Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2010, 07:15 PM
 
Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
While I don't know who Austin Cline is for sure, he says this about himself. "Austin Cline has been actively involved in educating people about atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism on the Internet for over 10 years. Austin Cline is a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Free thought Alliance. Austin has also lectured on religion, religious violence, science, and skepticism. Austin Cline holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Arts from Princeton University. He also studied for one year each at the University of Zurich and the Ludwig-Maximillian University in Munich, Germany. In America, Germany, and Switzerland, Austin has studied both religion and philosophy. Both atheism and agnosticism are neglected in popular culture, despite the popularity of recent books by atheists. When was the last time you saw an openly atheist politician, an article on atheism in a major periodical, or anyone discussing secular humanism as a serious alternative to religion?"

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist...fproof.htm

I agree with this article he wrote about the burden of proof AND HE IS AN ATHEIST, he clearly understands the burden of proof that I have been trying to educate Unbeliever on. Some highlights from the article for those who won't read it are:

"A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof. "

"But regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support."

"An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it."

"If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong."

"If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position of disbelief is justified."

"Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is important to remember here is that some response is expected. The “burden of proof” is not something static which one party must always carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as true, but if you insist that a claim isn’t reasonable or credible, you should be willing to explain how and why"

This atheist agrees with what I was saying yesterday to Unbeliever. Show proof or support for your claim that “He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time. EDIT: With a healthy dose of mythology added, too.”
He could or did not do that, so his claim is without merit.

I look forward to Unbeliever responding to the burden of proof by this atheist.

I realize this also, Cline says this “In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god” If I claim first that God exists then the burden of proof is on me. If you claim God doesn’t exist first, the burden is on you.
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 07:42 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
*sigh*

You just don't get it, do you, martin? I did support my claim. Jesus was not a historical figure, and it makes sense that a fictional character would be based on real-life examples of that kind of character.
In fact, even you did not dispute this. You changed your argument to "prove Jesus did not exist", which is the burden of proof fallacy. If I asked you to prove that General Harold von Beaverton did not exist, and then you were unable to do so, would this be proof of his existence? Of course not. Do some thinking before you make a fool of yourself again.

EDIT: I honestly don't see how you could have read this article and still believe that you are right about this. You even quoted the relevant bits yourself.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 07:44 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
I'm somewhat confused as to when you believe the burden of proof is on who. Originally, you seem to say it's the person going against the majority, then you bring up(And agree with) this argument that basically says that if you present something, you need to support it(Fulfill the burden of proof), and the defensive side doesn't get the burden of proof until you first construct and present your argument.

I agree with the article too, so I'm somewhat lost here as to where exactly we disagree.

(08-04-2010 07:15 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  If I claim first that God exists then the burden of proof is on me. If you claim God doesn’t exist first, the burden is on you.

Keep in mind most of us are not claiming that there if defiantly no god, just that according to the evidence we have examined, we see no logical reason to believe in god. No god is the default position, the defense. It works like this because there are countless things that could exists, most of which can never be conclusively proven not to exist, and we would be consistently trying to figure what isn't, rather than figuring out what is.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 07:49 PM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 07:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  *sigh*

You just don't get it, do you, martin? I did support my claim. Jesus was not a historical figure, and it makes sense that a fictional character would be based on real-life examples of that kind of character.
In fact, even you did not dispute this. You changed your argument to "prove Jesus did not exist", which is the burden of proof fallacy. If I asked you to prove that General Harold von Beaverton did not exist, and then you were unable to do so, would this be proof of his existence? Of course not. Do some thinking before you make a fool of yourself again.

EDIT: I honestly don't see how you could have read this article and still believe that you are right about this. You even quoted the relevant bits yourself.

Ok, show me where I was wrong with that article? Quote the article from your side.
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 07:50 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Something else.

martinb59 Wrote:If I claim first that God exists then the burden of proof is on me. If you claim God doesn’t exist first, the burden is on you.

This is untrue. The concept of burden of proof presented int his article is greatly simplified. The burden always lies on those who make a positive claim, not just the ones who made a claim. This seems to be the thing that you are incapable of understanding. Please, do some reading on this.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 07:54 PM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 07:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Something else.

martinb59 Wrote:If I claim first that God exists then the burden of proof is on me. If you claim God doesn’t exist first, the burden is on you.

This is untrue. The concept of burden of proof presented int his article is greatly simplified. The burden always lies on those who make a positive claim, not just the ones who made a claim. This seems to be the thing that you are incapable of understanding. Please, do some reading on this.

No it doesn't your atheist friend does not agree. What are you basing this on besides http://www.nizkor.org or Wikipedia, that article is from an atheist who truly understands the burden of proof, prove you have better credentials than Cline and we can talk, if not don't reply or admit you do not truly understand the burden of proof.
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 07:59 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2010 08:09 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 07:49 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Ok, show me where I was wrong with that article? Quote the article from your side.

Several points:

Quote:An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.

