Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest freedwoman

Burden Of Proof?

Recommended Posts

Guest freedwoman

Why is the burden of proof always put on the believer? What freaking proof do you all even want? Why isn't the burden of proof ever put on the non believer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WalterP.  Time to shine, buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman
59 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@WalterP.  Time to shine, buddy.

Huh? Who is WalterP? Trust me I am not he. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, freedwoman said:

Huh? Who is WalterP? Trust me I am not he. 

WalterP is our resident expert on burden of proof.  He'll be along after while.  Time works a little differently on his side of the pond. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to steal WalterP’s thunder, but, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.  As in, “god exists.”  Someone who does not believe it does not have to prove their position; the person who is saying god exists does.


I will guess that you do not believe that there is a race of ancient humans living beneath the surface of Mars.  So, what if someone came along and demanded that you prove that those people do not exist, then said that they must exist because you cannot prove that they don’t.  That is what believers are doing when they demand that nonbelievers prove that god does not exist.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, freedwoman said:

Why is the burden of proof always put on the believer? What freaking proof do you all even want? Why isn't the burden of proof ever put on the non believer? 

 

TEG nailed it. 

 

Do you understand now why it's up to people making positive claims to prove their own claims, as opposed to people who simply don't believe the unproven claims of others to have to prove anything at all in order not to believe someone else's unproven claims? 

 

If not, then what do you still not understand about the burden of proof? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman

Oh okay. I gotcha it makes sense when you put it that way. Thanks. But as for me. I just don't know if God exists or not. I don't like to use the term God or Goddess to be honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is not that there is a particular burden of proof on either the believer or the disbeliever. If someone wants to believe in God, fine.  They are under no obligation to justify their belief to me or anyone else. And I am not under any obligation to justify my belief that there is no God to anyone. The problem arises when someone asks someone else to share their specific belief. Under these conditions,  the person who is advocating their belief has some convincing to do. This is the burden of proof.

 

I don't go about trying to convince Christians that there is no God. If I did, they'd be right to assert that the burden of proof would be on me. But Christians do regularly try to convince me that Christianity is true. And I am quite justified in saying "proof, or stfu".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman
1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

The problem is not that there is a particular burden of proof on either the believer or the disbeliever. If someone wants to believe in God, fine.  They are under no obligation to justify their belief to me or anyone else. And I am not under any obligation to justify my belief that there is no God to anyone. The problem arises when someone asks someone else to share their specific belief. Under these conditions,  the person who is advocating their belief has some convincing to do. This is the burden of proof.

 

I don't go about trying to convince Christians that there is no God. If I did, they'd be right to assert that the burden of proof would be on me. But Christians do regularly try to convince me that Christianity is true. And I am quite justified in saying "proof, or stfu".

Thanks mate. 👍😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, freedwoman said:

Oh okay. I gotcha it makes sense when you put it that way. Thanks. But as for me. I just don't know if God exists or not. I don't like to use the term God or Goddess to be honest. 

 

Yeah. You know I have thought about the belief in a god or gods and the whole concept seems antiquated and easily tied to humans needing a mommy or daddy to take care of us and make everything alright. It would stand to reason then that god would makes it's way into religious dogma/doctrine as those making it up/using it sought to control the masses. Give them what they think they want - similar to politics around the globe.

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2020 at 11:05 AM, freedwoman said:

Why is the burden of proof always put on the believer? What freaking proof do you all even want? Why isn't the burden of proof ever put on the non believer? 


The burden of proof is customarily placed on the party making an assertion. Believers tend to accept apologist arguments as “proof” while rejecting science, history, cosmology, logic, and reason as evidence because they are believed to have human origins. Whereas, believers are convinced the Bible has Devine origins.

 

This deep divide makes debating religion pointless because there is no common ground or mutually acceptable authority. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Geezer said:


The burden of proof is customarily placed on the party making an assertion. Believers tend to accept apologist arguments as “proof” while rejecting science, history, cosmology, logic, and reason as evidence because they are believed to have human origins. Whereas, believers are convinced the Bible has Devine origins.

