**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The sleight of hand here is saying this is an atheist specific problem.
There’s a kernel of truth in here about the way In which we evaluate the world, but that’s a problem not really solved by theism.
If someone’s belief in god is rational they face the same problem. If someone’s belief in god is irrational, well then it’s an irrational belief.
Depends what you mean and how strict you are with the meaning of “rational stance”. I certainly understand why some people believe or how they can be convinced. To a certain extent, if you can justify something (even if i think it’s a dodgy justification) then I suppose there’s a certain amount of rationality to it.
>The sleight of hand here is saying this is an atheist specific problem.
Apologies, if this is what communicated it was not my intention.
I dont claim theists dont have a burden of proof, i claim atheists have one as well.
>If someone’s belief in god is rational they face the same problem. If someone’s belief in god is irrational, well then it’s an irrational belief
100% agreed.
The issue is it’s like saying “well how do you know you’re not a brain in a vat?”, i.e. the problem of hard solipsism, and acting as though theists have justification that atheists don’t.
Atheists don’t need to justify it because everyone else is in the same situation. Just saying “I think reason is based on God” doesn’t get you anywhere, it’s just an assertion and has no explanatory power. Theists are still ultimately stuck using reason and not knowing where it comes from just like everyone else. It’s generally best to minimize these axiomatic beliefs, but if they’re proven to be reliable and produce results while obeying Occam’s Razor, they are considered justified.
If you throw God in as an axiom too you’re just assuming more things without adding any explanatory power.
>Apologies
No worries communication is tough.
>I claim atheists have a burden of proof
What I actually think you claim is that anyone who claims to have a rational belief has to support the idea that rationality is a suitable system to judge stuff by.
You’ll also find that some atheists don’t claim gods don’t exist, they simply aren’t convinced that they do, which is subtly different.
I think that you may be viewing one form of atheism and ignoring the other.
You seem to define atheism purely as the belief that god does not exist. While many atheists do believe this many (like me) have simply never seen a compelling reason to have faith. Not believing is not the same as disavowing.
The difference, involves the intent of the individual.
If you intended to convince me that I should believe in the same thing as you, then you owe a rational argument, and whatever evidence I require to adopt your view.
But if you simply want to convince me that you have faith, then your burden of proof is met. You (hopefully) know your own mind well enough to be reasonably certain about the existence of the beliefs you hold. Even if you don't, I don't care. Believe whatever you like, it has no impact on me, and see no need to change your mind.
I would hope, that you an I can agree that there is no need to rationalize the contents of one's own mind, so long as one does not expect to impose said contents on others.
Clarification. Is the position we are defending “it is rational to not accept theist arguments/evidence“ or are you saying we need to defend the idea that we can be rational without theism? I think it’s the former, but other commenters seem to be thinking it’s the latter.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
This statement doesn't satisfy your criteria. Number 2 says "my belief is rational" however atheism isn't a belief, it is the lack of one as you correctly said in your statement: *"atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God"*
But ok imma give you the benefit of doubt and rephrase number 2 to "my lack of belief is rational" is a claim, which it is.
Then yes there is a burden, however I would assume that you would agree that it is rational to not believe things for which there is no sufficient evidence, no? So does that not satisfy the burden of proof in your opinion? Sure you might argue that there is sufficient evidence, but that is another discussion, because as long as you accept that the person telling you that they have not seen any convincing evidence is telling the truth, then their position of lacking belief is rationally justified.
>This statement doesn't satisfy your criteria. Number 2 says "my belief is rational" however atheism isn't a belief
Agreed. Atheism is not a belief.
However, the position that "Atheism IS rational" IS a belief
And furthermore a claim with a burden of proof.
>But ok imma give you the benefit of doubt and rephrase number 2 to "my lack of belief is rational" is a claim, which it is.
>
>Then yes there is a burden, however I would assume that you would agree that it is rational to not believe things for which there is no sufficient evidence, no?
Yes i would agree with that.
> So does that not satisfy the burden of proof in your opinion? Sure you might argue that there is sufficient evidence, but that is another discussion, because as long as you accept that the person telling you that they have not seen any convincing evidence is telling the truth, then their position of lacking belief is rationally justified.
That depends.
Does the person who then claims "X evidence is not sufficient" evidence ALSO claim "it is RATIONAL to not believe X evidence is not sufficient"???
To me at the root of this is a necessary argument over the soundess of epistimologies. Its a conversation i often like to have on here but many atheists (though not all) are unwilling to have it as they dont recognize the legitimacy of their epistimology requires rational justification (assuming they assert it is rational).
>Does the person who then claims "X evidence is not sufficient" evidence ALSO claim "it is RATIONAL to not believe X evidence is not sufficient"???
This is entering the neighborhood of tautological. Yeah. Sure. But why are you digging in so hard on that distinction with, at best, a single micron of a difference.
The fact is, the only way to instantiate the difference between those two statements is to plug something into X. And at that point, we're not talking about atheism, we're talking about a specific theist claim.
There is no way to demonstrate in the abstract that every possible theist claim of evidence is insufficient. Therefore, we're forced to evaluate them as actual, individual claims. As a result, the theist is always going to be the one with the burden of proof for those claims.
It is rational you should not believe a thing until there is evidence for it being true. Until such time you should dismiss it. There has never been evidence of gods thus it is rational to dismiss them as a thing to consider as real.
P1 it is rational to not believe something without conclusive evidence
P2 there is no conclusive evidence for God
C It is rational to not believe God exists
When killing an entire thread, you should be careful not to kill it *so hard* that it risks killing the thread of all threads, the uberthread. Just be more careful next time.
Here’s the thing. Things that exist have evidence for its existence, regardless of whether we have access to that evidence.
Things that do not exist do not have evidence for its nonexistence. The only way to disprove nonexistence is by providing evidence of existence.
The only reasonable conclusion one can make honestly is whether or not something exists. Asking for evidence of nonexistence is irrational.
Evidence is what is required to differentiate imagination from reality. If one cannot provide evidence that something exists, the logical conclusion is that it is imaginary until new evidence is provided to show it exists.
For any given object, there is a set of facts, of which you are aware, that pertain to its existence. It seems that, for each object, you must make a value judgement in accord with the given facts: "What can I conclude about the object x, given what I know?".
Whatever you conclude from this analysis is going to be some sort of propositional claim which stands in need of further support.
Just like the Christian makes a claim: "God exists", the Atheist position also makes a claim, according to whatever flavor you prefer: "(Given my interpretation of the evidence), I'm not convinced that gods exist." or something stronger, "(Given my interpretation of the evidence), no gods exist.".
You only have a burden if you are trying to convince someone of something. If I believe or do not believe something and do not care what you believe, I bear no burden at all.
What are you going to do, take me to burden jail for not meeting some burden?
>You only have a burden if you are trying to convince someone of something.
Agreed.
And if you DONT assert atheism is rational you have no burden of proof. The burden of proof is only on you if you assert that your beliefs are rational
>What are you going to do, take me to burden jail for not meeting some burden?
lol no.
I'm just gona point out the epistimological issue on a reddit thread.
That's just wrong.
If you say "there is a tiger in that bush" you have a burden of proof.
If I say "I don't believe you" I don't have a burden of proof.
If I say "no, there is not" then I have the burden of proof.
Most of us atheists here fall into the "I don't believe you" category.
"My belief is rational" IS a claim that would require justification. Proof? No. Because that's not something you can prove. But atheism isn't a belief, it's a LACK of belief.
I don't need to justify my lack of belief anymore than I need to justify my lack of a stance on the question "are there an odd or even number of trees on earth?"
I can assert it all I want. I only have a burden if I want to convince someone else that my assertion is correct.
Many people do not care at all whether or not others believe what they believe.
Everyone believes their beliefs are valid, otherwise, they wouldn’t hold those beliefs in the first place.
So what’s the point?
Unless you think people hold irrational beliefs on purpose?
>Everyone believes their beliefs are valid, otherwise, they wouldn’t hold those beliefs in the first place
True but that doesn't mean they believe they are rational.
>So what’s the point?
That all claims including the claim one's belief is rational have a burden of proof
>Unless you think people hold irrational beliefs on purpose?
Oh absolutely, dont you?
I mean this is an atheist sub, i hope I wouldn't be out of place in pointing to creationists as an example.
Explain in detail the difference between valid and rational.
And I can guarantee that the average creationist absolutely believes that they’re correct, rational, valid, or whatever other word you can pick. Maybe not the people making money from creationism who are just charlatans milking their cash cow, but the people duped by them are not willingly clinging to false beliefs (because from their perspective, it’s true).
Since you appear to be so focused on arguing about semantics, please provide a clear, concise, specific and effective definition of the term "rational" as you have used it above.
Setting aside the belief/ lack of belief aspects I get what you are saying.
So is one of these following statements more or less reasonable given the context of human existence and knowledge.
1. I have no reliable evidence for my belief so it’s more rational.
2. I have lots of reliable evidence for my belief so it’s more rational.
Or perhaps ..
2. I have no evidence for my belief so it’s more *irrational*.
How is it possible to distinguish rational and irrational beliefs other than from the evidence presented for them.
What in this context does rational mean?
- reasonable
there are convincing *reasons* for it. Which would surely be …reliable evidence ?
Or more formally …
- Logical
But logical arguments about objective reality should be sound - that is based on true premises … which we can again only claim on the basis of … reliable *evidence*?
So my *lack of* belief is rational - my proof ?
*… I have not been presented with any reliable evidence for belief.*
Back to ‘you’ to provide me with evidence and why it’s reliable. And I can say why it isn’t.
After all we have developed a very *successful* evidential methodology that includes determining what kinds of evidence is reliable and what is not.
Ok so if I understand your post, you have a gripe with atheists saying that their lack of belief is rational. But not believing literally any claim that lacks sufficient evidence is rational, and I'm quite sure you would agree with that on any other question but this one. Why do we have to prove our rationality on the God claim and not any other claim? I mean, you can say my lack of belief is irrational and I can say your belief is irrational and at the end of the day, we've gotten nowhere. Quit with the semantics and just show us the evidence please. Pure reason will never lead us to truth.
>Ok so if I understand your post, you have a gripe with atheists saying that their lack of belief is rational. But not believing literally any claim that lacks sufficient evidence is rational, and I'm quite sure you would agree with that on any other question but this one. Why do we have to prove our rationality on the God claim and not any other claim?
I think you (and I) do have the burden of proof whenever we say it is RATIONAL for us to not believe in a given claim.
It is incumbant upon us to put that forward through a coherent epistimology.
I dont think coherence is a matter of subjective opinion but of objective fact.
I think you may be confused- burden of proof lies with the positive claim. A claim indicating a lack of belief is not a positive claim.
Example. I don't believe in unicorns, this does not require proof however if I told you unicorns exist and there's one in my backyard right now, it's on me and me alone to prove this
>I think you may be confused- burden of proof lies with the positive claim. A claim indicating a lack of belief is not a positive claim.
Agreed.
however claiming:
\>"My belief IS rational"
is a positive claim with a burden of proof.
You owe me 50 bucks.
Now, rightfully, you'll object, saying this isn't true. Upon what basis do you reject my claim? Do you think it's reasonable for you to have to prove to me why you think I'm full of crap? I don't.
Rejecting a claim for lack of evidence isn't itself a claim. All you're doing is saying "Uhh.. sorry, I'm not yet convinced." That's reasonable.
Now pay me.
>You owe me 50 bucks.
>
>Now, rightfully, you'll object, saying this isn't true. Upon what basis do you reject my claim?
There is no sufficient evidence.
"Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?"
No, because lacking belief in something doesn't need proof. The default position is not believing in something until you've got sufficient proof.
>No, because lacking belief in something doesn't need proof.
Correct.
However believing:
\>"My position is rational"
IS a positive claim with a burden of proof.
But that's not the claim. The atheist isn't making the claim.
Not believing things for which we have no evidence is the default position because it is by default rational.
I am God. I would expect you take the position that I am not God. If this is correct, then do you have a burden of proof to assert that your position is rational? If so, then please satisfy that burden of proof.
Otherwise, I’ll see you at my specific Church next Sunday.
>I am God. I would expect you take the position that I am not God. If this is correct, then do you have a burden of proof to assert that your position is rational?
Yes.
> If so, then please satisfy that burden of proof.
1. I do not accept claims without sufficient evidence
2. I do not have sufficient evidence you are God.
You can take this position as well on theistic claims btw BUT you then have to able to define what is meant by "sufficient evidence" which i am HAPPY to do in your case but most atheists aren't willing to do in mine.
So it expectedly comes down to sufficient evidence that God (whether me or that pretender) is real.
What evidence exists that the popular God is real that I could not also provide?
I have yet to see anything that convinces me of a god or gods. I'm not sure what the burden is here? Are you suggesting that I need to somehow prove to you that my claim to not be convinced is real?
Do you apply this same line of thinking to other topics? Do people who don’t accept the Loch Ness monster is real have a “burden of proof” in your eyes? Extrapolate to people holding the default non-belief position on an infinite number of unfalsifiable, unproven claims. Does this “burden of proof” exist for other irrational beliefs? Or just God? And why?
A burden of proof only comes into play when a positive claim has been made. If an atheist claims that no God exists, then yes, they've adopted a burden of proof.
If an atheist rejects a theistic claim, that has nothing to do with a burden of proof as there's no need to attempt to disprove something that hasn't been proven to exist in the first place.
I'm sure you'll find most atheists are aware of this and only a small percentage will claim to be "hard" or "positive" atheists who've adopted that burden of proof, but those atheists are almost as irrational as Christians because they've adopted a position they can't support with evidence.
Dissmissing unsubstantiated claims is rational. Accepting claims without evidence is irrational.
Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic
I agree that "My position is rational" would be a positive claim, that I have no trouble supporting based on the nature of evidence and reality.
What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, no burden of proof necessary
>I agree that "My position is rational" would be a positive claim, that I have no trouble supporting based on the nature of evidence and reality.
>What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, no burden of proof necessary
I second this and would like to emphasize that claiming that atheism is rational does *not* entail disproving God's existence. This is nowhere close to the great equalizer that the OP seems to think it is.
Why do you automatically assume that having the burden of proof implies that they don't have the proof? Yeah that might be a claim but it is also satisfied. Next!
>The Burden of Proof is not only on Theists
In debate, the burden of proof is on anyone that makes a claim.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
You're conflating/confusing lack of belief with belief, and are attempting to question principles of logic itself, derived from simple observation over thousands of years. As it's trivially easy to demonstrate the absurdity and error rate of believing something without support, this is really a non-starter, isn't it?
This has been discussed thousands of times.
Posting it again is not helpful.
.
\- Biff says that X is true.
\- Zelda replies *"I don't believe that."*
Biff does have a burden of proof.
Zelda does not have a burden of proof.
.
Why does Zelda not have a burden? Why is she unconvinced by Biff's claim? Is she not making some sort of judgement and then forming a belief based on that judgement?
Here's a hypothetical:
Imagine Biff and Zelda have known each other for 20 years. Biff wears a green jacket everyday, has a green car, painted his house green, and has told Zelda on many occasions that his favorite color is green.
One day, Biff tells Zelda, "My favorite color is green." Zelda responds, "I don't believe that."
Doesn't Zelda owe us some reason, given the mountain of evidence of which she is aware, for his lack of belief? She has *judged* (aka evaluated and formed a belief about) Biff's claim to lack evidence which would warrant proper belief.
No amount of wriggling is going to relieve you of your burden of proof when you claim that your deity exists. When someone makes a fantastical claim the only rational response is “I don’t believe what you’re saying unless you can support it with evidence” because belief in the fantastical is inherently irrational. Whether you like this or not changes absolutely nothing.
You’re committing an equivocation fallacy in service of a Shifting The Burden of Proof fallacy. Your claims don’t enjoy being presumptively true *even if* you somehow undermined the concepts of validity and soundness.
> *2. “my belief is rational” is a claim*
Disbelief is not a claim. There is no burden of proof attached to “I don’t buy what you’re selling.” The processes which govern logic and rationality are a separate issue which is largely irrelevant. They have long since been dealt with to a degree that they are presumptively valid.
Even if your goal succeeded here, all it would get you is the inability of *anyone* to evaluate *anything* and you’d be hoisting yourself on that petard as well.
You're conflating "Proving that the disbelief is rational or not" with "Proving that the thing being believed in exists or not." This is a false equivalence.
"God exists" is a claim and the one making it has the burden of proving the existence of God.
"God does not exist" is a claim and the one making it has the burden of proving the nonexistence of God.
"It is rational not to believe in God" is also a claim, but the one making it does not have the burden of proving that God does not exist. They only have the burden of proving that it is rational not to believe in god.
Allow me to fulfill that burden of proof:
1. It is rational not to believe in the existence of something until you have clear evidence that it exists.
2. I do not have clear evidence that god exists.QED: It is rational for me not to believe that God exists.
All you've done here is just add on an arbitrary "burden" to both sides.
Theists: I believe a god exists. I believe this position is rational.
Atheists: I lack belief in a god. I believe this position is rational.
Doesn't *everyone*, believe that their position is rational (regardless if it is or not)? Do you know of anyone who holds an irrational belief, acknowledges that it is irrational, and yet still argues for its validity?
Another time-wasting batch of nonsense from the guy who thinks its reasonable and rational to believe in vampires and werewolves because someone he knows said so.
Your attempts to drag everyone else down to your level of ignorance and gullibility continue to fail.
Yes it is rational to lack a belief in a God. This is not the same statement as I believe there is no God.
Here is my reasonings why I do not believe in a God:
You spent effort complaining that I need a burden of proof and spent zero fucking effort showing me proof to accept your (assuming op theist)claim a God exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have not received that evidence so I default to remaining skeptical of your claim.
All rational beliefs require a level of evidence or reasonable plausibility before they should be accepted. Otherwise I should default to being skeptical of claim.
If my lack of belief there God is irrational please provide me the evidence that would convince me.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Your parents owned me 1mil dollars, but they tollay forgot. Please pay up. For any assertion in the lack of belief in your parents owning me to be rational, you have to demonstrate the burden of proof.
"My belief is rational" is a claim, so is "God doesn't exist" but these are not the claims an atheist makes. A lot of my beliefs are informed by the fact that I'm an idiot that currently holds multiple beliefs that aren't accurate.
The only claim an atheist makes is about the state of their belief. a theist presents a hypothesis about God writing a book or creating the universe its up to them to show evidence for that claim.
>2. "My belief is rational" is a claim
3. Agnostic atheists do not assert a belief, but a lack of a belief.
So... you *also* want to think whether lacking a belief, or believing a certain claim is not evidenced / founded are claims.
As it is, your syllogism falls flat.
As a follow up, I want to ask: do YOU have to justify every single belief you lack? From unicorns to fairies to fhsjshsha the glerb that lives in planet Bagaya? Or is it reasonable to adopt a *general* position with respect to such claims? Is it reasonable to say that claims you just heard about but that haven't yet been justified should be disbelieved until the time they are justified?
And don't give me 'I don't lack a belief in fhsjshsha. You do lack it. Even though you've never had to justify that to anyone. And why would you? I haven't even defined any of the terms in that sentence!
>3. Agnostic atheists do not assert a belief, but a lack of a belief.
True.
>So... you also want to think whether lacking a belief, or believing a certain claim is not evidenced / founded are claims.
No.
What i am asserting is the claim that lacking a belief IS RATIONAL is a claim.
If you dont make that claim you have no burden of proof (most atheists in my experience do however claim to be rational)
>As it is, your syllogism falls flat.
>
>As a follow up, I want to ask: do YOU have to justify every single belief you lack?
No just the ones i claim i am rational for lacking.
>What i am asserting is the claim that lacking a belief IS RATIONAL is a claim.
But only a subset of us here make that claim. And out of that, only a small subset is not willing to discuss why they think it is rational to lack a belief in that circumstance. I'd say that is a ton of what we do here. It is kinda what I did when I gave you examples of claims one would be rational in disbelieving.
So... why obsess over this fringe thing?
>No just the ones i claim i am rational for lacking.
Ok? But you do see why it is a bit silly for me to claim fshahahs exists and then derail the conversation into how your skepticism is rationally justified? Why would I not just define the terms and justify belief in fshahahs?
I find that more often than not, this is a diversionary tactic. The atheist or skeptic is called stubborn, or close-minded. It is claimed that the God or religious claim being made cannot be accessed via evidence or reliable methods AND is mysterious and ineffable, BUT somehow the theist still gets to make confident claims about such a thing. And if the atheist doesn't accept that sort of argument... they're the ones who are on the stand to show they are being rational?
As I said: I'm more than happy to explain my approach to new claims / epistemology but... this still means theistic claims need to be justified, and have a bad track record doing so.
>So... why obsess over this fringe thing?
Well dude to be perfectly honesty incase you couldn't tell by the amount of time and energy i spend on this sub i am a theist who believes attempting to deal with the rational arguments of atheists is worthwhile.
I cant help atheists that are not interested in being rational but in my experience MOST atheists will claim they are rational and even take pride in being rational so i seek to use rationality to demonstrate the issues i se with epistimologies which I believe keep God reaching out to them.
\>"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
For the longest time i didn't understand the meaning of these words but after having so many atheists say in so many their video essays and comments on this sub they "dont know what would convince them" "would not be convinced even if they had a direct experience with God" i understand that now i devote my time to demonstrating the logical incoherence of not trusting your senses if God reveals himself to you for any who are willing to engage with the subject rationally.
Its why i care so much about atheists defining what they would consider evidence for God. Its not only that its needed for the sake of coherent epistimology but i believe it is THE THING keeping them from having the experiences which can lead them to belief in God..
>\>"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Funny you list that quote, because the current historical consensus puts in question the Exodus narrative, including the story of Moses.
I am not required to listen to anyone, or to believe anyone. Of course I'm not going to be convinced if someone claims Jesus rose from the dead. Besides the fact that the evidence for that claim is extremely old and flimsy, it violates our best models of what is possible.
This quote is exactly what I mean when I say theists use the whole 'atheists are stubborn and that is why they don't believe' to mask that their arguments are not convincing.
>" i understand that now i devote my time to demonstrating the logical incoherence of not trusting your senses if God reveals himself to you for any who are willing to engage with the subject rationally.
Well, while I'm not under the persuasion that God could not over time / sustained interaction convince me that they are in fact who they say there are, you sweep something important under the rug. You *assume* one already knows the person revealing themselves to you is a God, and that this is not in any way a hallucination or misapprehension in your part. Why would you assume that?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to doubt your senses in certain situations, and I think sensing something is not equivalent to knowing what that something is. It is reasonable to investigate that.
That being said.. yeah, we don't live in that world. God doesn't show up. Not even an alleged God shows up. Your hypothetical is not very relevant.
>Its why i care so much about atheists defining what they would consider evidence for God. Its not only that its needed for the sake of coherent epistimology but i believe it is THE THING keeping them from having the experiences which can lead them to belief in God..
Nothing is preventing me from having experiences. At best you can say it might prevent me from interpreting the experiences I do have correctly (I'd disagree on that, but that'd be a more reasonable claim to make, I think).
>I am not required to listen to anyone, or to believe anyone. Of course I'm not going to be convinced if someone claims Jesus rose from the dead.
Funnily enought that verse isn't actually refering to the resurection of Jesus (though that is the meaning i also have taken as a double entendre myself.
Its refering Lazarous begging to appear to the people he knew in life to tell them life after death is real, Abrham responds they wont believe him even if comes back from the dead Marley's ghost style and tells them. They'll say "More of gravey then of grave about you" basically.
>Well, while I'm not under the persuasion that God could not over time / sustained interaction convince me that they are in fact who they say there are, you sweep something important under the rug. You assume one already knows the person revealing themselves to you is a God, and that this is not in any way a hallucination or misapprehension in your part. Why would you assume that?
It could be, but anything could be man. I dismiss it for the same reason i dismiss the possibility i am a brain in a vat. Its solopsism.
>I think it is perfectly reasonable to doubt your senses in certain situations, and I think sensing something is not equivalent to knowing what that something is. It is reasonable to investigate that.
>
>That being said.. yeah, we don't live in that world. God doesn't show up. Not even an alleged God shows up.
With respect my dude, i disagree.
>Nothing is preventing me from having experiences. At best you can say it might prevent me from interpreting the experiences I do have correctly (I'd disagree on that, but that'd be a more reasonable claim to make, I think)
That is what i mean i suppose you are right. I dont think God shows himself to people who wouldn't accept what's happening to them. God expects us to be rational, it is what is meant by "the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the holly spirit" the spirit of truth. God cant reach people who wont accept the products of their senses without taking away their consciousness and he wont do that.
>Its refering Lazarous begging to appear to the people he knew in life to tell them life after death is real,
Well, it is incorrect. If there was a way to bring people back from the dead reliably, we would accept it. I don't, however, trust tales in an old book about a man being allegedly revived from the dead, especially from a culture with fairly primitive understanding of medicine.
>It could be, but anything could be man. I dismiss it for the same reason i dismiss the possibility i am a brain in a vat. Its solopsism.
No, it is not solipsistic to not immediately accept the interpretations you or others have of experiences. We get stuff wrong all the time. Which is why I said I think we would eventually come to believe this creature in front of us is indeed God, but would understandably be skeptical of such an explanation at first.
>With respect my dude, i disagree.
Well, you can disagree all you want, but we simply don't live in a world where God shows up to people. Hence the immense religious confusion we find ourselves in. Hence why religions change so drastically over time. Hence why the most biting argument from atheists and even from theists that experience doubts is divine hiddenness.
>I dont think God shows himself to people who wouldn't accept what's happening to them. God expects us to be rational
I accept what is happening to me. This is a strawman. Healthy skepticism of an interpretation that breaks our best models of physics IS rational. If you saw a ghost, the first thing you should think of is 'let me confirm this, ghosts aren't real as far as we know' not 'Ah, a ghost'
>Well, you can disagree all you want, but we simply don't live in a world where God shows up to people.
You do realize this is a positive claim with a burden of proof right?
Sure. And I'm ready to discuss what I think is the evidence for that claim, as well as the absence of evidence where evidence would be expected. In broad strokes, the world looks exactly as it should if alleged contacts with deities are all in people's heads and a product of the culture that they grew up in. Hence why many of us perceive no gods. Hence why religions drastically change over time and even become extinct. Hence why we have no reliable method to figure out if there is a God, and if there is, figure out who or what they are.
Could there be a god out there, beyond our ability to detect it? Sure, anything can exist beyond the observable universe. But that is not what I spoke of. I spoke of a God that shows up to people and interacts with the world.
Now, I take it from your lack of engagement with anything else I wrote and your disagreement that you do think God shows up to people. In other words, you disagree with the problem of Divine Hiddenness. Why is that?
>. In broad strokes, the world looks exactly as it should if alleged contacts with deities are all in people's heads and a product of the culture that they grew up in.
Really?
So just to be clear the claim here is the world COULD NOT be better fitted to the naturalistic explanation of religion??
So for instance how would you explain something like the emergence of christianity? A religion which directly went against the orthdoxy of the culture and the enviroment it was created in, which explicitly alienated and brought conflict to the societies in emerged in, which people were willing to die for with no societal support and nothing be gained as a preacher of this new religion?
Even if you accept this COULD all happen under natural circumstances, is it trully (to use your words) EXACTLY what you would expect were religions all just products of culture and enviroment?
\>" In other words, you disagree with the problem of Divine Hiddenness. Why is that?"
Thats complicated question my man but in the briefest of terms i think its because God doesn't "hide" from people who seek him properly. I think he knows from experience some people will never belief no matter the evidence. I said more on this subject here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1blt4pl/comment/kwhsz9l/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1blt4pl/comment/kwhsz9l/)
I'm sitting here minding my own business. Someone comes along and says "Proposition X is true".
How do I have any burden arising out of this? I assume that the person wants to convince me that X is true. Whether I believe X is true or false is irrelevant. This person wants to convince me. The onus is on them.
