-->
@EtrnlVw
I suppose if we adopted that standard, you'd be right that all topics have burdens for the affirmative and negative, it's just that those burdens vary depending on that topic.
God and the BoP
Posts
Total:
122
-->
@EtrnlVw
Atheism is not defined as not knowing something.
I disagree.
ATHEIST is literally "NOT-a-THEIST".
It simply describes someone who does NOT follow the teachings of any THEISTIC god($).
-->
@EtrnlVw
Perhaps there are more agnostics that are atheists they just don't know it lol.
An AGNOSTIC is literally, "NOT-a-GNOSTIC".
It simply describes someone who does NOT personally have any conscious memory of a GNOSTIC experience (and or does not identify themselves as a GNOSTIC).
-->
@MisterChris
But if the resolution is positing that God exists, then the BoP lies solely with the affirmative.
I tend to agree.
And the crucial bit that gets forgotten is a rigorous and explicit definition of "god($)".
-->
@EtrnlVw
A common misinterpretation of atheism.....Atheism is a state of mind and definitely not a belief in something,
Theists are the believers in things they cannot prove to be true.
Certainly some atheists are antagonists, but that's a different story.
-->
@Lit
Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject.
Please present your personally preferred definition of "God".
-->
@Athias
As erudite as ever Mr A.
Nonetheless, regarding the veracity of popular GOD stories, you are still no nearer shifting the burden of proof from your shoulders.
And as ever I have nothing to prove.
Zed the atheist.
I, like most people, would love to know the reason for the existence of matter....But, a chap went up a mountain and had a chat with a GOD....Pull the other one, it's got bells on..... I certainly don't feel the need to disprove these sort of tall tales.
Zed the antagonist.
-->
@Tradesecret
Why is it that the atheist feels threatened by such evidence that the B of P is one which has exceptions?
Where does the BoP fall for a claim that NANABOZHO does NOT exist?
Where does the BoP fall for a claim that NANABOZHO does exist?
-->
@Lit
Yes, you're right. I tripped up. Put prove and disprove in place of affirm and disaffirm in my post, because it being a responsive act would necessitate these two actions.An independent claim would be an invention by man and showing it to those who don't know it exists. This is independent and separate from man. A person doesn't independently say God exists because it is based off a stirring in the conscience. Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject. This is responsive.
What do you mean by "stirring in the conscience"?
For example, saying the apparent order of the universe credits the existence of God is based off a stirring in the human conscience because we perceive order.
This presents a teleological issue--i.e. the perceived ends an entity serves necessarily is a consequence of creation for that specific end. For example, evolutionary psychology suffers immensely from this issue when making claims like gender roles necessarily manifest from a reproductive economy.
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism is not defined as not knowing something.
I disagree.
Lol, that's not how atheism is defined. Anywhere...
ATHEIST is literally "NOT-a-THEIST".
Correct, A-theism is a term in opposition to theism, which persists that they know. At least know what they believe or disbelieve in.
It simply describes someone who does NOT follow the teachings of any THEISTIC god($).
It IS a philosophical position, which is directly in contrast to theism.
Where the fck do you get your definitions lol!
Atheist-
"godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being"
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
"Atheism is in the broadest sense (the least specific) an absence of belief in the existence of deities (note, an absence specific to deities). Less broadly (more specific), atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense ( very specific), atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism"
"in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
Though atheists like to pretend that they know nothing, they don't know how their label is defined. It INCLUDES a denial and a rejection that God exists as well as making a claim that God does not exist. Those are the requirements of being an atheist whether you accept that or not. Disbelief and lack of belief are being used synonymously, there is no word for a lack of beliefs, there must be a denial of theism specifically. Either way, no matter how you wish to cherry pick it, atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, that's why the term exists. It's an opposing position, one which DOES express knowing.
An AGNOSTIC is literally, "NOT-a-GNOSTIC".It simply describes someone who does NOT personally have any conscious memory of a GNOSTIC experience (and or does not identify themselves as a GNOSTIC).
Agnostic-
"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
"broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
"a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something"
So, according to the definitions I provided that are accurately depicted it would be logical to conclude that a person who makes no philosophical stance about God or gods is not an atheist. An atheist is not a person "who simply doesn't know anything", that's not how it is defined within any description. That's why I say it's possible some atheists are probably really agnostic about God (according to the above sources), rather than disbelieving which is synonymous with not having a belief in God (lack of).
An agnostic admits nothing can be known, and does commit to either believing or disbelieving in the existence of God. That's why the term exists. So if one wishes to be neutral about God, they would fit better in an agnostic position rather than an opposing position.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Where the fck do you get your definitions lol!
From people who actually call themselves ATHEISTS.
AND from your OWN DEFINITIONS,
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.""Atheism is in the broadest sense (the least specific) an absence of belief in the existence of deities..."
YOU (probably) have a lack-of-belief in NANABOZHO.
YOU (probably) have a lack-of-belief in BIGFOOTLOCHNESSSPACEALIENS.
A lack-of-belief is not the same as a (positive) claim that something (positively) DOESN'T EXIST (and or cannot possibly exist).
