49
nullasalus
07/08/2011
5:47 pm
I mean, I know you disagree about evidence, but the burden of proof is usually to those making the claim for the existence of something, rather than on those who do not accept the claim.
No, the burden of proof is ‘usually to those’ making a claim, period. ‘There is no God’ is a claim. ‘Naturalism is true’ is a claim. ‘Theism is false’ is a claim.
And just who has what ‘burden of proof’ isn’t made clear to begin with. The Maverick Philosopher had a good mini-series on this.
But you are right, “atheism” is not verified. It’s very hard to verify a null.
So? “Gosh, it’s hard to verify the atheism!” So… What, then we just treat atheism with kid gloves then? There’s no good evidence for the position, there’s no proof of it, but that’s okay, let’s go easy on them?
No. I would think that ‘it’s very hard to verify this position’ would, at the very least, suggest someone should be hesitant before committing to it.
In fact, I’m tempted to think the old chestnut of ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ may pop in here. Atheism, the claim that there is no God or gods, is an extraordinary claim. Where’s the extraordinary evidence? If ‘It’s tough to get the evidence!’ flies as a defense here, it flies everywhere.
A-theism is surely the default in the absense of evidence for a theos?
And what’s the default in the absence of evidence for naturalism, or atheism?
No, just what ‘the default’ should be is itself the stuff of debate. But atheism is by no means the default view.
Though I offer this much up: Can one reasonably infer just how much confidence a person has in their position by how strenuously they insist that they are under no or minimal obligation to defend and argue for their position? I would think the fact that so many atheists squirm at the very prospect of having to actually present and defend their idea, or shoulder any burden of proof, says quite a lot.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Like a typical two-faced IDiot, you have everything backward, nuttysalus. You and the other person (in italics) are also using the word "atheism" in a completely incorrect way.
Atheism is not only verified, it is a fact. Many people are atheists. Athe-ISM is simply a description of the fact that many people don't believe in a god. And since there is no evidence of any god, that way of thinking makes sense and should be the null. You IDiots are the ones who claim there is a god, and a specific god, the god of the bible. Therefore, you are the ones with the burden of proof.
Atheists aren't making a positive claim about a god, so they have no burden of proof. Anti-theists are the ones who say their is no god. Even you god believers are atheists and anti-theists, in that you don't believe in any god other than your chosen one, and you say that there is no other god than your chosen one.
I don't believe in flying purple people eaters and I've never heard of any evidence that shows they do exist. Does that mean I have to prove that they don't exist?
You religious zealots are the ones who "squirm" whenever you're asked or pushed for any evidence or proof of your claims, and you're the ones who strenuously insist that you are under no or minimal obligation to defend and argue for your position. I would think the fact that so many IDiot religious zealots squirm at the very prospect of having to actually present and defend their idea, or shoulder any burden of proof, says quite a lot.
"....the absence of evidence for naturalism...."??
There you go again, using the word "naturalism" incorrectly. Naturalism is just a word applied to the way many people perceive the processes of nature. "Naturalism" is real and a fact. It is the way many people think. Next time you might want to use the term 'natural processes', or 'naturalistic processes', or "strictly natural processes", or something to that effect, you stupid bozo.
And there is lots of evidence for lots of natural processes.
By the way, is taking a shit a strictly natural process, or is your god involved every time it occurs? How about burps, farts, runny noses, bad breath, crotch rot, vaginal odor, dingle-berries, and ear wax?