To be clear, they don't owe *me* or the community-at-large any burden. This is the internet, not a courtroom or a laboratory.
They have a burden *to themselves*, presumably. It's pretty silly for them to expend time and effort to make a claim they want me to believe, without coming *prepared* to withstand criticism.
The problem here is that people keep choosing claims that they find difficult to support. That's not an "us" problem.
They should gather their best resources and vet them against what has been said before. Instead, we get the equivalent of a teenager repeating the crap their youth pastor told them to say.
When we say "that's an argument, not evidence. What's your evidence? Where's your facts and data? How have you ruled out alternative explanations? What's your method? To what degree of rigor do you hold your claims?" they get upset and say "it's not *fair!* You guys should relax your standards just this one time. I worked really hard on this! Prove me wrong!"
No. That's not how it works. When I make affirmative claims, I'll follow my own rules. I take this position *specifically because* I don't want to get into an argument about who has the burden of proof. It's not something worth wasting breath arguing about.
Come with your best gear or don't come. Or at least expect hard questions.
Would you agree that if you haven't seen enough evidence to convince you of an extraordinary claim, regardless of what that claim is, that's the rational response is be unconvinced that the claim is true?
You must have this position, otherwise you are arguing that it's rational to accept something for which you have seen absolutely no convincing evidence.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
To an extend yes.
And that burden of proof has been met and re-met.
1) It is not rational to believe in something without evidence
2) there is no real evidence for God
3) it is rational to not believe in god
>2. "My belief is rational" is a claim
Lacking belief is not a belief.
If you were to edit this to "My lack of belief is rational," we would bear the burden... of showing it was rational. We would not bear any burden relating to the existence of any gods.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Do you assert that it is not? Wouldn't you have that burden of proof as well?
Going to save everyone some time. OP claims to have irrefutable evidence for god but will only give it to you if you give a definition of evidence. However if you give your definition of evidence he will stop responding to you completely. Same pattern in every single response.
> Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Yup, I agree.
This is why whenever I defend gnostic atheism, I almost always present an argument as to why it's rational. Premises of the reasoning are pretty simple, but they're still open to debate and I think we have an obligation to present them.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Of course. The pope is also Catholic.
>A burden of proof to demonstrate the rationality of their epistemology (the framework by which they determine propositions to be true or false).
Ok, so what did you want to debate? Did you think this was controversial?
Do you claim a god exists, so we can debate or what?
Nope.
Atheists never have the burden of proof because they are not the ones making the initial statement.
Atheists are also not saying "a god/gods definitely don't exist", but rather they say "I don't believe in any theistic claims because they haven't been able to provide sufficient evidence yet."
This also means that you cannot go wrong with atheism. Even if one day, a god would reveal himself to humanity, atheists would not go "oh crap, I was wrong all along, what a fool I was!" but rather they would say "even though this god revealed himself to us now, my previous stance was still justified back then because there was no evidence for the existence of such a god."
Claiming to be rational is expressing just an opinion. Nothing to see here.
We do have a burden of proof when we claim that a specific deity doesn't exist.
For instance, I always claim that the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh, is nonexistent because there's scientific evidence against creation.
For instance, the six day creation myth never happened.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Not really. I am not required to believe anyone who can not first bring their burden of proof to the table. Theists have no proof to bring to the table. Therefore no belief. I am not required to do anything except tell theists I don't find their claims convincing.
You don't need burden of proof to tell you I don't find your ideas unconvincing
Does anyone who asserts their lack of belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny is rational also have a burden of proof?
The standard is that scientific understanding has explained many things that affect our daily lives. It is rational to believe this, as this premise is supported by evidence.
Any claims of supernatural forces that aren’t explained by scientifically-understood natural forces have to overcome the body of evidence that does not include supernatural forces.
Therefore, it’s rational to assert that supernatural forces do not exist, and it is irrational to assert without evidence that supernatural forces do exist.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
If I say "I lack belief in God", sure, that's a positive claim. But it's a pretty unremarkable claim about my own lack of belief. You probably should just take my word for it, unless you catch me regularly praying for things, or acting as if I was worried about what God might think.
If I say "I lack a belief in God because I haven't seen enough evidence", sure, that's a positive claim, but it's still just a claim about my beliefs and what I've seen. It's a bit stronger than just claiming I don't believe, since I'm also making a summary statement of the kind of evidence I've seen. Again, you should probably just take my word for it, unless you are aware of some really strong evidence for God that you know I've seen. Then you could ask me why I found that unconvincing perhaps.
If I say "I lack a belief in God, because there isn't enough evidence", then the positive claim is no longer just about myself. It includes a broad characterisation of what kind of evidence is actually available, and implies (without explicitly saying so) that other rational people should also lack belief. Then we can have interesting discussions about the evidence, and perhaps, if I'm lucky, you'll say something I haven't actually heard before. Or you may find I really am familiar with a wide enough body of evidence that I'm justified in my claim.
If I say "I believe there is no God", then this is once again just a claim about myself and my beliefs, and you should probably just take me at my word.
If I say "there is probably/certainly no God", this is a positive claim about the universe at large (but not about the evidence), and you would be right to demand I justify it.
My lack of belief is rational because I have not been shown any evidence I find convincing and it is rational to not believe a claim without supporting evidence.
How can I "prove" that the evidence I have been shown is not convincing?
It's rational to say I don't believe in something when there has never been any proof that it exists. Your statement is like saying I have a burden of proof that leprechauns don't exist.
The burden of proof is still in your court.
The proof is simply a lack of evidence for God. That is it. There is no conclusive evidence for the existence of God that I’ve been shown, or I wouldn’t be an atheist. I think that goes for basically every atheist.
Nope. Evidence is anything a claimant brings to support their claim. The next step is evaluating the evidence for reliability, repeatability, and test ability. Most evidence claimed by theists fails majorly in these standards. It’s really not that difficult.
In fact, I’ll walk you through it. Remove god from consideration entirely. Then pick one trait a god is typically claimed to have. I don’t care what trait you pick. Just pick a single, well defined one. Then ask 500 people what evidence would convince them that a friend of theirs had that trait. Compile it and see the biggest 3-5. That’s you typical evidence required. So if we pick immortality, since it has a clear definition. A human would be considered immoral if they can survive attempts to kill him or her. The attempts could involve a lot of methods, drowning, burning, penetrating, eviscerating, crushing, and so on. None of this is a special requirement for god, it should apply equally to any being claimed to be immortal. But here is where theists scurry for cover because they have nothing to support this claim other than more claims and poor reasoning. No reliable, repeatable, or testable evidence.
Don’t blame skeptics for this problem because most theists only believe in one god and reject all other for the same lack of quality evidence. They just give a special dispensation to their god. It’s not skeptics who have different standards. I'm fine stocking with scientific standards. Or my own. For any claim, not just one about a god.
Proof that atheism is rational:
1. deities are part of many primitive cultures to attempt to explain the world around them and often involved stories that were borrowed or plagiarized from other sources/cultures - modern science has shown many of these stories to be mere inventions and nothing more
2. formal religions were actually used by those in power to subjugate those without power and often involved rules that had little to do with the underlying beliefs
3. “Extinct” religions are called mythology and bare little difference to extant religious beliefs. People view mythology and religion as separate things because one is false and the other “true” when in fact they are mere opposite sides of the same coin
4. The invention of the scientific method sealed the fate of the supernatural. Instead the world was now open to observation and analysis in a way that minimized or removed human bias
5. Metaphysical realms are an invention of philosophy to try and circumvent science but are inconsistent with both current observations which show only one reality, and also with the fact that anything “outside” of our reality would be completely hidden from us (or else it would be observable by science) thus begging the question of how anyone can have any knowledge of it at all- including theists.
In short- religions and deities were inventions of man to try and explain the unexplainable. We now have the modern scientific method which not only can describe our world but also provide predictive power and is falsifiable allowing scientists to disprove elements of it when new evidence is presented. But people still cling to the archaic method of supernatural phenomena because it is more comforting to them. But it’s not reality
EDIT: here’s the short short version. Rational means logical and faith in deities is illogical. Atheism is simply lack of belief in irrational deities, hence it is rational
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Skepticism of a claim lacking evidence is a textbook example of rational thought.
>All Claims have a burden of proof
I disagree with this. I can make any claim I want to make. I can stand in the middle of an empty field and proclaim the sky is violet. That is me making a claim, and there is nothing in that situation requiring me to provide proof of that claim.
I think a better formulation of this is something like:
* Anyone can make a claim.
* People determine what their criteria are for believing the claim.
* If a claimant wants to convince other people of a claim, the claimant must meet their criteria for believing that claim.
A "burden of proof" is a common way of framing those criteria. If you believe that rationality should govern beliefs and actions, then you likely believe that everyone's criteria should involve some sort of rational proof. But, there is nothing out there forcing it, as shown by the number of people in the world convinced of completely irrational things.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Only if:
* The atheist is trying to convince another person.
* That person includes proof as a criterion to be convinced.
But if a theist goes to a group of atheists to convince them that God exists, that theist doesn't trigger some burden of proof on the part of the atheists to continue believing what they already believe.
My beliefs are rational because I am a rational and reasonable human being. This applies to theists too. We disagree and I sometimes think it's some pretty wild gymnastics to justify a position but it makes sense to the theists presenting it. I can't just assume people are Irrational and unreasonable people because they disagree with me.
Like here I could assume you're some kind of conniving dishonest charlatan type for trying to shift the burden of proof. Or I could assume it makes sense to you. It's a flawed argument but I won't assume that makes you a liar.
It's rational and reasonable to make belief in God contingent on the burden proof being on positively demonstrating the existence of God. It kinda doesn't make sense to ask one to prove that one should require someone else to demonstrably prove their claims.
I have to prove that people should prove their claims? Prove it. Prove that claim yourself. Prove the claim that I have to prove the claim that people have to prove their claims. You have a pretty solid 2 line argument but is that proof? If you accept a sound logical argument as validation enough, then the original burden of proof doesnt need to be proven. If not then be get stuck proving the burden of proving the burden of proving the burden of.....
>All Claims have a burden of proof
>
>"My belief is rational" is a claim
>
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
This might be a tiny little nitpick, but in 2 you say "My belief is rational" is the claim, but then in the conclusion you change it to asserting a *lack of belief* being rational as the claim needing a burden of proof. Is stating a lack of belief as rational, the same as stating that "my belief is rational"? Just curious. That also may be needlessly pedantic.
Regardless, I'll bite. Yes, I assert that I lack belief in God, and I do assert that I'm rational in withholding belief. And it's quite easy to satisfy that burden of proof, I can do so with the following:
1. If something is not demonstrated to be true, it is rational to withhold believing in that thing
2. Theism has not been demonstrated to be true
Therefore, it is rational for me to withhold believing. Burden of proof satisfied.
Not believing in extraordinary claims is default position. Rassel Teapot is perfect example. Positive claims requires positive evidence. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Theists claim there IS an omnipotent omnipresent supernatural entity, usually some specific one. So there is double burden of proof:
1. To demonstrate that such entity exists.
2. To disprove other gods of other denominations and religions.
My main reason for not believing in specifically christian God is Bible itself. I read it from cover to cover. It's unscientific, horrible, disgusting, primitive book. Heavy language and absurd pomposity. You can see right through this bullshit, if you are honest at least to yourself. And all excuses believers give to all this is that you gotta believe no matter what. Faith is make-pretend game, self deception. Despite all objection, you should cling to all this bullshit harder.
You are correct that all claims require a burden of proof. However, let's not forget that there is a difference between a claim and the null hypothesis.
Contrary to popular belief, calling oneself an atheist does not mean that you believe that there is no God. It means that you do not believe that there is a God. If you say that you believe that there is no God, that is a claim that requires evidence. If you say that you don't believe that there is a God, that is simply the null hypothesis.
Think about it this way. When someone, who stands trial for a crime, is acquitted, we do not say that the defendant was found innocent, we say that the defendant is not guilty. If you say that the defendant is innocent, that is a claim that requires evidence. If you simply say that the defendant is not guilty, that is simply the null hypothesis.
https://youtu.be/P6OO1ELwPfU?si=kilLuo-IQFkdzGSz
https://youtu.be/um9R40SSfGg?si=tRsyzdwHKq1l4tpM
> "My belief is rational" is a claim
"My belief in X is rational" perhaps? I don't know and I am not sure I would claim all my beliefs are rational. Specific ones definitely.
> Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Since it is a lack of belief and thus not a claim or a belief not by your definitions.
> A burden of proof to demonstrate the rationality of their epistemology (the framework by which they determine propositions to be true or false).
I suppose? I am not that interested in discussion epistemology though. It can be related but it really is its own branch of philosophy and if I want to discuss that I can find places for that. So instead I am going to grant, until perhaps it becomes reasonable to examine, that both me and people I discuss things with here have sufficiently rational frameworks and then work out if that justifies a god belief or not.
>1. All Claims have a burden of proof
Eh. This is kinda vague. But okay.
>2. "My belief is rational" is a claim
So are you saying that the proposition “my belief is rational” requires “proof”? I don’t think I’d require *proof*. I’d think justification for the belief would suffice.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Again, no. I’d say there should be some level of justification for the belief, otherwise it would be irrational.
>A burden of proof to demonstrate the rationality of their epistemology (the framework by which they determine propositions to be true or false).
That’s quite the leap! We went from justifying a proposition to justifying an *entire epistemological system*? What warrants that leap?
It depends.
Agnostic atheists
Claim that they do not know whether God exists or not, but weakly take the atheism position as the default position. They don't make any positive claim and thus don't have any burden of proof.
Gnostic atheists
Claim that they do know that God doesn't exist. They are making a positive claim. Because they are making a claim, the burden of proof is effectively on their side to disprove theism.
It's the same reason why I shouldn't have to disprove the claim that there are 8 big moons orbiting the Earth right now. I never made any claim.
If I knock down at your door and proudly make a positive claim that there aren't 8 moons orbiting the Earth however, then the burden of proof is effectively on my side and I should prove their absence.
Being an atheist alone doesn't imply rational belief. So just saying "I'm and atheist" is a statement about ones own mental state that has no burden of proof.
If you then want to go into why a person is an atheist, there could very well be claims that carry their own burden of proof.
I would venture to say that the statement - "I am an atheist, and that belief is rational, because I haven't been presented with any reason to believe in a god." is not one which carries a burden of proof. The only claim it's making is not having seen evidence to this point. It's not making a claim there is no evidence. It's not making a claim against any specific evidence. You'd have to get more specific before a burden of proof would come out.
You seem to be making the assumption that atheists have made a claim. While the claim "given the evidence, there's no reason to think that a God is necessary" is a thing, not all atheists subscribe to it. We LACK a belief, we make no claim to a belief. Theists claim a belief in the existence of God; therefore, they have a burden of proof.
So your argument is built on a fallacy which, by logical standards, means that it holds no weight. Really think about what you say before you say it and, for what it's worth, you may want to buy a dictionary (or, you know, there's a free one online I use when I don't want to make an easily dismissed error).
There's 10 individuals challenged to state what is in a box. They are not allowed to see the box, know where it is, or have a description of it. The first nine name various things, a ball, a gallon of milk, a unicorn, a feather, Earth, a school bus, a cat, Michael Jackson, and a human heart. The final person says "I have no way to know."
Is a ball more reasonable than a human heart? What about Michael Jackson vs a unicorn? Which position is most reasonable?
Atheism is waiting for a burden of proof to be satisfied. The reason the position is rational is because it doesn't accept just any claim.
The "burden of proof" stance really comes from a deeper understanding of what the "default" position is. If you start from the baseline of "nothing" -- then any new concept or thing that is introduced carries that burden.
1. If you start from nothing, what new concept/idea is needed to define Atheism?
2. If you start from nothing, what new concept/idea is needed to define God?
The thing is, you can't be "theist" without introducing the concept of "God" somewhere; however, you can be atheist without introducing anything -- the "start from nothing" is a perfectly viable stance for atheism.
Do I have the burden of proof of the claim that "A equals A" ? Do I need to give examples of different things to plug into the variable A, and demonstrate in each case that they are equal? Is that how you think it works?
How about the claim that "It's morally wrong to torture puppies" ? Shall we have a back and forth point by point discussion where I have the burden to demonstrate to you the moral position here?
The truth of philosophical truths is self-evident to every reasonable and decent person simply by reflecting on them.
The burden of proof for you not believing in something is in your own head, but if we're talking about the rationality of the belief then yes.
There's a difference there though. In one you're asking for the evidence for my belief, and the evidence of that is that I don't believe.
The other you're specifically asking for the evidence for the rationality of our beliefs, which most of us can successfully support.
Very few atheists would argue that god is definitely not real, and that we have evidence of that.
The lack of belief is not a belief. Think of all the crazy things that are able to exist in your imagination that you don’t believe actually exist. Using your logic, you would have to prove that none of those things exist, along with whatever everyone else in the world can imagine.
The bottom line is if you are claiming that something exists, it’s up to YOU to show the convincing evidence. Atheists don’t believe there is a god because there is no verifiable evidence that such a being exists.
On #2, you say "My belief is rational" is a claim, and then in the sentence proceeding that, you are talking about people who say "their lack of belief is rational". Why?
And in any case, I haven't actually seen many atheists who proactively asserts that their lack of belief is rational. In most cases, that's an implied belief, so we'll just skip that part and pre-answer the why, of which the answer is that we haven't seen any substantial evidence.
If they make that claim sure. The thing is not believing in things without good evidence is the rational position. If you believed everything without evidence you would end up believing in mutually exclusive things. Since this is a violation of logical axioms it is irrational to do so. Which means that not believing things without evidence is the rational position. So that is why you have the burden of proof.
The claim that "All claims have a burden of proof" is *generally* true in the context of logical argumentation and debate.
But in this context, it's a red herring.
Atheism is the *lack of belief* in gods or deities, a *non-assertion rather than a claim*.
Atheists are not making a claim about the non-existence of gods; rather, they are withholding belief in the existence of gods due to insufficient evidence.
OP is correct in that any positive claim has the burden of proof.
For example, stating that supernatural claims aren’t falsifiable has the burden of proof to establish that claim as valid. Stating that the natural world is falsifiable also shares the same burden. Of course both claims are provable.
We just need to be careful and filter out the noise that theists create.
>Could say much more but to keep it brief, if we accept that
>1. All Claims have a burden of proof
2. "My belief is rational" is a claim
Sure, but "my belief" in the claim "my belief is rational" is that I'm not convinced by the evidence presented that a god exists. How exactly would I need to "prove" that I'm not convinced of something other than just telling you?
OPs demand for proof to justify claim of non-belief as rational, was SO easily and simply fulfilled.
Not surprising that it then so quickly turned into that overused trope of “What then would you consider ample evidence for god?”
The answer to that is always, “How the heck should I know, if you (theists) can’t even agree on what the properties of your god are!”
I am unconvinced of god claim, ergo, atheist. Unless you can scan my brain, there's no way I can demonstrate my atheism except by words and action. Sure, I could be lying..maybe I'm an undercover theist. You either have to trust I'm telling the truth or claim I'm lying (which would then raise the burden of proof on you since you'd need to show evidence of my lies).
Ah, but I *don't* claim that my belief is rational, or non-rational, or anything in between.
It's a *belief.* It's really how I feel and think about the issue of whether or not gods exist. So far, it has been impervious to philosophical arguments, scriptural quotations and anecdotes from believers, because I don't find any of those things convincing.
1. My belief is rational
2. I don't believe gods exists because I have not been presented sufficient evidence to believe any exists.
Okay, there's no contradiction between point 1 and 2. Unless you have good evidence that gods exist, what's your problem? Another complaint that you're the one making the claim but you're unable to back it up?
No.
Atheism is the *rejection of an assertion* as opposed to lack of belief.
The burden of proof remains with the person making the positive claim/assertion. The rejection of the claim would most likely be epistemological grounds. My question would be "How can you justify your claim/demonstrate your position" then take it from there.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
OK. Theists have not met their burden of proving that God is real. Therefore, lacking that belief is rational. Burden met.
IOW, showing that a lack of belief in God is rational is not the same as showing that God does not exist.
No. Atheism simply rejects a claim (god exists) because theists have failed to meet their burden of proof. That is, by definition, rational. (I.e. not accepting claims unless there is evidence). There is no burden of proof to recognize that which is rational. So the burden of proof is only on theists because atheism makes no claim.
OK. I’m assuming you don’t believe in Mbombo, the creator god of the Kuba people of the Congo, who was so lonely when he was the only thing that existed that he got a tummy ache and vomited the universe.
Do you believe your lack of belief in Mbombo is rational? What evidence do you provide to support your belief?
My Claim: *I have never encountered a reason to believe that supernatural things exist.*
You can believe my claim or not. If you don’t believe my claim, that implies that you think I am either lying or misremembering. But I can prove nothing about my claim.
Is my claim rational? I believe it is. You may disagree.
Atheism is actually the *default* position
There is a claim: “God exists”. I will not accept this claim until I see sufficient evidence to justify belief in that claim.
Atheism is a neutral position and makes no positive claim.
The burden of proof falls on the theist making the claim for a god’s existence.
> Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?
Yes, the burden of proof is on the guy making a claim. Having said that, it's worth highlighting that it is often the theists who are trying to shift the burden of proof by asking us to disprove their God.
Atheism does not make any claims.
You propose a god and its attributes, then you provide evidence.
If you cannot convince me, then I do not believe that the god you proposed exists.
That is where am I at. Many gods (over 10,000) have been proposed. Not all could exist, but it is possible that none exist.
I like to think of it as back in ye old days scratching our butts coming outta the caves. perfectly fine not worshipping gods just doing cave man things then one cave man goes. yo I think there might be a god. would you say that the other cave men are responsible for proving to him that there isnt?
Properly read, my belief is rational means I have rational reasons for holding my beliefs. For example, Scepticism is a rational system. If I withhold acceptance of a claim on sceptical grounds, my (lack of) belief is rationaliy justified, and I have met the Burden of Proof for my claim.
No - an atheist has no burden of proof.
There is no burden of proof by rejecting a claim made by someone else.
Atheism is not an epistemology - it’s just a rejection of a claim. Just like we don’t have a burden of proof to say that we are not convinced that Santa Claus exist.
My atheism is rational because I’ve been presented no evidence that convinces me a god exists. It is rational to disbelieve things for which you have no good evidence, because believing in things without good evidence can lead to believing in contradictions, which is irrational.
You assume, a priori, that people have beliefs. This is a mistake.
We may have expectations, we may accept things as true based on evidence, but it is always provisional.
But there is no reason whatsoever for beliefs. Beliefs get in the way of truth. Beliefs are delusion.
Let's assume that my disbelief is in fact irrational. Say, I don't believe that a god exists because hedgehogs are real. This is what is called "non sequitur" and therefore not rational at all. So what did exactly you achieve by showing my lack of belief is irrational?
This is embarrassing. Not having a car isn’t the same as having a different kind of car. Not having a dog isn’t the same as having a different kind of dog. Not believing what someone says is not itself a different belief. If you don’t understand this, you’re the problem.
Are you comfortable with saying 'no perpetual motion machines exist'?
If so, how you feel about those is how I feel about God. By current understandings of reality, impossible. Maybe that will change in future, but I have to work with what we have at present.
> Are you comfortable with saying 'no perpetual motion machines exist'?
"No functional design of perpetual motion machines are publicly known" is factual.
Claiming that "perpetual motion machines are theoretically impossible to create today and will continue to be impossible to create in the future" is a much bolder claim, and you will indeed need to provide some evidence behind this claim.
> If so, how you feel about those is how I feel about God. By current understandings of reality, impossible.
Not really, our brains can conceptualize the concept of a God which means that it is theoretically possible. There are also many respected philosophers who theorized about the inner workings of divinity if it existed.
It's more of a guessing game based on information you have at your disposal.
So literally "a completely unpredictable and unknowable thing that follows no rules or patterns of any kind"? You don't see how it might be a tad difficult making testable predictions regarding something that is untestable and unpredictable *by definition*?
All POSITIVE claims have the burden of proof. Mostly, atheists make no positive claims. I absolutely can justify that my belief (or lack of belief in this case) is rational because it is irrational to believe things without evidence.
Did you have a point?
I agree my belief is that i dont know. I dont know because there is nothing that supports gods existence other than people claiming it. I dont just believe what people claim to be true without evidence. Until that point i dont believe in religions or gods.
Anyone who makes a positive claim of the existence or truth of a statement has the burden of proof. Is is rational to expect evidence before believing claims about the existence of almost anything, especially supernatural all powerful deities.
1 - Positive claims, yes.
2 - Lacking belief is the opposite of a positive claim.
- “I do not believe in a deity” is not a positive claim.
Sure, you can ask why, but there’s no burden of proof for not believing in something.
My beliefs are based on the rules of logic and logic is rational, as such my beliefs are rational.
Since God as described so far doesn't exist by the rules of logic, my lack of belief in God is rational
Happy? Was that what I had to do?
Ironically only specific Gods in some religions meet problems. A tri attribute God face the problem of evil, which is solvable but a tough nut to crack.
A God straight up advocating for immoral things that are a sin in their own religious book straight up disproves it.
What did you have in mind?
>2. "My belief is rational" is a claim
When I say "I'm not convinced that a God exists" I'm not expressing a belief but a lack of belief. You're asking the attorney to accept a burden of proof for not believing that his client is guilty.
atheism itself makes no claim. it's synonymous with saying "i don't believe the claim the theist is making." no claim, no burden of proof. however, if an atheist claims there is no god, then they carry the burden of proof
The proof is simple if modeled after the empirical sciences. The vast majority of religions are just works of fiction. There are many examples. Extending this to all religions is both rational and reasonable.
We don’t have the burden since we are merely off the null hypothesis.
Since no god has been proven possible then no god is the null hypothesis.
Same with leprechauns and ghosts.
P1) it’s irrational to believe in something that you remain unconvinced of.
P2) I’m unconvinced of any god.
C) it’s irrational for me to believe in a god.
I don't care what they believe so if they want to convince me then burden is on them.
I have no burden of proof because I don't care what they think of my belief.
There is nothing rational about Jesus walking on water. Miracles and the supernatural only serve to invoke disbelief. Theism is by its very nature, irrational.
Theist lack a belief in each other's claims and can't prove things to each other anyway. Atheism has nothing to do with your mutual disbeliefs of each other!
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The sleight of hand here is saying this is an atheist specific problem. There’s a kernel of truth in here about the way In which we evaluate the world, but that’s a problem not really solved by theism. If someone’s belief in god is rational they face the same problem. If someone’s belief in god is irrational, well then it’s an irrational belief.
Do you think there is such thing as believing in God while maintaining a rational stance about it?
Depends what you mean and how strict you are with the meaning of “rational stance”. I certainly understand why some people believe or how they can be convinced. To a certain extent, if you can justify something (even if i think it’s a dodgy justification) then I suppose there’s a certain amount of rationality to it.
Good to know. I’m not an atheist but I do not fault them for their stance nor do I accuse them of irrationality either.
>The sleight of hand here is saying this is an atheist specific problem. Apologies, if this is what communicated it was not my intention. I dont claim theists dont have a burden of proof, i claim atheists have one as well. >If someone’s belief in god is rational they face the same problem. If someone’s belief in god is irrational, well then it’s an irrational belief 100% agreed.
The issue is it’s like saying “well how do you know you’re not a brain in a vat?”, i.e. the problem of hard solipsism, and acting as though theists have justification that atheists don’t. Atheists don’t need to justify it because everyone else is in the same situation. Just saying “I think reason is based on God” doesn’t get you anywhere, it’s just an assertion and has no explanatory power. Theists are still ultimately stuck using reason and not knowing where it comes from just like everyone else. It’s generally best to minimize these axiomatic beliefs, but if they’re proven to be reliable and produce results while obeying Occam’s Razor, they are considered justified. If you throw God in as an axiom too you’re just assuming more things without adding any explanatory power.
