The burden of proof

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “The burden of proof

  1. Usually when a case is brought to trial a case must be made but a rebuttal also is found to be useful. Now that you are in the business of rebutting what Christians believe you are now obligated to provide a case against their claims thus you have obligated yourself to presenting a level of proof as well otherwise why do you bother?

    You cannot debate something without being obligated to prove your side true and in your case the only way to prove your side true is to prove theirs false. Obligation of proof false on both since both make a claim. Once you proclaim something (even in rebuttal) you are obligating yourself to a standard of proof.

    Like

  2. And even though we do not have burden of proof, atheists can easily prove theistic claims wrong – e.g. Noah's ark, Exodus, Authenticity of Paul's letters, Miracles etc.

    So I”m not really understanding you.

    It's as though you think what all atheist do is evading questions and expecting Christians to do all the talking. On the contrary, most atheists I know can do counter apologetics pretty well, and that is above and beyond a simple “I don't believe you because you are not convincing” that is needed.

    Like

  3. Bobby said: Frank – feel free to give us an example … please DISprove Russell's cosmic Teapot assertion

    Frank said: Be so kind as to explain to me why I am obligated to prove his cosmic teapot assertion wrong. Did I say it was wrong? Only once I say it IS wrong am I then obligated to offer any evidence of it being wrong.

    I am perfectly content with Rusty having and holding to any belief he desires. I'm not questioning his assertion, know why? Because I know it's foolish! If I know it is foolish then why the hell would I waste a millisecond of my life disproving it?

    Like

  4. Powell say this: Not if the rebuttal is simply “I don't believe you”

    I be saying this: Thank you for proving my point.

    Powell also be laying this jive down: “And even though we do not have burden of proof, atheists can easily prove theistic claims wrong – e.g. Noah's ark, Exodus, Authenticity of Paul's letters, Miracles etc.”

    I be all like: For someone who is under no obligation to prove anything you fellers sure do seem to collect piles of evidence and case history. Not because you need to prove anything but just cause you like collecting stuff.

    Powell busts this funky rhyme: “It's as though you think what all atheist do is evading questions and expecting Christians to do all the talking. On the contrary, most atheists I know can do counter apologetics pretty well, and that is above and beyond a simple “I don't believe you because you are not convincing” that is needed.”

    I drop this slick beat: No it's not as though I think about atheists at all, I do not care what atheists think. I do not care what Christians think, I simply like to argue. You offer much potential entertainment. For example, why would atheism need an apologetics team if they have no obligation to prove anything?

    Is there a good reason why a group of people define themselves as nonbelievers of that which they find foolish? Why define yourself as an atheist if theism isn't even remotely defensible? To make it worse why study about how to prove theism is not defensible just to argue against that which you say cannot be argued for satisfactorily? If you KNOW there is no good evidence for theism then why define yourself as a non theist? Are you also Asasquatchian? Would you devote a moment of your precious life to gather proof and build a defense against the assertions that Sasquatch is real? If you truly find something foolish you wouldn't waste a minute on it, this makes me wonder if you truly find theism foolish or if you merely want to convince yourself it is foolish.

    I close with this: Poppycock.

    Like

  5. Frank says: “Only once I say it IS wrong am I then obligated to offer any evidence of it being wrong.”

    Bobbie: Fair point. But let's play this out as if it was not a benign belief.

    Let's say the TeaPotists gain a majority of government control and those TeaPotists decide to add “In TeaPot we Trust” on our money and add “Under Teapot” to the pledge of allegiance … and the Teapotist cosmic manifesto demands certain medical and moral choice and the Teapotists decide to legislate that ALL citizens – believing Teapotists or not – MUST adhere to these new laws based on the Teapot cosmic manifesto to be in compliance with the law. And the Teapotists decide to have the “12 Teapot Regulations” ™ posted in city halls and court houses.

    But you – good Frank – are a complete and utter disbeliever and you (rightly) believe this is all foolishness and baseless!

    Are you going to “waste a millisecond” trying to disprove the absurdity of the Teapot? … or will you just quietly follow the new Cosmic Teapot World Order?

    Like

  6. I would also like to point out that the video creates a false premise at the 0:20 second mark. The …skeptic… who created the video had to create this invitation to a debate where there otherwise isn't one for without it he risks revealing the atheists proclamation of their gospel to the unbelieving Christian. Make zero mistakes about it, atheists are out there seeking to convert people just as much if-not even more-so than theists. Hypocrites.

