Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ex-xian · 03-01-2003, 07:10 AM

OK, I don't necessarily believe that the burden of proof is on atheists to prove that there is no God, but I believe this is a better response than to state this to theists.

I used to moderate on a board called "Challenging Atheism" on ezboards. It was ran by Andrew (no last name), I believe he used to frequent here before starting his own board. Anyway, his whole purpose was to challenge atheists to give proof of their claim that there is no god. Many of the atheists/non-theists who came to the board cited that the burden of proof is on the theist who makes the positive claims, after all, you can't prove a negative.

The thing is, you can prove a negative. We do it in mathematics all the time (I'm a math major). All you have to do is assume that the point is true and show that a contradiction follows (reductio ad absurdum).

My point is that one doesn't have to argue about burden of proof. It's much more fun to assume that a supernaturalist god exists and show all the wonderful contradictions that follow.

(for the record, I would not call myself an atheist...more of a agnostic or panentheist)

Tom Sawyer · 03-01-2003, 08:34 AM

xianseeker,

I have to agree with you here. Although theoretically, the person making a positive claim has the burden of proof on him, the reality is that atheists are a small minority in a country and world that takes theism as a given. That being the case, the burden is on us rather than the other way around, regardless of how logic textbooks define the matter.

I find the evidence clearly denying the existence of a Christian God (as defined in the Bible) to be quite overwhelming. With historical inaccuracies/contradictions in the Bible, lack of results from prayer, etc, it is clear to me that this belief has been proven wrong. The evidence against a more general deistic entity I find to be less clear. When you can define this entity as anything you please and say it just gave everything some kind of push at the beginning, then it is hard to disprove. I don't believe in it, but that is because of lack of evidence to support it, rather than positive evidence specifically disproving it.

If atheism is going to grow, going around whining that it's the theists who have to prove things won't help out all that much, since they see their god(s) existence as a given and the point to go from, rather than a point to go towards. All the facts are on our side and the results will be much better if we stick to showing people those facts rather than saying it's up to them to show us theirs.

Family Man · 03-01-2003, 09:23 AM

The difference between math and God is that math isn't constantly being redefined, as God frequently is. If you take a proposition in Math, you can prove it not be to true by showing a contradiction. Do that with God, and you'll be told that God works in mysterious ways, or that God's mind is unknowable, or that God is outside the physical realm ... ad nauseam.

Basically, theists have set up God in such a way that his existence is unfalsifiable. It seems to me that for most theists, the attitude is: I can't prove God exists, so I'm going to make damned sure you can't disprove him either.

Which is why theistic attempts to put the burden on atheists are ludricrous. They've set it put so that no proof or disproof of God is possible.

diana · 03-01-2003, 09:27 AM

Hi, xianseeker.

You make some good points. If anything, telling Xns, "You have the burden of proof," while true, is so cliched as to be meaningless. It's like telling people "Don't drink and drive" or "Lift with your legs, not your back." The majority of them understand this only on an intellectual level, but this surface understanding doesn't faze their operations as usual. The same problem applies to telling Xns they have the burden of proof.

In addition, it's meaningless to demand proof from a person who, when it comes to religious claims, doesn't understand the meaning of the word "proof." (Perhaps I should say, when it comes to their own religious claims. They don't seem to have a problem understanding what constitutes proof when it comes to all those false religions out there.)

I like your idea. It's always useful to think of new angles to try to communicate your ideas.

Quote:

The thing is, you can prove a negative. We do it in mathematics all the time (I'm a math major). All you have to do is assume that the point is true and show that a contradiction follows (reductio ad absurdum).

My point is that one doesn't have to argue about burden of proof. It's much more fun to assume that a supernaturalist god exists and show all the wonderful contradictions that follow.

But...isn't this board dedicated to this very thing? Some discussions in EoG take the form of "Given that an omni-x god exists, then..." BC&A is full of biblical historical mistakes, scientific vs. belief dating of the biblical canon and absurdities.

I've long thought that cutting to the chase and getting a believer to honestly think about why he believes in a god and what, exactly, he bases that belief on makes the rest of the arguments little more than mental masturbation. It seems that many others take the same tack. When it all comes down to it, the simplest answer is to say, "I don't believe in your god for the same reason you don't believe in all the others--no one's ever given you a convincing reason they exist"--or some form of it.

But...whatever gets people to stop and think about why they buy into something. I'm all for it.

d

ex-xian · 03-01-2003, 09:53 AM

Quote:

But...isn't this board dedicated to this very thing? Some discussions in EoG take the form
of "Given that an omni-x god exists, then..." BC&A is full of biblical historical mistakes,
scientific vs. belief dating of the biblical canon and absurdities.