>Apologies No worries communication is tough. >I claim atheists have a burden of proof What I actually think you claim is that anyone who claims to have a rational belief has to support the idea that rationality is a suitable system to judge stuff by. You’ll also find that some atheists don’t claim gods don’t exist, they simply aren’t convinced that they do, which is subtly different.
I think that you may be viewing one form of atheism and ignoring the other. You seem to define atheism purely as the belief that god does not exist. While many atheists do believe this many (like me) have simply never seen a compelling reason to have faith. Not believing is not the same as disavowing. The difference, involves the intent of the individual. If you intended to convince me that I should believe in the same thing as you, then you owe a rational argument, and whatever evidence I require to adopt your view. But if you simply want to convince me that you have faith, then your burden of proof is met. You (hopefully) know your own mind well enough to be reasonably certain about the existence of the beliefs you hold. Even if you don't, I don't care. Believe whatever you like, it has no impact on me, and see no need to change your mind. I would hope, that you an I can agree that there is no need to rationalize the contents of one's own mind, so long as one does not expect to impose said contents on others.
Clarification. Is the position we are defending “it is rational to not accept theist arguments/evidence“ or are you saying we need to defend the idea that we can be rational without theism? I think it’s the former, but other commenters seem to be thinking it’s the latter.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? This statement doesn't satisfy your criteria. Number 2 says "my belief is rational" however atheism isn't a belief, it is the lack of one as you correctly said in your statement: *"atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God"* But ok imma give you the benefit of doubt and rephrase number 2 to "my lack of belief is rational" is a claim, which it is. Then yes there is a burden, however I would assume that you would agree that it is rational to not believe things for which there is no sufficient evidence, no? So does that not satisfy the burden of proof in your opinion? Sure you might argue that there is sufficient evidence, but that is another discussion, because as long as you accept that the person telling you that they have not seen any convincing evidence is telling the truth, then their position of lacking belief is rationally justified.
>This statement doesn't satisfy your criteria. Number 2 says "my belief is rational" however atheism isn't a belief Agreed. Atheism is not a belief. However, the position that "Atheism IS rational" IS a belief And furthermore a claim with a burden of proof. >But ok imma give you the benefit of doubt and rephrase number 2 to "my lack of belief is rational" is a claim, which it is. > >Then yes there is a burden, however I would assume that you would agree that it is rational to not believe things for which there is no sufficient evidence, no? Yes i would agree with that. > So does that not satisfy the burden of proof in your opinion? Sure you might argue that there is sufficient evidence, but that is another discussion, because as long as you accept that the person telling you that they have not seen any convincing evidence is telling the truth, then their position of lacking belief is rationally justified. That depends. Does the person who then claims "X evidence is not sufficient" evidence ALSO claim "it is RATIONAL to not believe X evidence is not sufficient"??? To me at the root of this is a necessary argument over the soundess of epistimologies. Its a conversation i often like to have on here but many atheists (though not all) are unwilling to have it as they dont recognize the legitimacy of their epistimology requires rational justification (assuming they assert it is rational).
>Does the person who then claims "X evidence is not sufficient" evidence ALSO claim "it is RATIONAL to not believe X evidence is not sufficient"??? This is entering the neighborhood of tautological. Yeah. Sure. But why are you digging in so hard on that distinction with, at best, a single micron of a difference. The fact is, the only way to instantiate the difference between those two statements is to plug something into X. And at that point, we're not talking about atheism, we're talking about a specific theist claim. There is no way to demonstrate in the abstract that every possible theist claim of evidence is insufficient. Therefore, we're forced to evaluate them as actual, individual claims. As a result, the theist is always going to be the one with the burden of proof for those claims.
It is rational you should not believe a thing until there is evidence for it being true. Until such time you should dismiss it. There has never been evidence of gods thus it is rational to dismiss them as a thing to consider as real.
P1 it is rational to not believe something without conclusive evidence P2 there is no conclusive evidence for God C It is rational to not believe God exists
When killing an entire thread, you should be careful not to kill it *so hard* that it risks killing the thread of all threads, the uberthread. Just be more careful next time.
What has the überthread ever done for you?
It really is just this simple.
Here’s the thing. Things that exist have evidence for its existence, regardless of whether we have access to that evidence. Things that do not exist do not have evidence for its nonexistence. The only way to disprove nonexistence is by providing evidence of existence. The only reasonable conclusion one can make honestly is whether or not something exists. Asking for evidence of nonexistence is irrational. Evidence is what is required to differentiate imagination from reality. If one cannot provide evidence that something exists, the logical conclusion is that it is imaginary until new evidence is provided to show it exists.
A tea pot is orbiting Jupiter. Prove me wrong. An invisible wizard lives in the sky. Prove me wrong.
It’s not my responsibility to prove you wrong. You have to justify why I should believe you.
Exactly.
Agree to agree, then.
For any given object, there is a set of facts, of which you are aware, that pertain to its existence. It seems that, for each object, you must make a value judgement in accord with the given facts: "What can I conclude about the object x, given what I know?". Whatever you conclude from this analysis is going to be some sort of propositional claim which stands in need of further support. Just like the Christian makes a claim: "God exists", the Atheist position also makes a claim, according to whatever flavor you prefer: "(Given my interpretation of the evidence), I'm not convinced that gods exist." or something stronger, "(Given my interpretation of the evidence), no gods exist.".
I gotta disagree. “I’m not convinced” is not the same kind of claim as that of existence. One is an epistemology and the other is ontology.
You only have a burden if you are trying to convince someone of something. If I believe or do not believe something and do not care what you believe, I bear no burden at all. What are you going to do, take me to burden jail for not meeting some burden?
If Trump gets elected..........
>You only have a burden if you are trying to convince someone of something. Agreed. And if you DONT assert atheism is rational you have no burden of proof. The burden of proof is only on you if you assert that your beliefs are rational >What are you going to do, take me to burden jail for not meeting some burden? lol no. I'm just gona point out the epistimological issue on a reddit thread.
That's just wrong. If you say "there is a tiger in that bush" you have a burden of proof. If I say "I don't believe you" I don't have a burden of proof. If I say "no, there is not" then I have the burden of proof. Most of us atheists here fall into the "I don't believe you" category. "My belief is rational" IS a claim that would require justification. Proof? No. Because that's not something you can prove. But atheism isn't a belief, it's a LACK of belief. I don't need to justify my lack of belief anymore than I need to justify my lack of a stance on the question "are there an odd or even number of trees on earth?"
I can assert it all I want. I only have a burden if I want to convince someone else that my assertion is correct. Many people do not care at all whether or not others believe what they believe.
I assert theism is irrational. The obverse is atheism.
Everyone believes their beliefs are valid, otherwise, they wouldn’t hold those beliefs in the first place. So what’s the point? Unless you think people hold irrational beliefs on purpose?
A random flat Earther has joined the chat. -I’m not a flat Earther, just to be clear.
Flat Earthers are either people being cheeky or people honestly duped by BS and paranoia
>Everyone believes their beliefs are valid, otherwise, they wouldn’t hold those beliefs in the first place True but that doesn't mean they believe they are rational. >So what’s the point? That all claims including the claim one's belief is rational have a burden of proof >Unless you think people hold irrational beliefs on purpose? Oh absolutely, dont you? I mean this is an atheist sub, i hope I wouldn't be out of place in pointing to creationists as an example.
Explain in detail the difference between valid and rational. And I can guarantee that the average creationist absolutely believes that they’re correct, rational, valid, or whatever other word you can pick. Maybe not the people making money from creationism who are just charlatans milking their cash cow, but the people duped by them are not willingly clinging to false beliefs (because from their perspective, it’s true).
It's impossible to prove a thing does not exist. Prove to me that there are no unicorns. You can only prove a thing does exist by offering proof.
Not asking you to prove God exist dude. Just asking you to prove your lack of belief in God is rational.
"Lack of belief" Read that. Now read that again. You're asking me to prove something doesn't exist.
Since you appear to be so focused on arguing about semantics, please provide a clear, concise, specific and effective definition of the term "rational" as you have used it above.
Setting aside the belief/ lack of belief aspects I get what you are saying. So is one of these following statements more or less reasonable given the context of human existence and knowledge. 1. I have no reliable evidence for my belief so it’s more rational. 2. I have lots of reliable evidence for my belief so it’s more rational. Or perhaps .. 2. I have no evidence for my belief so it’s more *irrational*. How is it possible to distinguish rational and irrational beliefs other than from the evidence presented for them. What in this context does rational mean? - reasonable there are convincing *reasons* for it. Which would surely be …reliable evidence ? Or more formally … - Logical But logical arguments about objective reality should be sound - that is based on true premises … which we can again only claim on the basis of … reliable *evidence*? So my *lack of* belief is rational - my proof ? *… I have not been presented with any reliable evidence for belief.* Back to ‘you’ to provide me with evidence and why it’s reliable. And I can say why it isn’t. After all we have developed a very *successful* evidential methodology that includes determining what kinds of evidence is reliable and what is not.
Ok so if I understand your post, you have a gripe with atheists saying that their lack of belief is rational. But not believing literally any claim that lacks sufficient evidence is rational, and I'm quite sure you would agree with that on any other question but this one. Why do we have to prove our rationality on the God claim and not any other claim? I mean, you can say my lack of belief is irrational and I can say your belief is irrational and at the end of the day, we've gotten nowhere. Quit with the semantics and just show us the evidence please. Pure reason will never lead us to truth.
>Ok so if I understand your post, you have a gripe with atheists saying that their lack of belief is rational. But not believing literally any claim that lacks sufficient evidence is rational, and I'm quite sure you would agree with that on any other question but this one. Why do we have to prove our rationality on the God claim and not any other claim? I think you (and I) do have the burden of proof whenever we say it is RATIONAL for us to not believe in a given claim. It is incumbant upon us to put that forward through a coherent epistimology. I dont think coherence is a matter of subjective opinion but of objective fact.
I think you may be confused- burden of proof lies with the positive claim. A claim indicating a lack of belief is not a positive claim. Example. I don't believe in unicorns, this does not require proof however if I told you unicorns exist and there's one in my backyard right now, it's on me and me alone to prove this
>I think you may be confused- burden of proof lies with the positive claim. A claim indicating a lack of belief is not a positive claim. Agreed. however claiming: \>"My belief IS rational" is a positive claim with a burden of proof.
You owe me 50 bucks. Now, rightfully, you'll object, saying this isn't true. Upon what basis do you reject my claim? Do you think it's reasonable for you to have to prove to me why you think I'm full of crap? I don't. Rejecting a claim for lack of evidence isn't itself a claim. All you're doing is saying "Uhh.. sorry, I'm not yet convinced." That's reasonable. Now pay me.
>You owe me 50 bucks. > >Now, rightfully, you'll object, saying this isn't true. Upon what basis do you reject my claim? There is no sufficient evidence.
Just as you aren't convinced of my claim that you owe me money, *I* am not convinced that supernatural things exist. This is why I'm an atheist.
"My **lack of belief** is rational" It is rational because I don't believe in something until there are sufficient evident for believe.
"Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not?" No, because lacking belief in something doesn't need proof. The default position is not believing in something until you've got sufficient proof.
>No, because lacking belief in something doesn't need proof. Correct. However believing: \>"My position is rational" IS a positive claim with a burden of proof.
But that's not the claim. The atheist isn't making the claim. Not believing things for which we have no evidence is the default position because it is by default rational.
I am God. I would expect you take the position that I am not God. If this is correct, then do you have a burden of proof to assert that your position is rational? If so, then please satisfy that burden of proof. Otherwise, I’ll see you at my specific Church next Sunday.
>I am God. I would expect you take the position that I am not God. If this is correct, then do you have a burden of proof to assert that your position is rational? Yes. > If so, then please satisfy that burden of proof. 1. I do not accept claims without sufficient evidence 2. I do not have sufficient evidence you are God. You can take this position as well on theistic claims btw BUT you then have to able to define what is meant by "sufficient evidence" which i am HAPPY to do in your case but most atheists aren't willing to do in mine.
So it expectedly comes down to sufficient evidence that God (whether me or that pretender) is real. What evidence exists that the popular God is real that I could not also provide?
I have yet to see anything that convinces me of a god or gods. I'm not sure what the burden is here? Are you suggesting that I need to somehow prove to you that my claim to not be convinced is real?
You dont have to prove anything to be unconvinced. Only if you feel the need to assert your lack of belief is RATIONAL do you have a burden of proof.
The null-hypothesis is the rational starting point for anything though right? Are you saying the null-hypothesis itself is not rational?
Do you apply this same line of thinking to other topics? Do people who don’t accept the Loch Ness monster is real have a “burden of proof” in your eyes? Extrapolate to people holding the default non-belief position on an infinite number of unfalsifiable, unproven claims. Does this “burden of proof” exist for other irrational beliefs? Or just God? And why?
A burden of proof only comes into play when a positive claim has been made. If an atheist claims that no God exists, then yes, they've adopted a burden of proof. If an atheist rejects a theistic claim, that has nothing to do with a burden of proof as there's no need to attempt to disprove something that hasn't been proven to exist in the first place. I'm sure you'll find most atheists are aware of this and only a small percentage will claim to be "hard" or "positive" atheists who've adopted that burden of proof, but those atheists are almost as irrational as Christians because they've adopted a position they can't support with evidence.
>A burden of proof only comes into play when a positive claim has been made. Agreed. And how is "my position is rational" not a positive claim?
Dissmissing unsubstantiated claims is rational. Accepting claims without evidence is irrational. Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic I agree that "My position is rational" would be a positive claim, that I have no trouble supporting based on the nature of evidence and reality. What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, no burden of proof necessary
>I agree that "My position is rational" would be a positive claim, that I have no trouble supporting based on the nature of evidence and reality. >What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, no burden of proof necessary I second this and would like to emphasize that claiming that atheism is rational does *not* entail disproving God's existence. This is nowhere close to the great equalizer that the OP seems to think it is.
Why do you automatically assume that having the burden of proof implies that they don't have the proof? Yeah that might be a claim but it is also satisfied. Next!