    Like

  7. Bob says: “Let's say the TeaPotists gain a majority of government control and those TeaPotists decide to add “In TeaPot we Trust” on our money and add “Under Teapot” to the pledge of allegiance … and the Teapotist cosmic manifesto demands certain medical and moral choice and the Teapotists decide to legislate that ALL citizens – believing Teapotists or not – MUST adhere to these new laws based on the Teapot cosmic manifesto to be in compliance with the law. And the Teapotists decide to have the “12 Teapot Regulations” ™ posted in city halls and court houses.

    But you – good Frank – are a complete and utter disbeliever and you (rightly) believe this is all foolishness and baseless!

    Are you going to “waste a millisecond” trying to disprove the absurdity of the Teapot? … or will you just quietly follow the new Cosmic Teapot World Order?”

    I says: Well according to your fellow thinker and self proclaimed naturalist, it is the majority who set, define and regulate what is to be regarded as morality. If a majority of people decide to found a nation based upon the concept of atheism then by all-means it is and should remain an atheist land. Following your own logic, let us say these “TeaPotists” do exactly as you say they do and they take over a land and rule this land from their kettle.

    How are you any different than they are when what you seek is what they have? You wish to remove their power and authority to replace it with your own. Please explain to me how you are any better than they are and how you are held to a lower standard of proof than they are when you wish to establish your own governing majority based upon what? Based upon YOUR beliefs. Yes, you as a skeptic have a system of beliefs which you seek to impose upon others just as they seek to impose theirs upon you. Yet you want everyone to exclude you from the obligation of burden of proof.

    Like

  8. Nice spin Frank – but it fails. Whether teapotist, christian, islamist etc. I don't want any governing laws enforced on people that are not based on fact.

    For starters – atheists have one – and ONLY one criteria to BE an atheist – the LACK of belief in god(s). EVERYTHING else is up for debate and should be decided based on the best available evidence at the time and amended as new evidence becomes available, should it be necessary. Otherwise, atheists/skeptics have no “system of beliefs”, but rather a method of fact finding – called science.

    That said, duly noted that you would quietly fall in lockstep with the Teapotist since they are the “majority” no matter how much it contradicts your current beliefs and convictions.

    Like

  9. Bob say: “Nice spin Frank – but it fails. Whether teapotist, christian, islamist etc. I don't want any governing laws enforced on people that are not based on fact.”

    I say: To the Christian the Bible is fact, to the Muslim the Quran is fact, to the Hindu the COW (peace be upon them and a hardy Moo from me) is fact, to you Atheism is fact. Who decides?

    Bob say: “For starters – atheists have one – and ONLY one criteria to BE an atheist – the LACK of belief in god(s). EVERYTHING else is up for debate and should be decided based on the best available evidence at the time and amended as new evidence becomes available, should it be necessary. Otherwise, atheists/skeptics have no “system of beliefs”, but rather a method of fact finding – called science.”

    I say: So as long as everyone agrees with or as long as you can persuade/convert/etc everyone to agree with you that there is no God/god you're fine with everything else being open to debate…

    Sounds highly religious and almost Theocratic of you or should I say Atheocratic. How about rather a method of fact finding called “faith”? Why should your method of “fact finding” trump the other persons method of fact finding? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

    Bob: “That said, duly noted that you would quietly fall in lockstep with the Teapotist since they are the “majority” no matter how much it contradicts your current beliefs and convictions.”

    I say: Have you quietly fallen into lockstep with the Theists whom you claim to be in the current place of power? If not then why not? Here is what I offer, how about pure anarchy? It truly is the only way to be fair and sure.

    Like

  10. Bobby say: “Please produce this alleged “Atheist Gospel”

    BEHOLD!

    atheists have one – and ONLY one criteria to BE an atheist – the LACK of belief in god(s). EVERYTHING else is up for debate and should be decided based on the best available evidence at the time and amended as new evidence becomes available, should it be necessary. Otherwise, atheists/skeptics have no “system of beliefs”, but rather a method of fact finding – called science.

    Like

  11. Frank says: ” Who decides?”

    EVIDENCE

    The bible, koran, torah etc are all assertions – bring forth objective, testable evidence to determine of these are indeed fact as you assert.

