Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2013, 07:48 PM
RE: Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
I believe that Bertrand Russell beat you to the "ultimate" burden of proof argument some time ago. As a matter of fact he also covered the reason why Dawkins (and myself) would call ourselves a 6.9

see Russell's teapot

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 08:21 PM
RE: Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
(31-12-2013 03:28 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  
(29-12-2013 07:46 PM)f stop Wrote:  Whenever anyone plays the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" card my response is "Of course, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist." Saves a lot of time. That said, I'm a 6 on Dawkins' seven point scale, right alongside Richard himself.

Groan. Dawkins is such a pseudointellectual. "Scales of atheism", jesus christ. Agnostics are just as annoying as the religious.

You either believe in magic or you don't. It's very binary. And there's no evidence for magic having existed or can.

When you have made original contributions to science and written elegant books on it, I will take your sneering at Dawkins seriously.

Until then, I laugh at it. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
01-01-2014, 04:19 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2014 08:44 PM by WindyCityJazz.)
RE: Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
Here is a good example of why the creationist argument that "the burden of proof is on the atheists" is a ridiculous argument. Imagine running our legal system by Creationist "burden of proof" position:

Plaintiff: "Your honor, I am suing the defendant for $1,000 which I loaned him."
Defendant: "Your honor, I have never even met this man, let alone borrow money from him."
Judge (to defendant): "Sir, do you have any proof that this man DIDN'T loan you $1,000?"
Defendant: "No your honor. How could I disprove something like that? He has absolutely no proof that he ever lent me any money. He has no cancelled check, no signed agreement that he loaned me the money, or any witness to him loaning me the money!"
Judge (to defendant): I'm sorry sir, but the burden of proof is on you, so unless you can prove that he did not loan you the money, then you have to pay this man. Judgement in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of $1,000!"

The sheer idiocy of such thinking is blatantly obvious to anyone, right? So why is this same idiotic line of thinking logical when it comes to claiming the existence of deities? Are there any creationists here that use the "Burden of proof is on the atheists argument" here that can answer that question? PleaseJesus maybe?

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WindyCityJazz's post
01-01-2014, 04:52 PM
RE: Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
Frankly, Captain Obvious, the idiocy is in asking that question at all, especially in this forum. I think we pretty much all "get it" here. Rolleyes

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 05:33 PM
RE: Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
(01-01-2014 04:52 PM)Heathen Wrote:  Frankly, Captain Obvious, the idiocy is in asking that question at all, especially in this forum. I think we pretty much all "get it" here. Rolleyes

What the hell is your problem? I was commenting on the subject of the thread, not "schooling" atheists. Hopefully making a point to the creationist trolls like PleaseJesus that love commenting on the forum though. Take a Midol and get off your period.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2014 05:47 PM by Heathen.)
RE: Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
I was simply responding to your post as written. Thanks for putting it into context. Chill.

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 06:21 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2014 06:28 PM by WindyCityJazz.)
RE: Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
(01-01-2014 05:44 PM)Heathen Wrote:  I was simply responding to your post as written. Thanks for putting it into context. Chill.

I am chill. Just ask for clarification next time and I'll gladly edit the post to make it less confusing. No need to go straight into attacks. It's all good.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WindyCityJazz's post
02-01-2014, 07:50 AM
RE: Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
(29-12-2013 07:46 PM)f stop Wrote:  
(29-12-2013 07:23 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Just make sure not to make any assertions that you yourself cannot back up (there are no gods/God doesn't exist). If you avoid that, you're good.
Whenever anyone plays the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" card my response is "Of course, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist." Saves a lot of time.

If you're just looking to shut them up, that works, but it's not really accurate. A more accurate way to classify yourself would be to say you're an agnostic atheist. The terms aren't mutually exclusive. You're atheist because you lack a belief in gods. You're agnostic because you don't believe your stance is knowable and you aren't asserting that there are exactly zero gods.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: Ultimate "who has the burden of proof" argument
I'm not too crazy over the Dawkins scale. I like Matt Dillahunty's description of gnosticism (knowledge) and theism (belief) being separate things. The Dawkins scale, even with all of its utility, simply does not accommodate well for this distinction.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: