Burden of Proof - Does it ever lie with Atheists?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
There it is right there: a god who is omniscient and omnipotent made a mistake. God has regrets?!

So this god is either imperfect or malicious. And that doesn't even address the thousands of children murdered later on...
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Atheism is the rejection of the claim that deities exist, it is not making a claim of its own, thus the onus is solely on those making the claim (theists) to provide the evidence in order to give the atheist reason to be theist.

No. This is unacceptable and a crap game some Atheists like to play so they won't EVER have to add substance to a claim against God or the Bible, and keep the all of the responsibility on the believer.

If they don't believe the evidence that God exists, then they're free. But once they claim God doesn't exists, they have a burden. Most reasonable people are more agnostic, or could I say "weak atheists"?

Since its impossible to disprove God, its only a belief that he doesn't exists - it can't be claimed factual. Anything that can't be disproved with facts is only a belief.

The mental hoops some atheists jump through to avoid their burden is amusing. This, of course, isn't blanketing all atheists -- there are maybe a couple in this thread whom I have respect for because they back their claims -- others, not so much. In fact, in my experience, they have little to no evidence outside of conspiracy theory claims that the Apostles had ulterior motives by "cherry picking" certain parts of the Bible to keep and other parts to discard. This claim carries absolutely not one single shred of evidence.

Of course they left out parts that were not inspired of god, like the apocryphal writings and rightfully so. But one would have to substantiate the motives behind this and if it was a conspiracy concocted by them.

And getting down to the meat of this topic, even if we can prove that certain parts of the bible are historically accurate, that does not reinforce other parts of it.

Sorry sport, you can't have it both ways. If some of you can isolate one or even several accounts to discredit the entire book, I can find several to validate the entire book.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
For instance, if you still say the Bible is a fable because 'Omg billionz of animals in the ark where did they all poops?!" then you haven't really tried too hard to read it. No, you haven't.

I've read it extensively. Where are the answers to the very valid questions raised about it?

If you really want to claim that this is all "misinterpretation", then please start with where all the water came from, and then where it disappeared to. Here in the real world, water is notoriously hard to create or get rid of, as opposed to just changing from one form to another.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
If they don't believe the evidence that God exists, then they're free. But once they claim God doesn't exists, they have a burden. Most reasonable people are more agnostic, or could I say "weak atheists"?

Rob, you are not going to make accurate statements about atheism until you read up on and properly understand the differences in the various types.

As I and others have said, the onus of proof is always on the one making the positive assertion -- that something exists, that a book is true, that a theory is correct. There is no more onus on me to prove that the events in the bible didn't occur than there is onus on you to prove that the events in The Lord of the Rings didn't occur.

That's not going to change just because you don't like it.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Rob, you are not going to make accurate statements about atheism until you read up on and properly understand the differences in the various types.

As I and others have said, the onus of proof is always on the one making the positive assertion -- that something exists, that a book is true, that a theory is correct. There is no more onus on me to prove that the events in the bible didn't occur than there is onus on you to prove that the events in The Lord of the Rings didn't occur.

That's not going to change just because you don't like it.

...once you claim I'm lying, then you have to prove it.

I would have to prove the events in The Lord of the Rings didn't occur if I wrote a book denouncing those events, or made public claims against the events.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
No. This is unacceptable and a crap game some Atheists like to play so they won't EVER have to add substance to a claim against God or the Bible, and keep the all of the responsibility on the believer.

If they don't believe the evidence that God exists, then they're free. But once they claim God doesn't exists, they have a burden. Most reasonable people are more agnostic, or could I say "weak atheists"?

Since its impossible to disprove God, its only a belief that he doesn't exists - it can't be claimed factual. Anything that can't be disproved with facts is only a belief.

The mental hoops some atheists jump through to avoid their burden is amusing. This, of course, isn't blanketing all atheists -- there are maybe a couple in this thread whom I have respect for because they back their claims -- others, not so much. In fact, in my experience, they have little to no evidence outside of conspiracy theory claims that the Apostles had ulterior motives by "cherry picking" certain parts of the Bible to keep and other parts to discard. This claim carries absolutely not one single shred of evidence.

Of course they left out parts that were not inspired of god, like the apocryphal writings and rightfully so. But one would have to substantiate the motives behind this and if it was a conspiracy concocted by them.



Sorry sport, you can't have it both ways. If some of you can isolate one or even several accounts to discredit the entire book, I can find several to validate the entire book.

What are you even talking about? Substitute "god" for "unicorn" please.

What evidence is there of God's existence anyways? You've jumped the shark with this last post.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
...once you claim I'm lying, then you have to prove it.

