Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[freeformschooler]

Burden of proof, you not me

 

You are really confusing me, Mr. Spartan. Either you're just misspeaking, or I'm misreading, or you don't understand how to handle a debate.

[Spartan-67]

There is also lack of evidence that he doesn't exist.

I have invisible gnomes that live in my shoes, there is a no evidence to the contrary or to support it all you have is my word.

[Blargityblarg]

Who decides who is lumped with the burden of proof? It's equally legitimate to demand that atheists disprove the existence of a God or Gods.

fakeedit: Exactly. However, we are under no onus to believe in your shoe-gnomes.

[Spartan-67]

Hmmm... Y'know what, I actually kind of feel like making multiple replies to a religion thread tonight. Something must be wrong with me, but I'm gonna do it anyways.

I did not say that there is definitely no god. What I meant by my earlier statement was that Absolute belief in a god is rediculous, sorry for the miscommunication.

First of all, there is no "e" in ridiculous. Secondly...

Ridiculous–adjective
causing or worthy of ridicule  or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable: a ridiculous plan.

So ridiculous is relative. So to you, absolute devotion to a religion is laughable and ridiculous, while to others (who most likely aren't going to post here) it is not. Thus, this is your opinion, which, from my point of view, seems to have been stated as fact. This is bad policy in general. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

Oh, and that stuff about calm rational discussion that the ninjas said. And I have no clue what Duke McNinja is talking about.

Good point that it is my opinion, and I will state from now on that it is my opinion.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Those of you who read the Atheism Redux thread may remember my presentation of the Rabid Invisible Ghost Rats. This seems to be the same concept Spartan is trying to present here.

[Spartan-67]

Who decides who is lumped with the burden of proof? It's equally legitimate to demand that atheists disprove the existence of a God or Gods.

fakeedit: Exactly. However, we are under no onus to believe in your shoe-gnomes.

I made the statement for you to believe that have shoe-gnomes, i have to prove it, with god you are making the statement, it is your job to provide proof.

[Spartan-67]

Those of you who read the Atheism Redux thread may remember my presentation of the Rabid Invisible Ghost Rats. This seems to be the same concept Spartan is trying to present here.

I haven't read it, but I assume that you are correct.

[freeformschooler]

Who decides who is lumped with the burden of proof? It's equally legitimate to demand that atheists disprove the existence of a God or Gods.

fakeedit: Exactly. However, we are under no onus to believe in your shoe-gnomes.

I made the statement for you to believe that have shoe-gnomes, i have to prove it, with god you are making the statement, it is your job to provide proof.

Not necessarily, because if you are arguing for the existence of shoe gnomes and we are arguing against it yet have no wait to verify whether they exist or not, then the burden of proof is on us to prove that they do not, just as much as it is on you to prove that they do.

The situation here is similar: no atheist can "prove" that God isn't real similar to how no theist can "prove" he/she/it is. Thus the burden of proof is on both sides.

[Spartan-67]

Who decides who is lumped with the burden of proof? It's equally legitimate to demand that atheists disprove the existence of a God or Gods.

fakeedit: Exactly. However, we are under no onus to believe in your shoe-gnomes.

I made the statement for you to believe that have shoe-gnomes, i have to prove it, with god you are making the statement, it is your job to provide proof.

Not necessarily, because if you are arguing for the existence of shoe gnomes and we are arguing against it yet have no wait to verify whether they exist or not, then the burden of proof is on us to prove that they do not, just as much as it is on you to prove that they do.

Disprove my shoe-gnomes

[Blargityblarg]

No, you don't have to prove it; it's just that if you don't, people have less reason to believe you. If you were able to produce some shoe-gnome skeletons, then I would have a reason to believe you; same goes for having proof of (a) deit(y/ies) or for proof of the absence of one; when there is no proof to go around, it's a free choice or, more realistically, dependent on what those you trust tell you.

[Bauglir]

There is a lack of any evidence to the contrary.

The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.

To convince someone else, sure. But for one's own beliefs? Burden of proof is on you, bub, if you want to make somebody think about this. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, which in this case is you ("There is no evidence of a god"). A theist's evidence is in the wonder they perceive in the world around them, the sense of happiness, calm, and security they get from prayer or other rituals, and their own sense of purpose in the world. You can explain all that without god(s), but to a theist, that's overcomplicated and purely designed to reach the predetermined conclusion that there is no deity running things. Which, let's be fair, is a fundamental principle of scientific investigation, because if your answer is "God did it", you don't really have an answer.

That said, I should make clear that I'm not religious, and somebody who actually does believe in deities of some kind could probably do better than this Devil's Advocating stuff I'm doing.

EDIT: 10 new replies wtf. I do not believe that you have shoe gnomes. However, I have insufficient evidence to attempt to convince you otherwise. Therefore, feel free to carry on in your belief, and I hope that yours are spacious shoes. Gnomes need much room.

[freeformschooler]

Who decides who is lumped with the burden of proof? It's equally legitimate to demand that atheists disprove the existence of a God or Gods.

fakeedit: Exactly. However, we are under no onus to believe in your shoe-gnomes.

I made the statement for you to believe that have shoe-gnomes, i have to prove it, with god you are making the statement, it is your job to provide proof.

Not necessarily, because if you are arguing for the existence of shoe gnomes and we are arguing against it yet have no wait to verify whether they exist or not, then the burden of proof is on us to prove that they do not, just as much as it is on you to prove that they do.

Disprove my shoe-gnomes

I cannot, because I do not have the evidence to do so, similar to how you do not have the evidence to prove they exist, or will not contribute it. Thus, burden of proof, both sides.

No, you don't have to prove it; it's just that if you don't, people have less reason to believe you. If you were able to produce some shoe-gnome skeletons, then I would have a reason to believe you; same goes for having proof of (a) deit(y/ies) or for proof of the absence of one; when there is no proof to go around, it's a free choice or, more realistically, dependent on what those you trust tell you.

Basically.

[Knight of Fools]

You may have missed my other post.

Saying "prove it" isn't getting us anywhere.

If you want to debate philosophy, you have to debate philosophically.

You're under no burden to prove whether or not your shoe gnomes exist or not, because it has no effect over me whether the exist or not.  It's your belief, and if you want to worship invisible shoe gnomes, I'm cool with that.  I don't see why I can't worship something and not come under criticism for doing so by people who say "Prove it" with no evidence to the contrary.

You're the one attacking a position.  To do so in any fair setting without evidence would get your case thrown right out the window.

(I agree with this bajillion new replies note.  Lots of people wanting to get their opinions in!)

[Criptfeind]

I have invisible gnomes that live in my shoes, there is a no evidence to the contrary or to support it all you have is my word.

Sorry. I checked your shoes (by putting them on) and there were no Gnomes. It was quite hard to put them on, what with the crushing of tiny invisible bones and the squashing of flesh, you might need new shoes.

Anyway, serious time here.

1: Stop double posting.

2: Okay here you go:
 A: Religion provides groups of people who think the same for people.
 B: Religion provides comfort and support both mentally and from the aforementioned groups physically.
 C: Religion adds meaning to life.
 D: Religion strengthens moral values.

Now, maybe a lock before the idiots start coming out of the wood work would be a good idea?

[freeformschooler]

2: Okay here you go:
 A: Religion provides groups of people who think the same for people.
 B: Religion provides comfort and support both mentally and from the aforementioned groups physically.
 C: Religion adds meaning to life.
 D: Religion strengthens moral values.

I think I can agree with most of this except D, considering religion can be/has been used as a scapegoat for things that are morally unjust. But then, so can a lot of things, and morals are relative. But that's irremoralativant.