 

This deep divide makes debating religion pointless because there is no common ground or mutually acceptable authority. 

 

Bingo!

Once, in recent history, have I been able to have a reasonable conversation with a believer regarding the legitimacy of Christianity. Even then I got the impression that he was having some doubts and looking for answers.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debates are pretty pointless in terms of shutting one side down for good. All that can be done is outline and hold the claim maker responsible for their own claims. When an apologist is claiming that it's a hard fact that god exists, or science proves the existence of god, or philosophy proves god, etc., etc., they have taken up untenable claims beyond their ability to substantiate. They will likely not concede that they're wrong or that they're using faulty methodology. And instead push forward repeating failed arguments as if they are not failed arguments. 

 

It boils down to people having to wade through the information and interactions and decide for themselves how to process it all. If some one makes bold claims but when challenged can't support the bold claims with credible evidence, at least then everyone has the opportunity see the issue laid bare. And make better informed choices than if the bold claims were never challenged and presented as if hard fact. So there's some benefit to the burden of proof requirement. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

freedwoman wrote...

 

"Why is the burden of proof always put on the believer? What freaking proof do you all even want? Why isn't the burden of proof ever put on the non believer?" 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry to be late for the party! 

 

Freedwoman,

 

The input from the others is very good, but I'll chip in with my 50 cents worth.  

 

The burden of proof doesn't just rest with a 'believer' but with anyone making any kind of reasonable claim.  For example, in a court of law the prosecution will claim that the defendant is guilty and will submit evidence to demonstrate that this is so.  In the same way, the defence will submit evidence to demonstrate that the defendant is innocent of the charges leveled against them.   

 

You ask why the burden of proof is never put on the non-believer.  Well, if that principle operated in a court of law, then the defendant would be guilty until proved innocent.  That is clearly NOT how the legal system works. 

 

In the field of science, when a scientist claims to have observed or discovered something, they are the one who is expected to justify their claim with hard scientific evidence.  And so it goes in almost every sphere of human life, except for religion.  Therefore, when a person makes a religious/theological/supernatural claim, asking them to justify their claim with evidence isn't an unusual or onerous request - its a perfectly normal and reasonable one.  The difficulty arises in religious matters because things believed purely by faith have no evidence for them at all.  So, the person making a religious claim usually cannot satisfy the burden of proof because they believed it without evidence.  

 

Freedwoman, when it comes to whom the burden of proof rests upon, please consider this example. 

 

If I claim that I'm the archangel Gabriel and the burden of proof for that rested with you, the non-believer, then you'd be obliged to accept (without evidence) that I am Gabriel until such time as you could prove me wrong.  Good luck with that!

 

Does that demonstrate why the burden of proof always rests with the person making the claim and not with anyone else?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Praise be to the great pink unicorn, my prayer has been answered and Walter has appeared to grace us with his presence. @TheRedneckProfessor 

 

@WalterP We'd noted you hadn't posted for a while. Good to see you again.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldnt it be the Burden of Evidence? 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, midniterider said:

Shouldnt it be the Burden of Evidence? 

 

 

 

Very clever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman
4 hours ago, WalterP said:

freedwoman wrote...

 

"Why is the burden of proof always put on the believer? What freaking proof do you all even want? Why isn't the burden of proof ever put on the non believer?" 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry to be late for the party! 

 

Freedwoman,

 

The input from the others is very good, but I'll chip in with my 50 cents worth.  

 

The burden of proof doesn't just rest with a 'believer' but with anyone making any kind of reasonable claim.  For example, in a court of law the prosecution will claim that the defendant is guilty and will submit evidence to demonstrate that this is so.  In the same way, the defence will submit evidence to demonstrate that the defendant is innocent of the charges leveled against them.   

 

You ask why the burden of proof is never put on the non-believer.  Well, if that principle operated in a court of law, then the defendant would be guilty until proved innocent.  That is clearly NOT how the legal system works. 

