a god or a Bigfoot is real or baseball signed by Babe Ruth is in their pocket, and don't provide evidence sufficient to convince me that they are correct, I have zero obligation to provide evidence that they are wrong. I may, in the interest of discourse, share my thoughts on their position and what kind of evidence they ought to bring if they want to convince me, but my not being convinced by their mere assertions requires no argument from me, I have no burden. And honestly, I really don't have the burden even if I say there's no way you have a baseball signed by Babe Ruth in your pocket. It's still a response to your unevidenced assertion, and I am as entitled to dismiss your unevidenced assertion as you were to make it in the first place.

Now, if you show me a photo of a baseball signed by Babe Ruth, we have something to talk about. If I say that doesn't constitute evidence that you have it in your pocket, and for some reason you don't grasp why intuitively, we can talk about why you still haven't met your burden of proof. Or I could continue just not believing you and go on my merry way, provided you'll shut up about it, and be completely justified, because the onus is on you to prove your claim that you have a baseball signed by Babe Ruth in your pocket, not on me to disprove it. Which is probably for the best, because in this particular example I could disprove it by assaulting you and emptying your pockets: if no Babe Ruth baseball rolls out, you were just bullshitting; but now I've committed a felony.

Our legal system works on this basis. If you say I owe you a million bucks and take me to court to sue me for the money, I never have to say a word to prove I don't owe you the money. You have to show evidence that I do. Only if you show evidence that a judge or jury would find convincing do I have to worry about defending my claim that I don't owe you that money. The standard for a serious criminal charges is higher: I am presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You wouldn't want to live in a society where that isn't the case.

I don't disagree.

[Mister Agenda]

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear.

Bullshit and dishonest. You, and the rest of your we-simply-lackers, truly believe that the proposition "God exists" is false. You're just a cowardly pussy who isn't willing to stand up for what he actually believes.

And there goes my last ounce of respect for you. I've been resisting the idea, but I finally accept that at your core, this is who you really are.

[Edwardo Piet]

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear.

Bullshit and dishonest. You, and the rest of your we-simply-lackers, truly believe that the proposition "God exists" is false. You're just a cowardly pussy who isn't willing to stand up for what he actually believes.

I'm not a simply-lacker.... but the burden of proof regardless still rests on the believer, as belief in God is far less parsimonious, a far more extraordinary claim, and far more improbable.

[RoadRunner79]

Bullshit and dishonest. You, and the rest of your we-simply-lackers, truly believe that the proposition "God exists" is false. You're just a cowardly pussy who isn't willing to stand up for what he actually believes.

I'm not a simply-lacker.... but the burden of proof regardless still rests on the believer, as belief in God is far less parsimonious, a far more extraordinary claim, and far more improbable.

None, of that matters.  If you are making a claim, then you have a share in the burden of proof for what you are claiming.    You don't get a free pass, as long as you feel that your claims do not surpass the opposition.   It doesn't work that way.  

Many of you guys, for being so quick to bring up the B.O.P. for others, work really hard to get out of it yourselves.  It appears that there are a bunch of pseudo-skeptics!

[Amarok]

Bullshit and dishonest. You, and the rest of your we-simply-lackers, truly believe that the proposition "God exists" is false. You're just a cowardly pussy who isn't willing to stand up for what he actually believes

I know you would love that wooter because it would make your dishonest apologist bullshit more effective . To bad reality does not fit your dumbass apologetics agenda . So kindly stop telling people what they think fucktard .

---

Why do you believe that it is false? Or are you scared to state why you believe the proposition "God exists" is false.

He never said that so stop imposing your apologist bullshit on other peoples positions . You two bit hack .

[Neo-Scholastic]

If someone tells me that a god or a Bigfoot is real or baseball signed by Babe Ruth is in their pocket, and don't provide evidence sufficient to convince me that they are correct, I have zero obligation to provide evidence that they are wrong.

But you do have a burden of proof for your belief that the evidence is insufficient.

Notice that before you stated that you have zero obligation, you have already been presented evidence, evaluated it and judged it to be insufficient. As such your disbelief is justified only to the extent that you can demonstrate that the evidence presented is indeed insufficient. In other words, you have a burden of proof with respect to the beliefs you have about the evidence in order to justify your subsequent disbelief, i.e. your disbelief is contingent upon prior beliefs that do have a burden of proof.

(If you simply don't care whether the proposition "God exists" is or is not true that's a different story. But when someone participates on AF it would be a little disingenous for them to claim that they don't care.)