That's very true, and it's one of the reasons I love this board so much, even though I'm am still relatively new (150 posts as of right now). But I'd never heard my point stated explicitly, and I've heard and read the "burden of proof on theist, so I don't have to do anything" quite a bit. Perhaps I'm merely stating the obvious, but what the hey.

doodad · 03-01-2003, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by peteyh
xianseeker,

I have to agree with you here. Although theoretically, the person making a positive claim has the burden of proof on him, the reality is that atheists are a small minority in a country and world that takes theism as a given. That being the case, the burden is on us rather than the other way around, regardless of how logic textbooks define the matter.

I find the evidence clearly denying the existence of a Christian God (as defined in the Bible) to be quite overwhelming. With historical inaccuracies/contradictions in the Bible, lack of results from prayer, etc, it is clear to me that this belief has been proven wrong. The evidence against a more general deistic entity I find to be less clear. When you can define this entity as anything you please and say it just gave everything some kind of push at the beginning, then it is hard to disprove. I don't believe in it, but that is because of lack of evidence to support it, rather than positive evidence specifically disproving it.

If atheism is going to grow, going around whining that it's the theists who have to prove things won't help out all that much, since they see their god(s) existence as a given and the point to go from, rather than a point to go towards. All the facts are on our side and the results will be much better if we stick to showing people those facts rather than saying it's up to them to show us theirs.

What can one accomplish by proving that God does not exist in the corporeal sense except to stroke his own ego or to get at the truth? It seems to me that the Christian God does not exist anyway in the real or material sense, so why struggle to reestablish a fact that already can be determined by reading between the lines in the bible. Most believers will insist that God does in fact exist but their belief isn't based upon facts but upon wishful thinking, so the debate is really finished before it even starts.

The bible serves various purposes to different people. It's a history book, albeit a poor one at that. It's a statement of philosohy, and in many cases is just science fiction. There are pre mises or concepts of behavior in the bible that have merit so I cannot say the bible is totally pointless or worthless except in the rhetorical sense.

Believers aren't interested in hearing the facts because their religious beliefs do not serve their need of factual knowledge.
Religion is salve for the soul so to speak. It provides some emotional benefit to many folks who choose not to face reality as it really is. Emotional needs are rather complex and involve hopes and fears that have little or no rational basis, so it seems that the practice of religion in some way serves such needs without having to make sense.

Does love make sense? How about the joy of watching your favorite pro team tromp the other side? Should there always be
logic and reason for a basis of our fears and joys? I think the most pleasant experiences in life are based on mere fantasies.
Logic, reason, and proof have their place in our life but can they serve all our needs? Can they guarantee or foretell our fate?
I think we need to put a few things into perspective and learn to recognize them for what they are. I sincerely believe that if the practice of religion or the belief that God exists served no useful or beneficial purpose then people would quit doing it. Isn't it a little bit presumptuous for any one of us to determine what is best for all of us?

Deep Junior · 03-01-2003, 10:17 AM

Didn't you ever hear the 'expression':

"Don't assume, it just makes an ASS out of U and ME?"

Oh, by the way.. my 8th grade MATH teacher was the one that taught me that.

There is negative. There is positive. Just look at molecules. Opposites attract.

If there were no negative and / or no positive, then I wouldn't be typing this right now; because I would not exist.

ex-xian · 03-01-2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

What can one accomplish by proving that God does not exist in the corporeal sense
except to stroke his own ego or to get at the truth? It seems to me that the Christian God
does not exist anyway in the real or material sense, so why struggle to reestablish a fact
that already can be determined by reading between the lines in the bible. Most believers
will insist that God does in fact exist but their belief isn't based upon facts but upon
wishful thinking, so the debate is really finished before it even starts.

In a country where christianity and fundamentalism are rampant and worn as badges of honor, where politicians are elected based on how well they pander to the fundamentalists, where people are more concerned about a moment of silence than science in schools I think it's very important to discuss these issues in a logical manner.

When I held to orthodox christianity it wasn't because of wishful thinking or "blind faith." I honestly believed that reason and logic were on my side. It was when I began honest and unbiased inquiry that I began to change my mind.

There are people, of whom I am one, who seek truth for truths sake. For these people it is important to be able to discuss atheism vs theism reasonably.

Quote:

Does love make sense? How about the joy of watching your favorite pro team tromp the
other side? Should there always be
logic and reason for a basis of our fears and joys? I think the most pleasant experiences
in life are based on mere fantasies. Logic, reason, and proof have their place in our life but can they serve all our needs? Can
they guarantee or foretell our fate?

I do not exalt propositional knowledge to a higher place than other forms of knowledge, but I don't put them in a lower place either. I think you are introducing a distinction where none exists (false dichtomy). Perhaps things such as love, joy, etc, cannot be explained propositionally, but they are not contrary to the rules of logic, only in a different class of knowledge and experience.