 

In the field of science, when a scientist claims to have observed or discovered something, they are the one who is expected to justify their claim with hard scientific evidence.  And so it goes in almost every sphere of human life, except for religion.  Therefore, when a person makes a religious/theological/supernatural claim, asking them to justify their claim with evidence isn't an unusual or onerous request - its a perfectly normal and reasonable one.  The difficulty arises in religious matters because things believed purely by faith have no evidence for them at all.  So, the person making a religious claim usually cannot satisfy the burden of proof because they believed it without evidence.  

 

Freedwoman, when it comes to whom the burden of proof rests upon, please consider this example. 

 

If I claim that I'm the archangel Gabriel and the burden of proof for that rested with you, the non-believer, then you'd be obliged to accept (without evidence) that I am Gabriel until such time as you could prove me wrong.  Good luck with that!

 

Does that demonstrate why the burden of proof always rests with the person making the claim and not with anyone else?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it does. Thank you. That was a very intelligent articulate response. Glad you shared.  👍😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WalterP said:

In the same way, the defence will submit evidence to demonstrate that the defendant is innocent of the charges leveled against them.   

In the American "justice" system, the defense is not necessarily  tasked with proving the innocence of the defendant.  Rather, it is the defense's job to provide a "reasonable doubt" concerning the prosecutor's claim that the defendant is guilty.  This is why we use the term "not guilty" rather than "innocent".  Not guilty doesn't mean innocent; it just means that the claim of guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

In the same way, think of the believer as a prosecutor, making a claim about the existence of god.  Our job as unbelievers, whether we be ex-christian, agnostic, pagan, or just generally debaucherous heathen, our task is not to disprove the prosecutor's (believer's) claim; but rather to provide a reasonable doubt concerning the claim's veracity.  The verdict of "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "innocent".  Likewise, "I don't believe" does not necessarily mean that the claim is false.  It simply means that the claim has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Praise be to the great pink unicorn, my prayer has been answered and Walter has appeared to grace us with his presence. @TheRedneckProfessor 

 

@WalterP We'd noted you hadn't posted for a while. Good to see you again.

 

Umm... yes, that was a bit of a hiatus, wasn't it?  Quite why I don't really know.  (Shrugs)

 

Anyway, here I am and may the great and most high, pinkest of pink, the mighty and holy one-horned one be garlanded with praise and blessings!  ;)

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, WalterP said:

may the great and most high, pinkest of pink, the mighty and holy one-horned one be garlanded with praise and blessings

Y'all heretics and your horny goat.   One day the Six Nippled One (glorify her name) will strike you down for your continued blasphemies.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

In the American "justice" system, the defense is not necessarily  tasked with proving the innocence of the defendant.  Rather, it is the defense's job to provide a "reasonable doubt" concerning the prosecutor's claim that the defendant is guilty.  This is why we use the term "not guilty" rather than "innocent".  Not guilty doesn't mean innocent; it just means that the claim of guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

In the same way, think of the believer as a prosecutor, making a claim about the existence of god.  Our job as unbelievers, whether we be ex-christian, agnostic, pagan, or just generally debaucherous heathen, our task is not to disprove the prosecutor's (believer's) claim; but rather to provide a reasonable doubt concerning the claim's veracity.  The verdict of "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "innocent".  Likewise, "I don't believe" does not necessarily mean that the claim is false.  It simply means that the claim has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Thank you RedneckProf.  :)

 

What you say chimes with something I heard on one Matt Dillahunty's videos.  When it comes to Christian claims, the null position is not one of outright rejection but of careful neutrality.  We do not reject the claim as false but await the presentation of evidence to support the veracity of the claim.  Which is why the burden of proof (or evidence) is upon the claim maker.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Y'all heretics and your horny goat.   One day the Six Nippled One (glorify her name) will strike you down for your continued blasphemies.

 

I think not!  ;)

 

ff4b000eb9db0887a740725525ee5605.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.