    “atheism”, by contrast, makes NO assertion … atheism LACKS belief and it remains skeptical of ALL supernatural and god assertions (subject to change with production of compelling evidence)

    Like

  12. Frank: “How about rather a method of fact finding called “faith”?”

    “Faith” has been tried for thousands of years and has yet to reliably produce ANYthing factual nor through faith does it in any way reliably and objectively test evidence.

    On the other hand, the scientific method has proven reliable AND correctable and modifyable based on new evidence.

    If “Faith” worked we should ether see the sun going around the earth and we should have clear evidence that the world is “estimated” 6000 years old … OR the faith based text/scriptures would be updated to reflect the factual nature of the evidence we DO see around us … but alas this does NOT happen

    Like

  13. Bobby: Right … in other words, you got nothing … thanks for playing

    Me: So you say in one post that these are your atheist rules and in the next you say you have none? Is that not what you, yourself said were the rules for atheism?

    Like

  14. Bob: “Faith” has been tried for thousands of years and has yet to reliably produce ANYthing factual nor through faith does it in any way reliably and objectively test evidence.”

    Me: That is your opinion though based upon your belief system. Do you not think theists would hold to another view entirely? What makes you so special that we should all submit to you and your belief?

    Bob: “On the other hand, the scientific method has proven reliable AND correctable and modifyable based on new evidence.”

    Me: If it is so reliable why would it need correcting or modifying? Didn't you get truth right the first time?

    Bob: “If “Faith” worked we should ether see the sun going around the earth and we should have clear evidence that the world is “estimated” 6000 years old … OR the faith based text/scriptures would be updated to reflect the factual nature of the evidence we DO see around us … but alas this does NOT happen”

    Me: I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I argued for a specific faith or religion here. Can you point that out to me? All I have done is question why you feel we must submit to your belief system and shun the others. I don't care what you believe, I don't care what anyone believes. Jut don't sit there and pretend you are free from being a devout follower of your own system you have placed faith and trust in. You're not a bit different than the religious people you want to prove wrong. Not one bit different.

    Like

  15. So then it's your assertion that any given word does not have a standard definition? So an automobile can be a dog and a cat is a cow and a chicken is a house … you're being absurd.

    the definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god(s) PERIOD … that is NOT a “rule” in any sense known to human kind it's merely a definition … just like the counter definition to “theist” is one who believes in god(s) … calling you a “theist” does NOTHING to dictate or outline your world view OTHER than in your world view it includes any one (or more) of some 40,000 gods created buy humans over their history.

    Since we apparently cannot even agree on the definitions of words, I think this is the end of the conversation.

    Like

  16. Frank: “What makes you so special that we should all submit to you and your belief?”

    Quite frankly – I don't have a “belief system” … nothing “makes me special” other than there is only one of me in existence (that I know of) and I don't “require” anyone to “believe” as I do or necessarily interpret facts as I do but when anyone tries to dictate and force me to submit to rule from sources that have no provable basis in fact/reality, I reject it and refuse to submit to it.

    Frank: “If it is so reliable why would it need correcting or modifying? Didn't you get truth right the first time?”

    The scientific method (as if you didn't already know) is humanity's best, most accurate method for determining OBJECTIVE truth based on the available evidence AT THE TIME … it's relative and amendable/modifiable based on newly revealed evidence.

    As I've said in another comment – since words hold no firm meaning for you, I don't know how we can communicate so we're pretty much done here.

    Like

  17. Bob: The bible, koran, torah etc are all assertions – bring forth objective, testable evidence to determine of these are indeed fact as you assert.

    Me: Why do I have to bring forth anything when I asserted nothing? You're the one making assertions about your belief system. I have said zero,zip,zilch,nada,nill,none not a peep about what I believe or do not believe. I do not wish to impose what I believe upon anyone. If someone asks me I may tell them but unless I try to impose it on you I am not obligated to prove a thing to you.

    Bob: “atheism”, by contrast, makes NO assertion … atheism LACKS belief and it remains skeptical of ALL supernatural and god assertions (subject to change with production of compelling evidence)

    Me: Atheism asserts any belief in a Deity is unfounded and without credible evidence. The word alone demands as much. Atheism is one of the few groups who actively pursue discourse and debate on a subject which they find ridiculous. To say “there is no” is to assert that there “is no”. I don't care how you twist it but if you say something “is not” then you have just asserted something “is not”. If I say there are no honest liars I have asserted there are no honest liars. It matters not how ignorant what I just asserted is.