-->
@EtrnlVw
In the same way I would not presume to tell a religious person what their religion means to them,
I would also not presume to tell an ATHEIST what their non-religion means to them.
In the same way that not all members of a specific religion believe exactly the same thing,
not all members of a specific non-religion believe exactly the same thing.
-->
@MisterChris
That's a generally accurate standard, but there is a level of nuance I think from topic to topic that it doesn't account for. For example, topics related to positive good fit your standard. If we argue that there is a positive good to installing a 5G network in the United States, then the negative does not bear BoP and can simply say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" if we do not substantiate the claim with evidence that proves a positive good without reasonable doubt. Likewise, If we argue that there is a negative effect of 5G, then the negative could say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" and win if we do not substantiate our claim with evidence that proves a negative effect without reasonable doubt.
The concern isn't winning a debate, but logic. The onus always rests with the one who affirms. Nullifying your opponent's affirmation doesn't substantiate one's own affirmation--unless that affirmation is that one's opponent will/can not substantiate his/her affirmation. In addition, nullifying your opponent's affirmation neither negates your opponent's affirmation nor does it prove the inverse of the proposition your opponent affirms. So if one affirms "not p" then this isn't substantiated by your opponent's failure to prove "p." That would be an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)
This is true. But "substantiating an affirmation" does not translate to having the BoP of proving that God doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. "Substantiating the affirmation" could just as easily be the athiest arguing they only have to prove that there is no substantial evidence for God's existence
No, it cannot. Because the failure of your opponent to provide information to his/her affirmation does not provide information to your own affirmation, unless again your affirmation directly focuses on the capacity to substantiate your opponent's affirmation. It does not substantiate the affirmation of the proposition's negation. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that there's a difference between "there's no substantial evidence for God's existence" and "my opponent has failed to provide substantial evidence for God's existence." The latter is a subject of onus probandi while the former is a subject of ontology.
a belief in something with no evidence is a fallacy in of itself.
No, it's not. A belief doesn't necessarily require evidence. Like Cher, I too believe in "love after love" but I'm not required to provide anything more than that mere statement. You're thinking of a "bald assertion" which is affirming one's conclusions without substantiating one's premises.
-->
@zedvictor4
As erudite as ever Mr A.
Are you trying to be the professor Trelawney to my Hermione? Because I wouldn't object.
Nonetheless, regarding the veracity of popular GOD stories, you are still no nearer shifting the burden of proof from your shoulders.
Historical accounts, before the photograph/camera (or maybe even in spite of it,) will lack observational data. So it simply reduces to the applied metrics you trust. And I don't shift burdens of proof; I meet them. But, I'm under no obligation to meet the burden of substantiating the veracity of "popular GOD stories" because I neither affirm their truth, nor negate the proposition of their truth. Since in my experience debating you over the subject, you've been the only one as far as our exchanges go to broach subjects of the Bible, perhaps you should decide whether its your own concern, or the concern of onus probandi who substantiates these "popular GOD stories."
And as ever I have nothing to prove.
That's contingent on the arguments you propose.
I, like most people, would love to know the reason for the existence of matter....But, a chap went up a mountain and had a chat with a GOD....Pull the other one, it's got bells on..... I certainly don't feel the need to disprove these sort of tall tales.
Since when does onus probandi concern how you "feel"?
Athias posted this....
Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.
The burden of proof rests with whoever affirms. So, if one were to affirm the existence of God (i.e. "God does exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation. If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
The notion that Atheists merely bear no burden of proof because of the prevailing notion "we don't have to prove a negative" is nonsense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, In the interest of disclosure, I must say that Athias doesn't respond to my posts anymore, (he told me he wouldn't) but how can I not like this guy? He just consistently has the most precisely logical posts on the board.
Notice that with all the talk about BoP, not a single atheist mentioned a claim? BoP's come with claims! No one has the BoP simply because he is this or the other. This is like an extension of identity politics.
You're black, so you must be claiming you're equal to the white man. You have the BoP to prove it.
You're a woman, so you must be claiming you're of equal worth to a man. You have the BoP to prove it.
You're a theist, so you must be claiming God exists. You have the BoP to prove it.
But they won't like the corollary,...
You're an atheist, so you must be claiming God does not exist. You have the BoP to prove it.
Athias said,
If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
This is true and correct. But the atheist wants to claim that theists are positively claiming God exists just by virtue of being theists! And atheists lack belief, so they are making no claim.
But if atheists are making no claims, then theism has nothing to counter as there is no challenge to their claim! Why do I need to support the claim that "God exists" if no one opposes my claim? Only counter-claims can oppose a claim, and if the counter claim is "God does not exist, then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
There is no way around this. The atheists fighting this know they cannot support atheism, and thus do not want their worldview examined. I can defend my claim, but your counter claims will require you to defend them too.
If you say you have no claims, then my claim is unchallenged and needs no support.
-->
@Athias
As I keep saying...I have no obligation.
-->
@Athias
Yes, you're right. I tripped up. Put prove and disprove in place of affirm and disaffirm in my post, because it being a responsive act would necessitate these two actions.An independent claim would be an invention by man and showing it to those who don't know it exists. This is independent and separate from man. A person doesn't independently say God exists because it is based off a stirring in the conscience. Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject. This is responsive.What do you mean by "stirring in the conscience"?
