Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 8:26 am

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The burden of proof
#21
RE: The burden of proof
No lol. Well putSmile
Where's the evidence that Yahweh, Allah, etc are backed up by evidence and one of them (or even both of them) should be believed more than Zeus? Tongue
There's no evidence for any supernatural God. That we know of.
Reply
#22
RE: The burden of proof
I think that the burden of proof, as well as the denial of the ism in atheism, is an attempt by fundamental atheists to make as many excuses as possible to avoid being honest about a number of things. Whenever anyone asks me to prove anything, I flatly refuse because if you have to ask me to prove something it already demonstrates that one is not interested in finding out for themselves whether or not the claim is true. A lot of atheists make a rather amusing attempt at blackmail, saying that one has to prove to the other side what they claim, as if there are consequences if they don't. Burden of proof is what you get in a court of law, not in a discussion where presumably one is genuinely interested in the truth. It's laziness. Many atheists are very lazy, and dishonest too.
Reply
#23
RE: The burden of proof
Quote:I flatly refuse because if you have to ask me to prove something it already demonstrates that one is not interested in finding out for themselves whether or not the claim is true.


Quite possibly the single silliest thing you have ever said. A less dogmatic person would understand that asking questions is the way to learn but you fairy-tale types don't like questions. Questions are unruly. Answers can be checked. I can see why you prefer to simply state that your particular vision of a sky-daddy is true but do not expect to get away with it here.
Reply
#24
RE: The burden of proof
Minimalist -

You aren't interested in learning anything. The only thing you're interested in is reinforcing your belief system.
Reply
#25
RE: The burden of proof
Quote:I think that the burden of proof, as well as the denial of the ism in atheism, is an attempt by fundamental atheists to make as many excuses as possible to avoid being honest about a number of things.

Oh dear,another face palm comment.

The concept of the burden of proof is universal in law, science and philosophy. It may or may not have been developed by people who were also atheists. It is NOT an 'atheist argument'; there is no such thing. By definition an atheist is only a person who disbelieves in god(s)

AS is your wont,once again you have succeeded in making yourself look deeply,willfully ignorant and rather stupid.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


Quote:The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by legal evidence.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1] This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence that underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defense might alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned institutionally.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof



Quote:Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary",[4] that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.
[edit] Asymmetry in the burden of proof

For any given argument (e.g., the existence/nonexistence of fairies), both sides of the proposition carry a burden of proof. However, the burden of proof will often be asymmetrical, meaning that it will fall harder on one side of an argument than the other. There are any number of factors which can influence the symmetry of the burden. Two of the most common are

* How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant).
* Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative).

Other considerations might include:

* How independent is the claim of other suspect or controversial claims. The claim "fairies build houses in trees" is inextricably dependent upon the controversial claim "fairies exist".

This list of epistemic claims about fairies below serves to highlight some of the more important aspects of burden of proof.
[/php]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof
Reply
#26
RE: The burden of proof
Padraic -

The burden of proof is a handy excuse for lazy people to not venture outside of their belief system, by demanding that the other side does what should be their work (seeking the truth, one way or the other) for them.
Reply
#27
RE: The burden of proof
(July 23, 2010 at 7:08 pm)Godhead Wrote: Padraic -

The burden of proof is a handy excuse for lazy people to not venture outside of their belief system, by demanding that the other side does what should be their work (seeking the truth, one way or the other) for them.

Except the fact they try to impose religion on us, and we are the ones that have the prove the contrary... seems like a nonsensical argument from religion at best
Reply
#28
RE: The burden of proof
Ashandant -

I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about atheists.
Reply
#29
RE: The burden of proof
(July 23, 2010 at 7:08 pm)Godhead Wrote: Padraic -

The burden of proof is a handy excuse for lazy people to not venture outside of their belief system, by demanding that the other side does what should be their work (seeking the truth, one way or the other) for them.

Even though you have already been banned for being a complete twat, I might as well post one last reply to your stupidity.

It would be handy and convenient if the theist wasn't expected to provide evidence for his/her claims. Thing is, they are expected to at least provide some evidence for their claims since it's not down to the non-believer to prove or disprove anything. You say atheists have belief systems (even though you fail to explain about that) and that we're lazy (even though the burden of proof is on the claimer). Many times theists try to avoid the burden of proof by throwing it off themselves and onto others who claim nothing. This is largely because they know they cannot provide evidence, so instead of admitting that, they try to avoid the burden of proof altogether. Doesn't work though. You claim it, you prove it.
Argument over.

---
Thanks for banning this guy Adrian. It was a welcome relief to see his name crossed out when I signed on this morning. I found his lack of effort in a proper discussion and lack of interest in a reasonable debate annoying. Not to mention his sheer stupidity.
Tongue
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.

Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.

You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Always Proof Your Yeast! Fuck Proof of Gods! chimp3 12 1958 September 9, 2018 at 3:46 pm
Last Post: Ravenshire
  Should Theists have the burden of proof at the police and court? Vast Vision 16 5183 July 10, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Last Post: Jesster
  Burden of Proof Annik 21 6738 December 16, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Last Post: Doubting Thomas
  The burden of proof; who is it on? Creed of Heresy 15 5299 March 7, 2012 at 1:12 am
Last Post: Creed of Heresy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)