Best Argument for Atheism - In your view. (page 4)

StrongHaiku

Millie210 - Why does the burden of proof automatically rest on the side of the theist?

First of all, thank you for you kind words. I get the above question all of the time. There are a number of great books and articles on logic and epistemology that can provide better and more detailed answers that I can, but here are some ways to think about it and get you started:

When debating an idea or issue, the burden of proof rests on the party making the positive claim. This is a basic tenet of various schools of philosophy, logic, epistemology, etc. One of the reasons for this approach is that it helps deal with possible logical fallacies (e.g. Argument from Ignorance). Another reason, is that it is more practical than the reverse. Imagine how many years and resources and money you would have to spend trying to "disprove" every claim that is made (e.g. God, fairies, Loch Ness monster, etc.). You could chase your tail forever. Instead, it is more logically consistent and useful to have the person "adding something into the mix" (or making the claim) to provide evidence of their proposition before it is accepted.

On a side note, most people are perfectly happy to have the burden of proof on the person who makes the claim in just about every area in life except when it comes to God. For example, if I told you that I have a miracle cure for some disease and all you have to do is give me all your cash, would you ask for evidence to prove it or would you spend your time and effort trying to prove me wrong? We do this every day. We put the burden of proof on the person making the claim, except when it comes to our particular pet beliefs and especially when they deal with God. Weird, right?

Lastly, this approach is used successfully in a number of areas include the legal system, the scientific method, etc.

cofty

It is not possible to discuss whether god exists until we define exactly what we mean by god.

Believers tend to take refuge in deism rather than expose their superstitions to scrutiny.

The word "proof" has no place in these sort of conversations. Proof belongs exclusively to mathematicians. In every other facet of life we deal with the balance of evidence.

Only theists and conspiracy theorists seem to find comfort in the fact that their beliefs can't be "proven" false.

punkofnice

Logic!

done4good

Doltologist - Try common bleedin' sense. Much underrated IMHO.

The problem with that is common sense is a heuristic, or rule of thumb. It varies from person to person relative to what part of the world they live in, their upbringing, etc. No sense is truly "common".

There are no short cuts. There are no three sentence or three volume reads a person could read or recite that would convince them in of itself, because of the preconditioned ideas one may already hold to. While it is true that no one is born with theistic belief, the problem is that such belief is usually taught very young in a person's life, and as such, becomes very foundational to the way a person thinks, and filters all other information through. Until they first learn to think critically, trying to undo that belief is likely a wasted effort. You can tell a theist that the burden of proof is on them all you want, (and be right), and still get nowhere. Ever wonder why? Re-read what I just wrote.

My best recommendation would be to take a class in logic or critical thinking first, if someone really wanted to speed up the process. As a non-linear thinker, I tend to learn a bit differently than some, so through considering a lot of information about many subjects, I was able to draw an atheistic conclusion. Your mileage may vary, and who knows, you may come to the conclusion sooner.

d4g

galaxie

The best argument for atheism is the theistic premise itself. No one could have asserted ' there is no god ' unless the assumption that such an entity was an actuality, therefore the burden must fall on the creators of this human idea to furnish proof. In ancient times myth and mysticism abounded due to lack of knowledge or evidential understanding, its not hard to understand that it was easy to be duped or convinced of the supernatural reason for the unexplainable due to ignorance. Athiests of contemporary times would in all probability have believed in some form of god had they lived then. To believe in god today is really to agree with and cede to the influence and reasoning of these ancients, so be it if you are content with that but you only fool yourself if you think it is otherwise. the athiest on the other hand has nothing to prove,how is it even possible to prove the actuality of something dreamed up in the ancient brain for reasons lost to us apart from some human devised ancient writings, we might as well try and prove any form foreign to our physical state as existing just because we dreamed it up. The idea of god is no different. I could envisage a tree and say it exists in actuality, yes the image in my mind does indeed exist but the actuality only exists once proven by evidence. The same applies to the god of the mind which does exist there, but proving the actual existence by irrefutable evidence is the only way by which any person of sound education and reasoning should accept the ancient concept as true.

StrongHaiku

Great answers from other posts especially about the recommendations to get better schooling and knowledge on logic, critical thinking, etc. This, arguably, is one of the key reasons the GB do not encourage (often discourage) higher-education. Here is another way to think about the position the atheist is taking:

In the US criminal justice system, a person is either declared "Guilty or Not Guilty". The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The jurors hear the prosecution's evidence and go away and bring back a "guilty" or "not guilty" decision. They are in fact voting on a two-pronged binary question - i.e. is the person guilty or not guilty. If the jurors come back with "guilty" it means that the prosecution met the "burden of proof". If the prosecution does not meet the "burden of proof", the person is declared "not guilty". However, and this is the important part, the jury is not voting on whether the person is "guilty" or "innocent". "Not guilty" is not the same a "innocent". Even if the person may have indeed committed the crime, all the jury can say with a "Not Guilty" vote is that the prosecution did not meet "the burden of proof".

So, if you wanted to use this as an analogy to the proposition "There is a God(s)":

- the theist is voting "Guilty" (the prosecution has met the burden of proof and to them "There is a God(s)")

- the atheist is saying "Not Guilty" (the prosecution has not met the burden of proof). However, this does not mean the same as "Innocent" ("There is no God(s)").

On a side note, this also shows why putting the "burden of proof" on the person making the claim is beneficial. In this legal system the "burden of proof" is on the prosecution (the State). If the burden of proof was on you (i.e. to prove yourself not-guilty) you could potentially be charged with all sorts of trivial/"made up" charges every day without good evidence (e.g. faith), be arrested every day, and spend all of your resources defending yourself, every day for the rest of your life. By making the prosecution have the burden of proof, it means that the State needs to use up their resources first before dragging you into the issue. And, the cost the State incurs become an incentive to decrease prosecutorial misconduct.

Likewise, I need not clutter up my brain and tax my resources on addressing every claim (e.g. God, fairies, conspiracy theories, chupacabra, etc.) until good evidence has been provided. I let the person making the claim spend their resources. It is not my job to make somebody else's case.

galaxie

The courtroom drama differs from that of evidence for the existence of god in that the jury ie us start with an actual defendant and subsequently consider the pros and cons of the evidence of the alleged actions (crime ) of the defendant. Those interested in the existence of god have no actuality or proven defendant ie ' god ' from which to even consider evidence. Therefore no defendant no need for evidence for jury to consider...it's a non starter.

talesin

I would suggest reading some philosophy. My first year (Philosophy 101) textbook was "20 Questions", and I see it is for sale on Amazon. It's a great book, in that each chapter poses a philosophical question, such as "What is Art?" ... "Is Euthanasia ethical?" ... "Abortion" ... It's a great book - each chapter has essays from Plato to French and in-between! lol, I love to read, love to learn, and this course was my favorite of all my university classes! :D

Examining core issues of human behaviour (ie, philosophy), is a good way to explore how YOU feel about life. I stopped believing in a supreme being when I was a teenager, but didn't really examine my belief system (or lack of one) until my 30s. Taking a philosophy course really gets you thinking!

breakfast of champions

Best argument for atheism . . . . . Hmmmmmm . . . .

1) Throw out everything your parents or society/culture ever said to you about God/gods.

2) Live your life.

That is the best argument for atheism.

Doltologist

D4G

The problem with that is common sense is a heuristic, or rule of thumb. It varies from person to person relative to what part of the world they live in, their upbringing, etc. No sense is truly "common".

I would have thought that a sky wizard that knows all, see all and hears all was outside of the realms of common sense, wouldn't you?

Best Argument for Atheism - In your view.

Share this