Stirring of the conscious is a self evident journey. This is what I mean.
For example, saying the apparent order of the universe credits the existence of God is based off a stirring in the human conscience because we perceive order.This presents a teleological issue--i.e. the perceived ends an entity serves necessarily is a consequence of creation for that specific end. For example, evolutionary psychology suffers immensely from this issue when making claims like gender roles necessarily manifest from a reproductive economy.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the perceived order the universe serves is just a consequence of creation, for its own purpose, and that there's issue when attempting to regard that purpose for man's sake to determine the existence of God. I agree with this, and I would even argue that if it weren't serving its own end that it couldn't be used to say God exists.
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism is not defined as not knowing something.
I disagree.
ATHEIST is literally "NOT-a-THEIST".
It simply describes someone who does NOT follow the teachings of any THEISTIC god($).
But atheists DO follow something! They DO have beliefs. Saying atheists have no belief about God is a lie. They do have a positive belief, and that is that God does NOT exist. If an atheist makes this claim, then the BoP is his, whether he likes it or not.
The atheist can say he has no obligation, but he has an obligation for what he believes. And he believes that there is no God. Hiding behind semantics will not shield him.
Trying to define an atheist as "not a theist" is like defining oranges as "not red". Both atheist and theist define beliefs. The atheists belief is not theism, but he does have beliefs about God. Denying that fact is an untruth.
-->
@ethang5
After consideration.
I would suggest, that I believe very little if nothing at all.....I expect and I accept...But belief as defined is a separate issue altogether.
I do not believe the Sun will rise in the morning...I expect that it will, and I will accept that it has....I do not need to believe, that which I can predict.... And that which I am uncertain of I will only consider.
I expect and accept, other people will accept a specific creation hypothesis and come to hold that concept as a belief...I however simply do not process information in the same way...I therefore have no belief, in either the existence or non-existence of any specific GOD.... I prefer just to hold the GOD principle as a valid hypothesis, worthy of consideration.
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
-->
@zedvictor4
Then my dear friend across the pond, you aren't an atheist at all.
Though I suspect you may be misreading yourself. But that is a different story.
-->
@ethang5
Well.
Perhaps your right....But perhaps also, it all boils down to the attribution of labels.
-->
@ethang5
But atheists DO follow something! They DO have beliefs. Saying atheists have no belief about God is a lie. They do have a positive belief, and that is that God does NOT exist. If an atheist makes this claim, then the BoP is his, whether he likes it or not.
When did you drop out of the oxford because your mixing in your brain because when a christian believes in god and the atheist doesnt having the belief so the atheist cant believe if he doesnt believe because if he does believe then he is not the atheist. Its like the body and the life are to different things because abogenius is impossible because one bit of the body cant make the life appear and there is no reason to assume it wood. So it is like the atheist because he cant have no belief and have belief about no belief at the same time so because to negatives dont make the positive.
-->
@zedvictor4
Labels exist because things are not all the same.
-->
@ethang5
I would suggest that certain things are the same, but we attach labels, for the sake of argument..
-->
@Athias
...nor does it prove the inverse of the proposition your opponent affirms. So if one affirms "not p" then this isn't substantiated by your opponent's failure to prove "p." That would be an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)
Well stated.
-->
@ethang5
The burden of proof rests with whoever affirms. So, if one were to affirm the existence of bigfootlochnessspacealiens (i.e. "bigfootlochnessspacealiens does exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation. If one were to affirm the nonexistence of bigfootlochnessspacealiens (i.e. "bigfootlochnessspacealiens does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
The notion that bigfootlochnessspacealiens SKEPTICS merely bear no burden of proof because of the prevailing notion "we don't have to prove a negative" is nonsense.
-->
@ethang5
But atheists DO follow something! They DO have beliefs. Saying atheists have no belief about God is a lie.
What about a DEIST?
Is a DEIST a THEIST?
Or is a DEIST an ATHEIST?
What do you think?
-->
@zedvictor4
I therefore have no belief, in either the existence or non-existence of any specific GOD....
Logically incoherent definitions of "god($)" are provably false.
And of course, not all definitions of "god($)" are logically incoherent.
-->
@ethang5
Trying to define an atheist as "not a theist" is like defining oranges as "not red".
yES, eXACTLY.
Now you're starting to understand the absurdity of making blanket statements about ATHEISTS ("not a theist" in exactly the same way that oranges are "not grapes").
Both atheist and theist define beliefs. The atheists belief is not theism, but he does have beliefs about God. Denying that fact is an untruth.
An ATHEIST is simply "not convinced".
For example,
You are probably "not convinced" of the existence of NANABOZHO.
Does this mean you are under some obligation to "disprove" the existence of NANABOZHO?
probably not.
-->
@ethang5
This is true and correct. But the atheist wants to claim that theists are positively claiming God exists just by virtue of being theists! And atheists lack belief, so they are making no claim.
Ok.
(IFF) you want a claim (THEN) try this one on,
A logically incoherent definition of "god($)" cannot be an accurate definition.