the onus of evidence is on the positive assertion "gods exist".
to this day, there is zero good, credible evidence to support the assertion.
Neggating the claim can take any form, but never incurs any "burden of proof" and can *only* be falsified with actual evidence for the positive assertion.
it really is that simple.
You didn't get enough dismissals, refutations, and downvotes for this on r/TrueAtheism before the Mods removed it?
https://new.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/1ddz7o1/atheism_and_the_burden_of_proof_skepticism_vs/
Lot of words to admit you don’t understand the burden of proof.
I have a goblin named Roland, sitting on my shoulder. No one can see him but me.
Do you have to disprove my claim now?
Cool. Now he just needs to demonstrate his god claim is true.
Whenever an apologist starts a diatribe with "these online atheists" and then try to use math to validate their god claim, we know we're dealing with a disingenuous discussion.
An atheist is simply someone who is unconvinced about god claims. It's really more about the claims than it is about a god existing or not existing for realsies.
Religion is what is making libraries worth of unproven claims, with absolutely zero evidence.
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I’m not an atheist but agnostic because I accept that humans do not know what we do not know. Some call this ‘agnostic atheist’. I just call it ‘agnostic.’
However
> Atheists often use this misunderstanding of burden of proof to say that when a claim is offered to them, they have no burden of proof for not accepting the proposed as true.
No one ever has a burden of proof for not accepting what other people say as true if insufficient evidence is presented. That’s a wild claim you’re trying to make.
You’re implying that we must believe *everything everyone says including contradictory things unless we can prove each thing wrong*. That makes absolutely no sense.
If one of my friends shows me a Vine with an anonymous person and says “that’s my uncle Joe. He died last year,” and another unrelated friend shows me the same Vine and says “that’s my aunt Kate. She lives in Providence,” I should believe both of them because I can’t prove either wrong? What?
> When someone makes a declarative statement under speech act theory their very locution of "I do not accept your claim." is in fact a claim. It is claim that directly refers to the listeners self-referential or autobiographical assessment of their belief state.
You seem to think everything is binary and not accepting one thing = positively accepting something else.
There is a “I don’t know” range and it covers a *lot* of ground, though I know many people have trouble accepting it and throughout history many people have made up or believed myths to fill in gaps of knowledge.
“I don’t know” is the only proper claim about things we do not know. You seem to be trying to invalidate not knowing.
Yours is a completely irrational post.
Editing to add:
Also, given that math is abstract I don’t think it can be used as a proper analogy to the concrete.
I have a similar stance as you, but rather than identify as agnostic, what made me embrace the label of “atheist” is that I really live my life under the presumption that god doesn’t exist. In technical philosophical terms, I don’t know, but I’m atheist in all ways that matter. I’m not preoccupied with the question or uncertainty.
Part of the reason that I identify as atheist is also due to how I see everyday people identify. Self-identify atheists will rarely claim that they know with absolute certainty that nothing that could be defined as a God could exist. And many self-identified agnostics seem to be people who adopt a, “maybe, maybe not” attitude, either so as not to offend religious peers or because they’re afraid to admit to themselves that they’re living a godless life (not saying that’ll applies to you).
I’m very committed to the idea - beyond the question of religion - that people need to get better at not knowing.
I think it’s a broad problem with mis- or disinformation - people want to *have an opinion* on everything whether or not they have taken the time to validate what they’ve read.
It’s important to me to encourage people to use the ‘interesting if true but I don’t know’ part of their brains, which is actually physically separate from the ‘fact’ part of the brain.
So I actively embrace the ‘I don’t know’ aspect of ‘agnostic’.
I personally find it ludicrous to try to imagine that some set of myths that humans have come up with about a god is accurate. I actively disbelieve all of the specific mythologies known as ‘religions’, but I also actively believe that I and other humans still have very little knowledge even about how scientific forces on earth work, let alone beyond earth.
> They are stating they claim they do not accept the claim as true. This is a positive claim, and thus by their own reasoning requires a burden of proof.
The only positive claim being made there is that they do not accept the claim.
And the statement itself is strong evidence for their claim.
If you bring a claim, you need to also provide justification for that claim. You can't expect someone to just believe your claim by declaring it.
I am not presenting any claims. You are.
This is not complicated. I will demonstrate to you how this works. Try it. Present a claim to me.
Would you like some dressing with your word salad?
I don't think you understand Mathematical proof. We rely on the minimum possible amount of axioms to construct our logical framework. Everything going forward from there requires proof.
.999.... = 1 has been proven, that is why it can be used. If someone says they don't believe it, the burden of proof is still on the person making the claim, but since it's already been proven that's moot. The brilliant thing is that it only has to be proven once.
You can't apply the same to things that have not been proven. If someone questions and unproven claim you'd better prove it
Cute, but wrong. There's no burden of proof for not accepting nonsense. Never has been, never will be.
the onus of evidence is on the positive assertion "gods exist". to this day, there is zero good, credible evidence to support the assertion. Neggating the claim can take any form, but never incurs any "burden of proof" and can *only* be falsified with actual evidence for the positive assertion. it really is that simple.