Religion is a trickier issue. If a person's religion gives them peace or helps them deal with the pains of life, more power to them. However, when their religious beliefs interfere with human progess or cause them to impose their beliefs upon everyone there is a problem. Perhaps you and I live in different worlds. I live in middle of the "bible belt" and encouter this daily. Perhaps you are fortunate enough to live in a more enlightened society. If so, tell me where it is so I can move next to you.

ex-xian · 03-01-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Didn't you ever hear the 'expression':

"Don't assume, it just makes an ASS out of U and ME?"

Oh, by the way.. my 8th grade MATH teacher was the one that taught me that.

There is negative. There is positive. Just look at molecules. Opposites attract.

If there were no negative and / or no positive, then I wouldn't be typing this right now;
because I would not exist.

Hmmm, not sure what to make of this. I'm assuming you're talking tongue in cheek. BTW, most 8th grade math teachers have no clue as to proofs or rules of logic.

If you're trying to make a point, perhaps you could explain it a bit more to me....sometimes I'm quite dense.

(other times I'm everywhere dense....get it?)

Deep Junior · 03-01-2003, 10:47 AM

What exactly do you mean by talking "tongue in cheek"...

As for the comment about you being more dense at times than at other times... very interesting, to say the least.

03-01-2003, 07:10 AM	#1
ex-xian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: :noitacoL Posts: 4,679	Burden of proof on atheism OK, I don't necessarily believe that the burden of proof is on atheists to prove that there is no God, but I believe this is a better response than to state this to theists. I used to moderate on a board called "Challenging Atheism" on ezboards. It was ran by Andrew (no last name), I believe he used to frequent here before starting his own board. Anyway, his whole purpose was to challenge atheists to give proof of their claim that there is no god. Many of the atheists/non-theists who came to the board cited that the burden of proof is on the theist who makes the positive claims, after all, you can't prove a negative. The thing is, you can prove a negative. We do it in mathematics all the time (I'm a math major). All you have to do is assume that the point is true and show that a contradiction follows (reductio ad absurdum). My point is that one doesn't have to argue about burden of proof. It's much more fun to assume that a supernaturalist god exists and show all the wonderful contradictions that follow. (for the record, I would not call myself an atheist...more of a agnostic or panentheist)

03-01-2003, 10:17 AM	#7
Deep Junior Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Underground Posts: 12	ASSUME Didn't you ever hear the 'expression': "Don't assume, it just makes an ASS out of U and ME?" Oh, by the way.. my 8th grade MATH teacher was the one that taught me that. There is negative. There is positive. Just look at molecules. Opposites attract. If there were no negative and / or no positive, then I wouldn't be typing this right now; because I would not exist.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2003, 08:34 AM	#2
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	xianseeker, I have to agree with you here. Although theoretically, the person making a positive claim has the burden of proof on him, the reality is that atheists are a small minority in a country and world that takes theism as a given. That being the case, the burden is on us rather than the other way around, regardless of how logic textbooks define the matter. I find the evidence clearly denying the existence of a Christian God (as defined in the Bible) to be quite overwhelming. With historical inaccuracies/contradictions in the Bible, lack of results from prayer, etc, it is clear to me that this belief has been proven wrong. The evidence against a more general deistic entity I find to be less clear. When you can define this entity as anything you please and say it just gave everything some kind of push at the beginning, then it is hard to disprove. I don't believe in it, but that is because of lack of evidence to support it, rather than positive evidence specifically disproving it. If atheism is going to grow, going around whining that it's the theists who have to prove things won't help out all that much, since they see their god(s) existence as a given and the point to go from, rather than a point to go towards. All the facts are on our side and the results will be much better if we stick to showing people those facts rather than saying it's up to them to show us theirs.

03-01-2003, 09:23 AM	#3
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	The difference between math and God is that math isn't constantly being redefined, as God frequently is. If you take a proposition in Math, you can prove it not be to true by showing a contradiction. Do that with God, and you'll be told that God works in mysterious ways, or that God's mind is unknowable, or that God is outside the physical realm ... ad nauseam. Basically, theists have set up God in such a way that his existence is unfalsifiable. It seems to me that for most theists, the attitude is: I can't prove God exists, so I'm going to make damned sure you can't disprove him either. Which is why theistic attempts to put the burden on atheists are ludricrous. They've set it put so that no proof or disproof of God is possible.

03-01-2003, 10:47 AM	#10
Deep Junior Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Underground Posts: 12	What exactly do you mean by talking "tongue in cheek"... As for the comment about you being more dense at times than at other times... very interesting, to say the least.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.