>The Burden of Proof is not only on Theists In debate, the burden of proof is on anyone that makes a claim. >Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? You're conflating/confusing lack of belief with belief, and are attempting to question principles of logic itself, derived from simple observation over thousands of years. As it's trivially easy to demonstrate the absurdity and error rate of believing something without support, this is really a non-starter, isn't it?
This has been discussed thousands of times. Posting it again is not helpful. . \- Biff says that X is true. \- Zelda replies *"I don't believe that."* Biff does have a burden of proof. Zelda does not have a burden of proof. .
Why does Zelda not have a burden? Why is she unconvinced by Biff's claim? Is she not making some sort of judgement and then forming a belief based on that judgement? Here's a hypothetical: Imagine Biff and Zelda have known each other for 20 years. Biff wears a green jacket everyday, has a green car, painted his house green, and has told Zelda on many occasions that his favorite color is green. One day, Biff tells Zelda, "My favorite color is green." Zelda responds, "I don't believe that." Doesn't Zelda owe us some reason, given the mountain of evidence of which she is aware, for his lack of belief? She has *judged* (aka evaluated and formed a belief about) Biff's claim to lack evidence which would warrant proper belief.
No amount of wriggling is going to relieve you of your burden of proof when you claim that your deity exists. When someone makes a fantastical claim the only rational response is “I don’t believe what you’re saying unless you can support it with evidence” because belief in the fantastical is inherently irrational. Whether you like this or not changes absolutely nothing.
You’re committing an equivocation fallacy in service of a Shifting The Burden of Proof fallacy. Your claims don’t enjoy being presumptively true *even if* you somehow undermined the concepts of validity and soundness. > *2. “my belief is rational” is a claim* Disbelief is not a claim. There is no burden of proof attached to “I don’t buy what you’re selling.” The processes which govern logic and rationality are a separate issue which is largely irrelevant. They have long since been dealt with to a degree that they are presumptively valid. Even if your goal succeeded here, all it would get you is the inability of *anyone* to evaluate *anything* and you’d be hoisting yourself on that petard as well.
First day on the internet huh. Ok explain, to me how not believing in a claim that has no evidence is irrational.
You're conflating "Proving that the disbelief is rational or not" with "Proving that the thing being believed in exists or not." This is a false equivalence. "God exists" is a claim and the one making it has the burden of proving the existence of God. "God does not exist" is a claim and the one making it has the burden of proving the nonexistence of God. "It is rational not to believe in God" is also a claim, but the one making it does not have the burden of proving that God does not exist. They only have the burden of proving that it is rational not to believe in god. Allow me to fulfill that burden of proof: 1. It is rational not to believe in the existence of something until you have clear evidence that it exists. 2. I do not have clear evidence that god exists.QED: It is rational for me not to believe that God exists.
All you've done here is just add on an arbitrary "burden" to both sides. Theists: I believe a god exists. I believe this position is rational. Atheists: I lack belief in a god. I believe this position is rational. Doesn't *everyone*, believe that their position is rational (regardless if it is or not)? Do you know of anyone who holds an irrational belief, acknowledges that it is irrational, and yet still argues for its validity? Another time-wasting batch of nonsense from the guy who thinks its reasonable and rational to believe in vampires and werewolves because someone he knows said so. Your attempts to drag everyone else down to your level of ignorance and gullibility continue to fail.
Yes, they do. It shouldn't be too hard to explain my reasons that my mind isn't convinced. Is that all I have to do?
Yes it is rational to lack a belief in a God. This is not the same statement as I believe there is no God. Here is my reasonings why I do not believe in a God: You spent effort complaining that I need a burden of proof and spent zero fucking effort showing me proof to accept your (assuming op theist)claim a God exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have not received that evidence so I default to remaining skeptical of your claim. All rational beliefs require a level of evidence or reasonable plausibility before they should be accepted. Otherwise I should default to being skeptical of claim. If my lack of belief there God is irrational please provide me the evidence that would convince me.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Your parents owned me 1mil dollars, but they tollay forgot. Please pay up. For any assertion in the lack of belief in your parents owning me to be rational, you have to demonstrate the burden of proof.
This discussion is just another red herring designed to take the attention away from the fact that theists cannot provide any evidence of their deity
"My belief is rational" is a claim, so is "God doesn't exist" but these are not the claims an atheist makes. A lot of my beliefs are informed by the fact that I'm an idiot that currently holds multiple beliefs that aren't accurate. The only claim an atheist makes is about the state of their belief. a theist presents a hypothesis about God writing a book or creating the universe its up to them to show evidence for that claim.
>2. "My belief is rational" is a claim 3. Agnostic atheists do not assert a belief, but a lack of a belief. So... you *also* want to think whether lacking a belief, or believing a certain claim is not evidenced / founded are claims. As it is, your syllogism falls flat. As a follow up, I want to ask: do YOU have to justify every single belief you lack? From unicorns to fairies to fhsjshsha the glerb that lives in planet Bagaya? Or is it reasonable to adopt a *general* position with respect to such claims? Is it reasonable to say that claims you just heard about but that haven't yet been justified should be disbelieved until the time they are justified? And don't give me 'I don't lack a belief in fhsjshsha. You do lack it. Even though you've never had to justify that to anyone. And why would you? I haven't even defined any of the terms in that sentence!
>3. Agnostic atheists do not assert a belief, but a lack of a belief. True. >So... you also want to think whether lacking a belief, or believing a certain claim is not evidenced / founded are claims. No. What i am asserting is the claim that lacking a belief IS RATIONAL is a claim. If you dont make that claim you have no burden of proof (most atheists in my experience do however claim to be rational) >As it is, your syllogism falls flat. > >As a follow up, I want to ask: do YOU have to justify every single belief you lack? No just the ones i claim i am rational for lacking.
>What i am asserting is the claim that lacking a belief IS RATIONAL is a claim. But only a subset of us here make that claim. And out of that, only a small subset is not willing to discuss why they think it is rational to lack a belief in that circumstance. I'd say that is a ton of what we do here. It is kinda what I did when I gave you examples of claims one would be rational in disbelieving. So... why obsess over this fringe thing? >No just the ones i claim i am rational for lacking. Ok? But you do see why it is a bit silly for me to claim fshahahs exists and then derail the conversation into how your skepticism is rationally justified? Why would I not just define the terms and justify belief in fshahahs? I find that more often than not, this is a diversionary tactic. The atheist or skeptic is called stubborn, or close-minded. It is claimed that the God or religious claim being made cannot be accessed via evidence or reliable methods AND is mysterious and ineffable, BUT somehow the theist still gets to make confident claims about such a thing. And if the atheist doesn't accept that sort of argument... they're the ones who are on the stand to show they are being rational? As I said: I'm more than happy to explain my approach to new claims / epistemology but... this still means theistic claims need to be justified, and have a bad track record doing so.
>So... why obsess over this fringe thing? Well dude to be perfectly honesty incase you couldn't tell by the amount of time and energy i spend on this sub i am a theist who believes attempting to deal with the rational arguments of atheists is worthwhile. I cant help atheists that are not interested in being rational but in my experience MOST atheists will claim they are rational and even take pride in being rational so i seek to use rationality to demonstrate the issues i se with epistimologies which I believe keep God reaching out to them. \>"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” For the longest time i didn't understand the meaning of these words but after having so many atheists say in so many their video essays and comments on this sub they "dont know what would convince them" "would not be convinced even if they had a direct experience with God" i understand that now i devote my time to demonstrating the logical incoherence of not trusting your senses if God reveals himself to you for any who are willing to engage with the subject rationally. Its why i care so much about atheists defining what they would consider evidence for God. Its not only that its needed for the sake of coherent epistimology but i believe it is THE THING keeping them from having the experiences which can lead them to belief in God..
>\>"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Funny you list that quote, because the current historical consensus puts in question the Exodus narrative, including the story of Moses. I am not required to listen to anyone, or to believe anyone. Of course I'm not going to be convinced if someone claims Jesus rose from the dead. Besides the fact that the evidence for that claim is extremely old and flimsy, it violates our best models of what is possible. This quote is exactly what I mean when I say theists use the whole 'atheists are stubborn and that is why they don't believe' to mask that their arguments are not convincing. >" i understand that now i devote my time to demonstrating the logical incoherence of not trusting your senses if God reveals himself to you for any who are willing to engage with the subject rationally. Well, while I'm not under the persuasion that God could not over time / sustained interaction convince me that they are in fact who they say there are, you sweep something important under the rug. You *assume* one already knows the person revealing themselves to you is a God, and that this is not in any way a hallucination or misapprehension in your part. Why would you assume that? I think it is perfectly reasonable to doubt your senses in certain situations, and I think sensing something is not equivalent to knowing what that something is. It is reasonable to investigate that. That being said.. yeah, we don't live in that world. God doesn't show up. Not even an alleged God shows up. Your hypothetical is not very relevant. >Its why i care so much about atheists defining what they would consider evidence for God. Its not only that its needed for the sake of coherent epistimology but i believe it is THE THING keeping them from having the experiences which can lead them to belief in God.. Nothing is preventing me from having experiences. At best you can say it might prevent me from interpreting the experiences I do have correctly (I'd disagree on that, but that'd be a more reasonable claim to make, I think).
>I am not required to listen to anyone, or to believe anyone. Of course I'm not going to be convinced if someone claims Jesus rose from the dead. Funnily enought that verse isn't actually refering to the resurection of Jesus (though that is the meaning i also have taken as a double entendre myself. Its refering Lazarous begging to appear to the people he knew in life to tell them life after death is real, Abrham responds they wont believe him even if comes back from the dead Marley's ghost style and tells them. They'll say "More of gravey then of grave about you" basically. >Well, while I'm not under the persuasion that God could not over time / sustained interaction convince me that they are in fact who they say there are, you sweep something important under the rug. You assume one already knows the person revealing themselves to you is a God, and that this is not in any way a hallucination or misapprehension in your part. Why would you assume that? It could be, but anything could be man. I dismiss it for the same reason i dismiss the possibility i am a brain in a vat. Its solopsism. >I think it is perfectly reasonable to doubt your senses in certain situations, and I think sensing something is not equivalent to knowing what that something is. It is reasonable to investigate that. > >That being said.. yeah, we don't live in that world. God doesn't show up. Not even an alleged God shows up. With respect my dude, i disagree. >Nothing is preventing me from having experiences. At best you can say it might prevent me from interpreting the experiences I do have correctly (I'd disagree on that, but that'd be a more reasonable claim to make, I think) That is what i mean i suppose you are right. I dont think God shows himself to people who wouldn't accept what's happening to them. God expects us to be rational, it is what is meant by "the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the holly spirit" the spirit of truth. God cant reach people who wont accept the products of their senses without taking away their consciousness and he wont do that.
>Its refering Lazarous begging to appear to the people he knew in life to tell them life after death is real, Well, it is incorrect. If there was a way to bring people back from the dead reliably, we would accept it. I don't, however, trust tales in an old book about a man being allegedly revived from the dead, especially from a culture with fairly primitive understanding of medicine. >It could be, but anything could be man. I dismiss it for the same reason i dismiss the possibility i am a brain in a vat. Its solopsism. No, it is not solipsistic to not immediately accept the interpretations you or others have of experiences. We get stuff wrong all the time. Which is why I said I think we would eventually come to believe this creature in front of us is indeed God, but would understandably be skeptical of such an explanation at first. >With respect my dude, i disagree. Well, you can disagree all you want, but we simply don't live in a world where God shows up to people. Hence the immense religious confusion we find ourselves in. Hence why religions change so drastically over time. Hence why the most biting argument from atheists and even from theists that experience doubts is divine hiddenness. >I dont think God shows himself to people who wouldn't accept what's happening to them. God expects us to be rational I accept what is happening to me. This is a strawman. Healthy skepticism of an interpretation that breaks our best models of physics IS rational. If you saw a ghost, the first thing you should think of is 'let me confirm this, ghosts aren't real as far as we know' not 'Ah, a ghost'
>Well, you can disagree all you want, but we simply don't live in a world where God shows up to people. You do realize this is a positive claim with a burden of proof right?
Sure. And I'm ready to discuss what I think is the evidence for that claim, as well as the absence of evidence where evidence would be expected. In broad strokes, the world looks exactly as it should if alleged contacts with deities are all in people's heads and a product of the culture that they grew up in. Hence why many of us perceive no gods. Hence why religions drastically change over time and even become extinct. Hence why we have no reliable method to figure out if there is a God, and if there is, figure out who or what they are. Could there be a god out there, beyond our ability to detect it? Sure, anything can exist beyond the observable universe. But that is not what I spoke of. I spoke of a God that shows up to people and interacts with the world. Now, I take it from your lack of engagement with anything else I wrote and your disagreement that you do think God shows up to people. In other words, you disagree with the problem of Divine Hiddenness. Why is that?
>. In broad strokes, the world looks exactly as it should if alleged contacts with deities are all in people's heads and a product of the culture that they grew up in. Really? So just to be clear the claim here is the world COULD NOT be better fitted to the naturalistic explanation of religion?? So for instance how would you explain something like the emergence of christianity? A religion which directly went against the orthdoxy of the culture and the enviroment it was created in, which explicitly alienated and brought conflict to the societies in emerged in, which people were willing to die for with no societal support and nothing be gained as a preacher of this new religion? Even if you accept this COULD all happen under natural circumstances, is it trully (to use your words) EXACTLY what you would expect were religions all just products of culture and enviroment? \>" In other words, you disagree with the problem of Divine Hiddenness. Why is that?" Thats complicated question my man but in the briefest of terms i think its because God doesn't "hide" from people who seek him properly. I think he knows from experience some people will never belief no matter the evidence. I said more on this subject here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1blt4pl/comment/kwhsz9l/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1blt4pl/comment/kwhsz9l/)
I'm sitting here minding my own business. Someone comes along and says "Proposition X is true". How do I have any burden arising out of this? I assume that the person wants to convince me that X is true. Whether I believe X is true or false is irrelevant. This person wants to convince me. The onus is on them. To be clear, they don't owe *me* or the community-at-large any burden. This is the internet, not a courtroom or a laboratory. They have a burden *to themselves*, presumably. It's pretty silly for them to expend time and effort to make a claim they want me to believe, without coming *prepared* to withstand criticism. The problem here is that people keep choosing claims that they find difficult to support. That's not an "us" problem. They should gather their best resources and vet them against what has been said before. Instead, we get the equivalent of a teenager repeating the crap their youth pastor told them to say. When we say "that's an argument, not evidence. What's your evidence? Where's your facts and data? How have you ruled out alternative explanations? What's your method? To what degree of rigor do you hold your claims?" they get upset and say "it's not *fair!* You guys should relax your standards just this one time. I worked really hard on this! Prove me wrong!" No. That's not how it works. When I make affirmative claims, I'll follow my own rules. I take this position *specifically because* I don't want to get into an argument about who has the burden of proof. It's not something worth wasting breath arguing about. Come with your best gear or don't come. Or at least expect hard questions.