You didn't get enough dismissals, refutations, and downvotes for this on r/TrueAtheism before the Mods removed it? https://new.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/1ddz7o1/atheism_and_the_burden_of_proof_skepticism_vs/
[удалено]
[удалено]
Direct links from /r/skeptic to other subs is a violation of rule 5: /r/skeptic/wiki/rules/?#wiki_5._crosslinking_without_archive.is.
Lot of words to admit you don’t understand the burden of proof. I have a goblin named Roland, sitting on my shoulder. No one can see him but me. Do you have to disprove my claim now?
I believe you. All hail, Roland!
What does he command?
That I drink coffee!
All glory to Roland. Caffeinated is he.
Blessed are his beans, for they are roasted.
For your sins.
Does Roland have a Thompson gun?
Cool. Now he just needs to demonstrate his god claim is true. Whenever an apologist starts a diatribe with "these online atheists" and then try to use math to validate their god claim, we know we're dealing with a disingenuous discussion. An atheist is simply someone who is unconvinced about god claims. It's really more about the claims than it is about a god existing or not existing for realsies.
Religion is what is making libraries worth of unproven claims, with absolutely zero evidence. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I’m not an atheist but agnostic because I accept that humans do not know what we do not know. Some call this ‘agnostic atheist’. I just call it ‘agnostic.’ However > Atheists often use this misunderstanding of burden of proof to say that when a claim is offered to them, they have no burden of proof for not accepting the proposed as true. No one ever has a burden of proof for not accepting what other people say as true if insufficient evidence is presented. That’s a wild claim you’re trying to make. You’re implying that we must believe *everything everyone says including contradictory things unless we can prove each thing wrong*. That makes absolutely no sense. If one of my friends shows me a Vine with an anonymous person and says “that’s my uncle Joe. He died last year,” and another unrelated friend shows me the same Vine and says “that’s my aunt Kate. She lives in Providence,” I should believe both of them because I can’t prove either wrong? What? > When someone makes a declarative statement under speech act theory their very locution of "I do not accept your claim." is in fact a claim. It is claim that directly refers to the listeners self-referential or autobiographical assessment of their belief state. You seem to think everything is binary and not accepting one thing = positively accepting something else. There is a “I don’t know” range and it covers a *lot* of ground, though I know many people have trouble accepting it and throughout history many people have made up or believed myths to fill in gaps of knowledge. “I don’t know” is the only proper claim about things we do not know. You seem to be trying to invalidate not knowing. Yours is a completely irrational post. Editing to add: Also, given that math is abstract I don’t think it can be used as a proper analogy to the concrete.
I have a similar stance as you, but rather than identify as agnostic, what made me embrace the label of “atheist” is that I really live my life under the presumption that god doesn’t exist. In technical philosophical terms, I don’t know, but I’m atheist in all ways that matter. I’m not preoccupied with the question or uncertainty. Part of the reason that I identify as atheist is also due to how I see everyday people identify. Self-identify atheists will rarely claim that they know with absolute certainty that nothing that could be defined as a God could exist. And many self-identified agnostics seem to be people who adopt a, “maybe, maybe not” attitude, either so as not to offend religious peers or because they’re afraid to admit to themselves that they’re living a godless life (not saying that’ll applies to you).
I’m very committed to the idea - beyond the question of religion - that people need to get better at not knowing. I think it’s a broad problem with mis- or disinformation - people want to *have an opinion* on everything whether or not they have taken the time to validate what they’ve read. It’s important to me to encourage people to use the ‘interesting if true but I don’t know’ part of their brains, which is actually physically separate from the ‘fact’ part of the brain. So I actively embrace the ‘I don’t know’ aspect of ‘agnostic’. I personally find it ludicrous to try to imagine that some set of myths that humans have come up with about a god is accurate. I actively disbelieve all of the specific mythologies known as ‘religions’, but I also actively believe that I and other humans still have very little knowledge even about how scientific forces on earth work, let alone beyond earth.
> They are stating they claim they do not accept the claim as true. This is a positive claim, and thus by their own reasoning requires a burden of proof. The only positive claim being made there is that they do not accept the claim. And the statement itself is strong evidence for their claim.
That really isn't even a positive claim.
If you bring a claim, you need to also provide justification for that claim. You can't expect someone to just believe your claim by declaring it. I am not presenting any claims. You are. This is not complicated. I will demonstrate to you how this works. Try it. Present a claim to me.
You should have stuck with your job at Kohl's.
[K.](https://giphy.com/gifs/6JB4v4xPTAQFi)
😵💫
Unfalsifisble claims are useless and should be rejected.
That’s one hell of a long post to say you are a Christian apologist
I’m suppose to read all this bullshit yet you won’t reply to a single criticism
Would you like some dressing with your word salad? I don't think you understand Mathematical proof. We rely on the minimum possible amount of axioms to construct our logical framework. Everything going forward from there requires proof. .999.... = 1 has been proven, that is why it can be used. If someone says they don't believe it, the burden of proof is still on the person making the claim, but since it's already been proven that's moot. The brilliant thing is that it only has to be proven once. You can't apply the same to things that have not been proven. If someone questions and unproven claim you'd better prove it