    Like

  18. Bob: Quite frankly – I don't have a “belief system” … nothing “makes me special” other than there is only one of me in existence (that I know of) and I don't “require” anyone to “believe” as I do or necessarily interpret facts as I do but when anyone tries to dictate and force me to submit to rule from sources that have no provable basis in fact/reality, I reject it and refuse to submit to it.

    Me: So if you do not require or desire others to believe as you do then why do you debate with theists?

    Bob: The scientific method (as if you didn't already know) is humanity's best, most accurate method for determining OBJECTIVE truth based on the available evidence AT THE TIME … it's relative and amendable/modifiable based on newly revealed evidence.

    Me: You have just asserted that science “is humanity's best, most accurate method for determining OBJECTIVE truth based on the available evidence AT THE TIME.” prove it.

    Bob: As I've said in another comment – since words hold no firm meaning for you, I don't know how we can communicate so we're pretty much done here.

    Me: Nice straw-man, words are very important to me and just because I was able to use them to prove your system of faith in science is weak and wanting doesn't mean you should be offended.

    Like

  19. Bob: So then it's your assertion that any given word does not have a standard definition? So an automobile can be a dog and a cat is a cow and a chicken is a house … you're being absurd.

    Me: What are you even talking about? You are the one who says Atheism has no rules.

    Bob: the definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god(s) PERIOD … that is NOT a “rule” in any sense known to human kind it's merely a definition …

    Me: Does the game define the rules or do the rules define the game?

    Bob: just like the counter definition to “theist” is one who believes in god(s) … calling you a “theist” does NOTHING to dictate or outline your world view OTHER than in your world view it includes any one (or more) of some 40,000 gods created buy humans over their history.

    Me: You miss your own point you just made. Theism has at-least one rule, atheism has at-least one rule. You said Atheism makes NO assertions. Unless of course you count the one assertion all Atheists must make to be an Atheist. To say “there is no” is not the same as saying “I do not believe in”. Once you cross from “I do not believe in” over to “there are no” you obligate yourself to providing evidence/proof.

    Bob: Since we apparently cannot even agree on the definitions of words, I think this is the end of the conversation.

    Me: Bye

    Like

  20. Frank: “Theism has at-least one rule, atheism has at-least one rule.”

    What you call “rules” … I call definitions. Hence my “car/dog/cat/cow/chicken/house” comment … conversely, a “rule”, to me, would be “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” etc.

    Frank: ” Once you cross from “I do not believe in” over to “there are no” you obligate yourself to providing evidence/proof.”

    Correct – and agreed … if I asserted as fact “there are no gods” (but I don't think I did) then I misspoke regarding my personal position and the definition of “atheism”. However, I, and most atheists, live and function just fine and are moral and successful in a world where there is no compelling evidence for any gods and thus live AS IF there “effectively” “are no gods” … but as I also said elsewhere – we are all (although I can't speak for everyone) open to reassessing that position should new and compelling evidence come to light.

    Like

  21. Frank: “prove it. “

    Robt: We are communicating on computers and systems discovered and tested by the scientific method … automobiles, aircraft, telephones, electricity … the list is endless in discoveries and technologies founded under the scientific method.

    Like

  22. Wow great rebuttal!

    You really should just drop this cool mix-tape in all the atheist blogs and convert all of us!

    And I guess you are right, you do sound like poppycock.

    Like

  23. Shhhhh…. Robert, you are doing this anti-trolling thing wrong.

    Just say that he wins and he's the best. Losers like him thrive on that.

    Right Frank? You da man! Ignore what I say above.

    Like

  24. @Powell

    Yeah, you're right. I was suckered 😛 … now I must go to bible study at the nearest church to pay penance.

    @Frank … Powell set me straight – you win, u da MAN! Praise allah 😛

    Like

  25. Powell says: Losers like him thrive on that. Right Frank? You da man! Ignore what I say above.

    Bobby says: @Frank … Powell set me straight – you win, u da MAN! Praise allah 😛

    Me: I'm sorry you two were not able to defend your world view without crying but it's not my fault. I guess you didn't prove your assertions, not that you had anything to prove because well, every post you made here was you trying to prove what you didn't have to prove. Odd no?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s