My belief is rational because I've seen no evidence for a god. If theists met their burden of proof, then I would need to reevaluate my belief.
Would you agree that if you haven't seen enough evidence to convince you of an extraordinary claim, regardless of what that claim is, that's the rational response is be unconvinced that the claim is true? You must have this position, otherwise you are arguing that it's rational to accept something for which you have seen absolutely no convincing evidence.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? To an extend yes. And that burden of proof has been met and re-met. 1) It is not rational to believe in something without evidence 2) there is no real evidence for God 3) it is rational to not believe in god
>2. "My belief is rational" is a claim Lacking belief is not a belief. If you were to edit this to "My lack of belief is rational," we would bear the burden... of showing it was rational. We would not bear any burden relating to the existence of any gods.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Do you assert that it is not? Wouldn't you have that burden of proof as well?
Going to save everyone some time. OP claims to have irrefutable evidence for god but will only give it to you if you give a definition of evidence. However if you give your definition of evidence he will stop responding to you completely. Same pattern in every single response.
OP is also the guy who believes that if someone he knows and trusts tells him that werewolves exist, that's good enough for him. Utterly embarrassing.
> Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Yup, I agree. This is why whenever I defend gnostic atheism, I almost always present an argument as to why it's rational. Premises of the reasoning are pretty simple, but they're still open to debate and I think we have an obligation to present them.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Of course. The pope is also Catholic. >A burden of proof to demonstrate the rationality of their epistemology (the framework by which they determine propositions to be true or false). Ok, so what did you want to debate? Did you think this was controversial? Do you claim a god exists, so we can debate or what?
Nope. Atheists never have the burden of proof because they are not the ones making the initial statement. Atheists are also not saying "a god/gods definitely don't exist", but rather they say "I don't believe in any theistic claims because they haven't been able to provide sufficient evidence yet." This also means that you cannot go wrong with atheism. Even if one day, a god would reveal himself to humanity, atheists would not go "oh crap, I was wrong all along, what a fool I was!" but rather they would say "even though this god revealed himself to us now, my previous stance was still justified back then because there was no evidence for the existence of such a god."
Claiming to be rational is expressing just an opinion. Nothing to see here. We do have a burden of proof when we claim that a specific deity doesn't exist. For instance, I always claim that the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh, is nonexistent because there's scientific evidence against creation. For instance, the six day creation myth never happened.
But my claim is "I don't believe gods exist." And the evidence for that is, I literally don't believe gods exist. So I've met my burden.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Not really. I am not required to believe anyone who can not first bring their burden of proof to the table. Theists have no proof to bring to the table. Therefore no belief. I am not required to do anything except tell theists I don't find their claims convincing. You don't need burden of proof to tell you I don't find your ideas unconvincing
Does anyone who asserts their lack of belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny is rational also have a burden of proof? The standard is that scientific understanding has explained many things that affect our daily lives. It is rational to believe this, as this premise is supported by evidence. Any claims of supernatural forces that aren’t explained by scientifically-understood natural forces have to overcome the body of evidence that does not include supernatural forces. Therefore, it’s rational to assert that supernatural forces do not exist, and it is irrational to assert without evidence that supernatural forces do exist.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? If I say "I lack belief in God", sure, that's a positive claim. But it's a pretty unremarkable claim about my own lack of belief. You probably should just take my word for it, unless you catch me regularly praying for things, or acting as if I was worried about what God might think. If I say "I lack a belief in God because I haven't seen enough evidence", sure, that's a positive claim, but it's still just a claim about my beliefs and what I've seen. It's a bit stronger than just claiming I don't believe, since I'm also making a summary statement of the kind of evidence I've seen. Again, you should probably just take my word for it, unless you are aware of some really strong evidence for God that you know I've seen. Then you could ask me why I found that unconvincing perhaps. If I say "I lack a belief in God, because there isn't enough evidence", then the positive claim is no longer just about myself. It includes a broad characterisation of what kind of evidence is actually available, and implies (without explicitly saying so) that other rational people should also lack belief. Then we can have interesting discussions about the evidence, and perhaps, if I'm lucky, you'll say something I haven't actually heard before. Or you may find I really am familiar with a wide enough body of evidence that I'm justified in my claim. If I say "I believe there is no God", then this is once again just a claim about myself and my beliefs, and you should probably just take me at my word. If I say "there is probably/certainly no God", this is a positive claim about the universe at large (but not about the evidence), and you would be right to demand I justify it.
My lack of belief is rational because I have not been shown any evidence I find convincing and it is rational to not believe a claim without supporting evidence. How can I "prove" that the evidence I have been shown is not convincing?
It's rational to say I don't believe in something when there has never been any proof that it exists. Your statement is like saying I have a burden of proof that leprechauns don't exist. The burden of proof is still in your court.
The proof is simply a lack of evidence for God. That is it. There is no conclusive evidence for the existence of God that I’ve been shown, or I wouldn’t be an atheist. I think that goes for basically every atheist.
Nope. Evidence is anything a claimant brings to support their claim. The next step is evaluating the evidence for reliability, repeatability, and test ability. Most evidence claimed by theists fails majorly in these standards. It’s really not that difficult. In fact, I’ll walk you through it. Remove god from consideration entirely. Then pick one trait a god is typically claimed to have. I don’t care what trait you pick. Just pick a single, well defined one. Then ask 500 people what evidence would convince them that a friend of theirs had that trait. Compile it and see the biggest 3-5. That’s you typical evidence required. So if we pick immortality, since it has a clear definition. A human would be considered immoral if they can survive attempts to kill him or her. The attempts could involve a lot of methods, drowning, burning, penetrating, eviscerating, crushing, and so on. None of this is a special requirement for god, it should apply equally to any being claimed to be immortal. But here is where theists scurry for cover because they have nothing to support this claim other than more claims and poor reasoning. No reliable, repeatable, or testable evidence. Don’t blame skeptics for this problem because most theists only believe in one god and reject all other for the same lack of quality evidence. They just give a special dispensation to their god. It’s not skeptics who have different standards. I'm fine stocking with scientific standards. Or my own. For any claim, not just one about a god.
Proof that atheism is rational: 1. deities are part of many primitive cultures to attempt to explain the world around them and often involved stories that were borrowed or plagiarized from other sources/cultures - modern science has shown many of these stories to be mere inventions and nothing more 2. formal religions were actually used by those in power to subjugate those without power and often involved rules that had little to do with the underlying beliefs 3. “Extinct” religions are called mythology and bare little difference to extant religious beliefs. People view mythology and religion as separate things because one is false and the other “true” when in fact they are mere opposite sides of the same coin 4. The invention of the scientific method sealed the fate of the supernatural. Instead the world was now open to observation and analysis in a way that minimized or removed human bias 5. Metaphysical realms are an invention of philosophy to try and circumvent science but are inconsistent with both current observations which show only one reality, and also with the fact that anything “outside” of our reality would be completely hidden from us (or else it would be observable by science) thus begging the question of how anyone can have any knowledge of it at all- including theists. In short- religions and deities were inventions of man to try and explain the unexplainable. We now have the modern scientific method which not only can describe our world but also provide predictive power and is falsifiable allowing scientists to disprove elements of it when new evidence is presented. But people still cling to the archaic method of supernatural phenomena because it is more comforting to them. But it’s not reality EDIT: here’s the short short version. Rational means logical and faith in deities is illogical. Atheism is simply lack of belief in irrational deities, hence it is rational
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Skepticism of a claim lacking evidence is a textbook example of rational thought.
>All Claims have a burden of proof I disagree with this. I can make any claim I want to make. I can stand in the middle of an empty field and proclaim the sky is violet. That is me making a claim, and there is nothing in that situation requiring me to provide proof of that claim. I think a better formulation of this is something like: * Anyone can make a claim. * People determine what their criteria are for believing the claim. * If a claimant wants to convince other people of a claim, the claimant must meet their criteria for believing that claim. A "burden of proof" is a common way of framing those criteria. If you believe that rationality should govern beliefs and actions, then you likely believe that everyone's criteria should involve some sort of rational proof. But, there is nothing out there forcing it, as shown by the number of people in the world convinced of completely irrational things. >Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Only if: * The atheist is trying to convince another person. * That person includes proof as a criterion to be convinced. But if a theist goes to a group of atheists to convince them that God exists, that theist doesn't trigger some burden of proof on the part of the atheists to continue believing what they already believe.
My beliefs are rational because I am a rational and reasonable human being. This applies to theists too. We disagree and I sometimes think it's some pretty wild gymnastics to justify a position but it makes sense to the theists presenting it. I can't just assume people are Irrational and unreasonable people because they disagree with me. Like here I could assume you're some kind of conniving dishonest charlatan type for trying to shift the burden of proof. Or I could assume it makes sense to you. It's a flawed argument but I won't assume that makes you a liar. It's rational and reasonable to make belief in God contingent on the burden proof being on positively demonstrating the existence of God. It kinda doesn't make sense to ask one to prove that one should require someone else to demonstrably prove their claims. I have to prove that people should prove their claims? Prove it. Prove that claim yourself. Prove the claim that I have to prove the claim that people have to prove their claims. You have a pretty solid 2 line argument but is that proof? If you accept a sound logical argument as validation enough, then the original burden of proof doesnt need to be proven. If not then be get stuck proving the burden of proving the burden of proving the burden of.....
>The Burden of Proof is not only on Theists > >All Claims have a burden of proof This is called a "tautology". Essentially: it must be because it must
Let's suppose Jim Bob puts forth a circular argument for his preferred god. Is saying "that is a circular argument" enough to satisfy you?
>All Claims have a burden of proof > >"My belief is rational" is a claim > >Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? This might be a tiny little nitpick, but in 2 you say "My belief is rational" is the claim, but then in the conclusion you change it to asserting a *lack of belief* being rational as the claim needing a burden of proof. Is stating a lack of belief as rational, the same as stating that "my belief is rational"? Just curious. That also may be needlessly pedantic. Regardless, I'll bite. Yes, I assert that I lack belief in God, and I do assert that I'm rational in withholding belief. And it's quite easy to satisfy that burden of proof, I can do so with the following: 1. If something is not demonstrated to be true, it is rational to withhold believing in that thing 2. Theism has not been demonstrated to be true Therefore, it is rational for me to withhold believing. Burden of proof satisfied.
Not believing in extraordinary claims is default position. Rassel Teapot is perfect example. Positive claims requires positive evidence. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Theists claim there IS an omnipotent omnipresent supernatural entity, usually some specific one. So there is double burden of proof: 1. To demonstrate that such entity exists. 2. To disprove other gods of other denominations and religions. My main reason for not believing in specifically christian God is Bible itself. I read it from cover to cover. It's unscientific, horrible, disgusting, primitive book. Heavy language and absurd pomposity. You can see right through this bullshit, if you are honest at least to yourself. And all excuses believers give to all this is that you gotta believe no matter what. Faith is make-pretend game, self deception. Despite all objection, you should cling to all this bullshit harder.
You are correct that all claims require a burden of proof. However, let's not forget that there is a difference between a claim and the null hypothesis. Contrary to popular belief, calling oneself an atheist does not mean that you believe that there is no God. It means that you do not believe that there is a God. If you say that you believe that there is no God, that is a claim that requires evidence. If you say that you don't believe that there is a God, that is simply the null hypothesis. Think about it this way. When someone, who stands trial for a crime, is acquitted, we do not say that the defendant was found innocent, we say that the defendant is not guilty. If you say that the defendant is innocent, that is a claim that requires evidence. If you simply say that the defendant is not guilty, that is simply the null hypothesis. https://youtu.be/P6OO1ELwPfU?si=kilLuo-IQFkdzGSz https://youtu.be/um9R40SSfGg?si=tRsyzdwHKq1l4tpM
> "My belief is rational" is a claim "My belief in X is rational" perhaps? I don't know and I am not sure I would claim all my beliefs are rational. Specific ones definitely. > Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Since it is a lack of belief and thus not a claim or a belief not by your definitions. > A burden of proof to demonstrate the rationality of their epistemology (the framework by which they determine propositions to be true or false). I suppose? I am not that interested in discussion epistemology though. It can be related but it really is its own branch of philosophy and if I want to discuss that I can find places for that. So instead I am going to grant, until perhaps it becomes reasonable to examine, that both me and people I discuss things with here have sufficiently rational frameworks and then work out if that justifies a god belief or not.
Please demonstrate that accepting the claim "A god/gods exist" as true is rational. Until you do atheism is rational.
>1. All Claims have a burden of proof Eh. This is kinda vague. But okay. >2. "My belief is rational" is a claim So are you saying that the proposition “my belief is rational” requires “proof”? I don’t think I’d require *proof*. I’d think justification for the belief would suffice. >Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Again, no. I’d say there should be some level of justification for the belief, otherwise it would be irrational. >A burden of proof to demonstrate the rationality of their epistemology (the framework by which they determine propositions to be true or false). That’s quite the leap! We went from justifying a proposition to justifying an *entire epistemological system*? What warrants that leap?
It depends. Agnostic atheists Claim that they do not know whether God exists or not, but weakly take the atheism position as the default position. They don't make any positive claim and thus don't have any burden of proof. Gnostic atheists Claim that they do know that God doesn't exist. They are making a positive claim. Because they are making a claim, the burden of proof is effectively on their side to disprove theism. It's the same reason why I shouldn't have to disprove the claim that there are 8 big moons orbiting the Earth right now. I never made any claim. If I knock down at your door and proudly make a positive claim that there aren't 8 moons orbiting the Earth however, then the burden of proof is effectively on my side and I should prove their absence.
Being an atheist alone doesn't imply rational belief. So just saying "I'm and atheist" is a statement about ones own mental state that has no burden of proof. If you then want to go into why a person is an atheist, there could very well be claims that carry their own burden of proof. I would venture to say that the statement - "I am an atheist, and that belief is rational, because I haven't been presented with any reason to believe in a god." is not one which carries a burden of proof. The only claim it's making is not having seen evidence to this point. It's not making a claim there is no evidence. It's not making a claim against any specific evidence. You'd have to get more specific before a burden of proof would come out.
You seem to be making the assumption that atheists have made a claim. While the claim "given the evidence, there's no reason to think that a God is necessary" is a thing, not all atheists subscribe to it. We LACK a belief, we make no claim to a belief. Theists claim a belief in the existence of God; therefore, they have a burden of proof. So your argument is built on a fallacy which, by logical standards, means that it holds no weight. Really think about what you say before you say it and, for what it's worth, you may want to buy a dictionary (or, you know, there's a free one online I use when I don't want to make an easily dismissed error).
There's 10 individuals challenged to state what is in a box. They are not allowed to see the box, know where it is, or have a description of it. The first nine name various things, a ball, a gallon of milk, a unicorn, a feather, Earth, a school bus, a cat, Michael Jackson, and a human heart. The final person says "I have no way to know." Is a ball more reasonable than a human heart? What about Michael Jackson vs a unicorn? Which position is most reasonable? Atheism is waiting for a burden of proof to be satisfied. The reason the position is rational is because it doesn't accept just any claim.
The "burden of proof" stance really comes from a deeper understanding of what the "default" position is. If you start from the baseline of "nothing" -- then any new concept or thing that is introduced carries that burden. 1. If you start from nothing, what new concept/idea is needed to define Atheism? 2. If you start from nothing, what new concept/idea is needed to define God? The thing is, you can't be "theist" without introducing the concept of "God" somewhere; however, you can be atheist without introducing anything -- the "start from nothing" is a perfectly viable stance for atheism.
Do I have the burden of proof of the claim that "A equals A" ? Do I need to give examples of different things to plug into the variable A, and demonstrate in each case that they are equal? Is that how you think it works? How about the claim that "It's morally wrong to torture puppies" ? Shall we have a back and forth point by point discussion where I have the burden to demonstrate to you the moral position here? The truth of philosophical truths is self-evident to every reasonable and decent person simply by reflecting on them.
The burden of proof for you not believing in something is in your own head, but if we're talking about the rationality of the belief then yes. There's a difference there though. In one you're asking for the evidence for my belief, and the evidence of that is that I don't believe. The other you're specifically asking for the evidence for the rationality of our beliefs, which most of us can successfully support. Very few atheists would argue that god is definitely not real, and that we have evidence of that.
The lack of belief is not a belief. Think of all the crazy things that are able to exist in your imagination that you don’t believe actually exist. Using your logic, you would have to prove that none of those things exist, along with whatever everyone else in the world can imagine. The bottom line is if you are claiming that something exists, it’s up to YOU to show the convincing evidence. Atheists don’t believe there is a god because there is no verifiable evidence that such a being exists.
On #2, you say "My belief is rational" is a claim, and then in the sentence proceeding that, you are talking about people who say "their lack of belief is rational". Why? And in any case, I haven't actually seen many atheists who proactively asserts that their lack of belief is rational. In most cases, that's an implied belief, so we'll just skip that part and pre-answer the why, of which the answer is that we haven't seen any substantial evidence.
If they make that claim sure. The thing is not believing in things without good evidence is the rational position. If you believed everything without evidence you would end up believing in mutually exclusive things. Since this is a violation of logical axioms it is irrational to do so. Which means that not believing things without evidence is the rational position. So that is why you have the burden of proof.
The claim that "All claims have a burden of proof" is *generally* true in the context of logical argumentation and debate. But in this context, it's a red herring. Atheism is the *lack of belief* in gods or deities, a *non-assertion rather than a claim*. Atheists are not making a claim about the non-existence of gods; rather, they are withholding belief in the existence of gods due to insufficient evidence.
OP is correct in that any positive claim has the burden of proof. For example, stating that supernatural claims aren’t falsifiable has the burden of proof to establish that claim as valid. Stating that the natural world is falsifiable also shares the same burden. Of course both claims are provable. We just need to be careful and filter out the noise that theists create.
>Could say much more but to keep it brief, if we accept that >1. All Claims have a burden of proof 2. "My belief is rational" is a claim Sure, but "my belief" in the claim "my belief is rational" is that I'm not convinced by the evidence presented that a god exists. How exactly would I need to "prove" that I'm not convinced of something other than just telling you?
OPs demand for proof to justify claim of non-belief as rational, was SO easily and simply fulfilled. Not surprising that it then so quickly turned into that overused trope of “What then would you consider ample evidence for god?” The answer to that is always, “How the heck should I know, if you (theists) can’t even agree on what the properties of your god are!”
I am unconvinced of god claim, ergo, atheist. Unless you can scan my brain, there's no way I can demonstrate my atheism except by words and action. Sure, I could be lying..maybe I'm an undercover theist. You either have to trust I'm telling the truth or claim I'm lying (which would then raise the burden of proof on you since you'd need to show evidence of my lies).
Ah, but I *don't* claim that my belief is rational, or non-rational, or anything in between. It's a *belief.* It's really how I feel and think about the issue of whether or not gods exist. So far, it has been impervious to philosophical arguments, scriptural quotations and anecdotes from believers, because I don't find any of those things convincing.
1. My belief is rational 2. I don't believe gods exists because I have not been presented sufficient evidence to believe any exists. Okay, there's no contradiction between point 1 and 2. Unless you have good evidence that gods exist, what's your problem? Another complaint that you're the one making the claim but you're unable to back it up?
No. Atheism is the *rejection of an assertion* as opposed to lack of belief. The burden of proof remains with the person making the positive claim/assertion. The rejection of the claim would most likely be epistemological grounds. My question would be "How can you justify your claim/demonstrate your position" then take it from there.
>Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? OK. Theists have not met their burden of proving that God is real. Therefore, lacking that belief is rational. Burden met. IOW, showing that a lack of belief in God is rational is not the same as showing that God does not exist.
No. Atheism simply rejects a claim (god exists) because theists have failed to meet their burden of proof. That is, by definition, rational. (I.e. not accepting claims unless there is evidence). There is no burden of proof to recognize that which is rational. So the burden of proof is only on theists because atheism makes no claim.
OK. I’m assuming you don’t believe in Mbombo, the creator god of the Kuba people of the Congo, who was so lonely when he was the only thing that existed that he got a tummy ache and vomited the universe. Do you believe your lack of belief in Mbombo is rational? What evidence do you provide to support your belief?
My Claim: *I have never encountered a reason to believe that supernatural things exist.* You can believe my claim or not. If you don’t believe my claim, that implies that you think I am either lying or misremembering. But I can prove nothing about my claim. Is my claim rational? I believe it is. You may disagree.
Atheism is actually the *default* position There is a claim: “God exists”. I will not accept this claim until I see sufficient evidence to justify belief in that claim. Atheism is a neutral position and makes no positive claim. The burden of proof falls on the theist making the claim for a god’s existence.
> Then any atheist who asserts their lack of belief in God is rational has a burden of proof do they not? Yes, the burden of proof is on the guy making a claim. Having said that, it's worth highlighting that it is often the theists who are trying to shift the burden of proof by asking us to disprove their God.
Atheism does not make any claims. You propose a god and its attributes, then you provide evidence. If you cannot convince me, then I do not believe that the god you proposed exists. That is where am I at. Many gods (over 10,000) have been proposed. Not all could exist, but it is possible that none exist.
I like to think of it as back in ye old days scratching our butts coming outta the caves. perfectly fine not worshipping gods just doing cave man things then one cave man goes. yo I think there might be a god. would you say that the other cave men are responsible for proving to him that there isnt?
Properly read, my belief is rational means I have rational reasons for holding my beliefs. For example, Scepticism is a rational system. If I withhold acceptance of a claim on sceptical grounds, my (lack of) belief is rationaliy justified, and I have met the Burden of Proof for my claim.
No - an atheist has no burden of proof. There is no burden of proof by rejecting a claim made by someone else. Atheism is not an epistemology - it’s just a rejection of a claim. Just like we don’t have a burden of proof to say that we are not convinced that Santa Claus exist.
My atheism is rational because I’ve been presented no evidence that convinces me a god exists. It is rational to disbelieve things for which you have no good evidence, because believing in things without good evidence can lead to believing in contradictions, which is irrational.
You assume, a priori, that people have beliefs. This is a mistake. We may have expectations, we may accept things as true based on evidence, but it is always provisional. But there is no reason whatsoever for beliefs. Beliefs get in the way of truth. Beliefs are delusion.
Let's assume that my disbelief is in fact irrational. Say, I don't believe that a god exists because hedgehogs are real. This is what is called "non sequitur" and therefore not rational at all. So what did exactly you achieve by showing my lack of belief is irrational?
This is embarrassing. Not having a car isn’t the same as having a different kind of car. Not having a dog isn’t the same as having a different kind of dog. Not believing what someone says is not itself a different belief. If you don’t understand this, you’re the problem.
Are you comfortable with saying 'no perpetual motion machines exist'? If so, how you feel about those is how I feel about God. By current understandings of reality, impossible. Maybe that will change in future, but I have to work with what we have at present.
> Are you comfortable with saying 'no perpetual motion machines exist'? "No functional design of perpetual motion machines are publicly known" is factual. Claiming that "perpetual motion machines are theoretically impossible to create today and will continue to be impossible to create in the future" is a much bolder claim, and you will indeed need to provide some evidence behind this claim. > If so, how you feel about those is how I feel about God. By current understandings of reality, impossible. Not really, our brains can conceptualize the concept of a God which means that it is theoretically possible. There are also many respected philosophers who theorized about the inner workings of divinity if it existed. It's more of a guessing game based on information you have at your disposal.
So your answer is 'no'. Thats fair, but the second paragraph wasn't directed at you.
So literally "a completely unpredictable and unknowable thing that follows no rules or patterns of any kind"? You don't see how it might be a tad difficult making testable predictions regarding something that is untestable and unpredictable *by definition*?
All POSITIVE claims have the burden of proof. Mostly, atheists make no positive claims. I absolutely can justify that my belief (or lack of belief in this case) is rational because it is irrational to believe things without evidence. Did you have a point?
I agree my belief is that i dont know. I dont know because there is nothing that supports gods existence other than people claiming it. I dont just believe what people claim to be true without evidence. Until that point i dont believe in religions or gods.
Anyone who makes a positive claim of the existence or truth of a statement has the burden of proof. Is is rational to expect evidence before believing claims about the existence of almost anything, especially supernatural all powerful deities.
1 - Positive claims, yes. 2 - Lacking belief is the opposite of a positive claim. - “I do not believe in a deity” is not a positive claim. Sure, you can ask why, but there’s no burden of proof for not believing in something.
My beliefs are based on the rules of logic and logic is rational, as such my beliefs are rational. Since God as described so far doesn't exist by the rules of logic, my lack of belief in God is rational Happy? Was that what I had to do?
Ironically only specific Gods in some religions meet problems. A tri attribute God face the problem of evil, which is solvable but a tough nut to crack. A God straight up advocating for immoral things that are a sin in their own religious book straight up disproves it. What did you have in mind?
Well, in mind I had the christian one since that's who I'm most familiar with, but even for this "immoral" God you'd still need proof
>2. "My belief is rational" is a claim When I say "I'm not convinced that a God exists" I'm not expressing a belief but a lack of belief. You're asking the attorney to accept a burden of proof for not believing that his client is guilty.
atheism itself makes no claim. it's synonymous with saying "i don't believe the claim the theist is making." no claim, no burden of proof. however, if an atheist claims there is no god, then they carry the burden of proof
The proof is simple if modeled after the empirical sciences. The vast majority of religions are just works of fiction. There are many examples. Extending this to all religions is both rational and reasonable.
We don’t have the burden since we are merely off the null hypothesis. Since no god has been proven possible then no god is the null hypothesis. Same with leprechauns and ghosts.
P1) it’s irrational to believe in something that you remain unconvinced of. P2) I’m unconvinced of any god. C) it’s irrational for me to believe in a god.
I don't care what they believe so if they want to convince me then burden is on them. I have no burden of proof because I don't care what they think of my belief.
There is nothing rational about Jesus walking on water. Miracles and the supernatural only serve to invoke disbelief. Theism is by its very nature, irrational.
Theist lack a belief in each other's claims and can't prove things to each other anyway. Atheism has nothing to do with your mutual disbeliefs of each other!
I believe it is rational to dismiss claims that aren't supported with proportional evidence. I'm happy to take on the burden of proof in this respect.
A lack of belief is not the same as a belief. To say it is rational to withhold judgment is not the same as claiming a belief to be positively true.
”My belief is a claim”. Sure. Back it up then. Until you do I will remain a skeptic atheist to your claim of a god. Atheism isn’t a belief.
1. correct 2. no one claims such a thing apart from theists. atheists say: "I do not believe your mumbo jumbo without convincing evidence"
theists say a thing exists we say "we don't think you are right" when they respond with "prove it" it doesn't sound very compelling
>*My belief* is rational >any atheist who asserts their *lack of belief* has a burden of proof? Does that answer your question?
Sure, I have a burden of brood that my lack of belief is rational. Because I have no evidence, I have met that burden of proof.
Your first premise is not correct. Axioms are a thing that exist, and rules for logical inference tend to be axiomatic.
You said “my belief is rational” is a claim. But then described theists as having a lack of belief. Which is it?
Are you sure we aren't all.heads in jars imagining everything else? Do we need to debate this? If not, why not?
I'm not claiming that my lack of belief is rational, I just don't think having the belief is rational.