I would have to prove the events in The Lord of the Rings didn't occur if I wrote a book denouncing those events, or made public claims against the events.

What the hell!?

No! What? Holy hell! What in the world are you doing?

You can't just make up a bunch of shit and then pass the burden on to the reader. That's not the way this works at all.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
What the hell!?

No! What? Holy hell! What in the world are you doing?

You can't just make up a bunch of shit and then pass the burden on to the reader. That's not the way this works at all.

In not passing the burden on to the reader. You simply believe what you're reading, or you don't.

People put the BURDEN ON THEMSELEVES by making claims about what they're reading.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0

Thank you.

You've now made a "public claim against the events" in LoR. Are you required to prove that they didn't happen?

How could you even if you wanted to?

This is the core of the argument people are trying to convey here -- first, that there are thousands of books, holy or otherwise, that people think are true; and second, that disproving that events occurred is usually impossible.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
ugh this argument is silly.

Persnolly i think if you make a claim you need to be able to prove it. Though if you disagree with said claim you should try to disprove it. Some things you can't wich is where the problem lays.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Thank you.

You've now made a "public claim against the events" in LoR. Are you required to prove that they didn't happen?

How could you even if you wanted to?

This is the core of the argument people are trying to convey here -- first, that there are thousands of books, holy or otherwise, that people think are true; and second, that disproving that events occurred is usually impossible.

Nope, the loR was fictional from the jump, the Bible isn't fictional. Big difference between adding substance to a claim against fact and fiction.

Your analogy was over before you even typed it out.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
ugh this argument is silly.

Persnolly i think if you make a claim you need to be able to prove it. Though if you disagree with said claim you should try to disprove it. Some things you can't wich is where the problem lays.

Agree.

It's my opinion that if you can't back a negative claim, don't make the claim.

Some things can't be proven false or true. If the credibility of the claim maker is sound, there is no need of visible evidence.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Rob look up Burden of proof on Wikipedia.

Excuse my ignorance if I don't know what definition fits this best, but I looked up the philosphic definition, and the holder of the burden is the person making the claim.

It didn't (or I didn't see it) specify if the claim was in the postive or negative.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Whether it is fictional or not is the entire argument. Thus, flatly stating that it "isn't fictional" is what is commonly known as begging the question.

How do you know the bible isn't fictional?

Do you mean "entirely fictional" or certain accounts, to be clear?

I've read plenty accounts and events that are real, real people, and scientfic findings outside the Bible to add wieght to this.

And to be honest, I don't want to even waste the time looking this stuff up and sharing it with you -- post history shows you probably wouldn't care anyway.

..and you used to be religious so you undoubtedly can find them yourself.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Do you mean "entirely fictional" or certain accounts, to be clear?

You tell me -- which parts are fictional and which are not? And how do you know?

And to be honest, I don't want to even waste the time looking this stuff up and sharing it with you -- post history shows you probably wouldn't care anyway.

..and you used to be religious so you undoubtedly can find them yourself.

You've taken this approach several times in the past when asked a question that you didn't want to answer. I've been patient and respectful towards you in this thread, and I'm always open to having my mind changed based on new evidence and arguments. Refusing to provide any because you claim I will ignore them is intellectually dishonest.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
You tell me -- which parts are fictional and which are not? And how do you know?



You've taken this approach several times in the past when asked a question that you didn't want to answer. I've been patient and respectful towards you in this thread, and I'm always open to having my mind changed based on new evidence and arguments. Refusing to provide any because you claim I will ignore them is intellectually dishonest.

It's actually not dishonest. But I will bite. Take the prophecy of Isaiah for instance. Was it not written that Cyrus (Cyrus' tomb has been discovered) would overthrow Babylon, some 200 years before the event happened, and probably 150 years before the man was even born, he was specifically named by Isaiah?

This prophecy wasn't vague - it was specific.

I'd like to hear your rebuttal.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
What specific passages and prophesies are you talking about?

I don't remember the specific texts, and I'm not home. It's the one concerning the releasing of the Jews form Babylonian exile in 587 B.C.E (some have the date at 607).

It was prophesied, via Isaiah, that the King of Persia (Cyrus) would do it, and the Gates of Babylon would be left wide open -- they left the gates open and were partying at the time as well.

Cyrus did do it, as foretold.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Nope, the loR was fictional from the jump, the Bible isn't fictional. Big difference between adding substance to a claim against fact and fiction.

Your analogy was over before you even typed it out.

When you say the bible isn't fictional, are you saying it is non-fiction? Or does it exist in a nebulous state betwixt the two?
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
I'm running out the door so I'll look at the new posts later but a quick glance....prophesies....how about the ginormous elephant in the room regarding the return of Jesus that should have happened 2000 years ago?