According to the article, the burden lies with you, as you assert belief in the existence of a god.

Quote:The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true — indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong.

You claim the existence of a historical Jesus. In attempting to move the burden onto us - asking us to disprove his existence - you are attempting to shift the burden fallaciously.

Quote:Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn’t have to do anything — and occasionally, when the prosecution does an especially bad job, you will find defense lawyers who rest their case without calling any witnesses because they find it unnecessary. Support for the prosecution claims here is so obviously weak that a counter-argument simply isn’t deemed important.

This would be an example wherein I would simply rest my case without doing anything. You have not provided any evidence whatsoever in favor of Jesus existing.

Even if the burden of proof were on me to disprove Jesus' existence, I would still have a rather strong case. You see, the case against Jesus' existence is simply that there is no evidence for his existence - the same case brought against leprechauns, Bigfoot, Cthulhu, Zeus, psychic powers, alien visitors, and hundreds of other things.

So my case is made. The evidence against Jesus is the lack of evidence for Jesus. If you wish to refute this, you must accept the burden of proof. Until you prove that he exists, my position - that he does not - is considered true.
(08-04-2010 07:54 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(08-04-2010 07:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Something else.

martinb59 Wrote:If I claim first that God exists then the burden of proof is on me. If you claim God doesn’t exist first, the burden is on you.

This is untrue. The concept of burden of proof presented int his article is greatly simplified. The burden always lies on those who make a positive claim, not just the ones who made a claim. This seems to be the thing that you are incapable of understanding. Please, do some reading on this.

No it doesn't your atheist friend does not agree.

As I just told you, he presents a simplified version of the concept.

Quote:What are you basing this on besides http://www.nizkor.org

What makes you feel that Nizkor is not a reliable source? What makes this man more reliable than Nizkor? Your entire case against the nature of positive and negative claims and their relation to the burden of proof is based entirely on dismissal of evidence presented. Either come up with something better than "Nizkor doesn't count" or accept that your position is faulty.

Quote:that article is from an atheist who truly understands the burden of proof, prove you have better credentials than Cline and we can talk, if not don't reply or admit you do not truly understand the burden of proof.

Prove that you have better credentials than I. When will you get it through your head that your constant demands for credentials are nothing more than ad hominem attacks?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 08:20 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
The guy is right, Cline is it? You can shift the burden of proof on us, as it does shift between sides in a functional debate. You first have to present WHY Jesus existed, and then it is up to us to explain why you are wrong, and then back to you for explaining why we wrong. It goes back and forth, like a tennis ball, if that helps you visualize it. It starts with the positive claim, saying that something does exist. That could be an unknown creature, a reaction that occurs between two substances, god, or Jesus. Once you make an argument as to why Jesus existed, the burden is on us. So I suggest you proceed with that.

Provide us with some sort of evidence as to why something happened/someone existed.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 08:21 PM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 07:44 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  I'm somewhat confused as to when you believe the burden of proof is on who. Originally, you seem to say it's the person going against the majority, then you bring up(And agree with) this argument that basically says that if you present something, you need to support it(Fulfill the burden of proof), and the defensive side doesn't get the burden of proof until you first construct and present your argument.

I agree with the article too, so I'm somewhat lost here as to where exactly we disagree.

(08-04-2010 07:15 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  If I claim first that God exists then the burden of proof is on me. If you claim God doesn’t exist first, the burden is on you.

Keep in mind most of us are not claiming that there if defiantly no god, just that according to the evidence we have examined, we see no logical reason to believe in god. No god is the default position, the defense. It works like this because there are countless things that could exists, most of which can never be conclusively proven not to exist, and we would be consistently trying to figure what isn't, rather than figuring out what is.

First of all, again, I agree with you. If I meet you on a street, and you say to me "Hi, I'm an atheist, I don't believe God exists" The burden of proof is on you to prove that God does not exist. If I meet you on the street, and I say "Hi, I'm a theist, I believe God exists" the burden of proof is on me to prove my claim. Unbeliever in his limited knowledge does not believe that because he has only gone as far as the basic atheist refutation.
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 08:28 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 08:21 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  If I meet you on a street, and you say to me "Hi, I'm an atheist, I don't believe God exists" The burden of proof is on you to prove that God does not exist.

No, it is not. If I walk up to you on the street and say "Hi, I don't believe Martians have visited Earth," the burden of proof is not on me to prove that, as there is no evidence in favor of their visiting us in the first place. Only once the case for something has been established is the burden of proof on those making a case against it.

Quote:Unbeliever in his limited knowledge does not believe that because he has only gone as far as the basic atheist refutation.

Drop the insults and back up your arguments with logic instead. You'll find that it gets you a lot further, and that people have higher opinions of you as well. Insults are meaningless. As easily as you can say this, I can say that you have only gone as far as the basic theist refutation. However, the evidence is on my side. Your constant attempts to twist things around and to misrepresent the burden of proof do not change this.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: