Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2015, 08:17 PM
Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
The "burden of proof" argument is really such a clear and powerful argument against the believer. What are some clever ways you've heard smarter believers and apologists try to weasel their way out of the burden of proof or try to shift it to the atheist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 08:32 PM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
The best I have seen comes from presuppositionalism simply because it requires good debating skills and working knowledge of philosophy to counter. It's still a load of you know what, but it's a good tool to shift the burden of proof from believer to atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
11-06-2015, 08:38 PM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
The only "clever" thing an apologist would have to say is :
"I'm sorry, but I have to apologize for my bullshit".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-06-2015, 09:36 PM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
@Bucky Ball

There is more chances for hell to pop into existence before we see someone like Ken Ham say something like that, but one can dream.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 09:49 PM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
(11-06-2015 08:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The only "clever" thing an apologist would have to say is :
"I'm sorry, but I have to apologize for my bullshit".
When I watch these folk debate, I often come to the conclusion that the debater is smart enough to know the obvious logical flaws in their own argument. I often come to the conclusion that they are debating on the weak side as a personal challenge for themselves and their own debating skills.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 09:56 PM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
What they do best is they wait for you to slip. They can't wait for the conversation to become fluid and comfortable because that's when you might assume they know what you mean when instead they are just waiting to pounce. Eg. You're chatting about the fact that zero proof exists that Moses ever existed. You're careful for two hours to say that there isn't any evidence. Then in a casual moment you say, "Because Moses never existed ..." And that's when they pounce. "Prove it! You said he never existed! What evidence do you have that he didn't exist?" Of course you trusted this person to consider the entire conversation and that you are just getting tired of phrasing your words in a non-burden-of-proof way. It's weak, but sometimes it's the only bullet in their chamber.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WillHopp's post
11-06-2015, 11:16 PM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
I wouldn't go so far as to say clever, more sneaky or dishonest.
We often get new members here who don't disclose their beliefs up-front.
They then ask a series of vague, seemingly pointless questions in hopes that anyone who bothers to answer corners themselves by making a positive claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
12-06-2015, 02:16 AM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
I like how they try to say that I have a "Belief that God doesn't exist".. Instead of" I don't believe God exists".

They sound similar, but one is a claim and one is the rejection of a claim. So they word it like I'm making a claim and then ask me to prove it.

I always reply with "I'm not an atheist because I have proof God doesn't exist... I'm an atheist because you can't prove he does"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheStraightener's post
12-06-2015, 05:23 AM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
(11-06-2015 08:32 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The best I have seen comes from presuppositionalism simply because it requires good debating skills and working knowledge of philosophy to counter. It's still a load of you know what, but it's a good tool to shift the burden of proof from believer to atheist.

This is pretty much it.

It typically takes a form of presupposition, God of the gaps, and shifting the goal posts. They'll assert that God must have done something (presupposition) and demand I come up with an alternative. If I can't come up with an alternative, then God must have done it (God of the gaps). If I come up with a possible alternative, they'll say that it isn't as reasonable as their solution of God (shifting the goal posts).

So, basically, they want to assume they're right, force you to prove them wrong, and then ignore you if you do what they asked.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
12-06-2015, 06:31 AM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
Piece of shit liars.

Wait, what was the question?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: