tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post2720405163859753603..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: The Burden of Proof is on the Atheist ReduxMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-56806429842991805432007-10-31T12:03:00.000-07:002007-10-31T12:03:00.000-07:00Wonderful blog.Wonderful blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-38757189838932690082007-10-31T11:35:00.000-07:002007-10-31T11:35:00.000-07:003Vw6Jl Nice Article.3Vw6Jl Nice Article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-82498919979725080332007-10-30T06:22:00.000-07:002007-10-30T06:22:00.000-07:00Magnific!Magnific!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22121076500636324512007-10-30T02:30:00.000-07:002007-10-30T02:30:00.000-07:00Hello all!Hello all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-56899878072254465172007-10-28T07:45:00.000-07:002007-10-28T07:45:00.000-07:00Magnific!Magnific!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33114725682259422522007-10-27T13:10:00.000-07:002007-10-27T13:10:00.000-07:00Nice Article.Nice Article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-35397718057559395572007-10-27T12:17:00.000-07:002007-10-27T12:17:00.000-07:00Magnific!Magnific!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3796095989989074292007-10-26T12:44:00.000-07:002007-10-26T12:44:00.000-07:00Nice Article.Nice Article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75627383423552971872007-10-26T12:17:00.000-07:002007-10-26T12:17:00.000-07:00Please write anything else!Please write anything else!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-79646624022362744882007-10-26T11:04:00.000-07:002007-10-26T11:04:00.000-07:00SKimrp Nice Article.SKimrp Nice Article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-34489360597366040672007-10-26T01:42:00.000-07:002007-10-26T01:42:00.000-07:00zJMK4q Your blog is great. Articles is interesting...zJMK4q Your blog is great. Articles is interesting!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53713876809745939622007-09-28T19:51:00.000-07:002007-09-28T19:51:00.000-07:00I believe my initial reaction was based on the ath...I believe my initial reaction was based on the atheist bias I carry. It in fact appears that the atheist does have the burden of proof upon them. Think for example all the sceintist through out history who had to disprove old claims. In every case we would say the burden of proof is upon the sceintist (which it was). We atheist are like scientist in a sense trying to prove to others that we have done our homework on the god notion. What we concluded is that god does not exist. <BR/><BR/>Also, the notion that legal matters are similar to claims of god isn't tenable. In one case you are invoking the precautionary rule to prevent harm being done. In the other you are dealing with a depiction of reality. These are clearly two different situations.Carlohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426874320519382086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71198375919407744352007-09-24T22:21:00.000-07:002007-09-24T22:21:00.000-07:00I think we need to draw an important distinction b...I think we need to draw an important distinction between various types of "evidence" and reasons/causes for belief.<BR/><BR/>I agree that theists have plenty of reasons/causes for their beliefs, but it doesn't follow that their reasons/causes constitute evidence.<BR/><BR/>When we use the word evidence, we presuppose a truth relation.<BR/><BR/>If I claim that victim V has a headwound, and you ask me what my evidence is, I point to the headwound, or a picture of it, and say, look, objective empirical evidence.<BR/><BR/>Or, if V's body is missing, but I was witness to his headwound, I may present testimonial evidence at trial. However, my testimony only counts as evidence if I am considered a reliable witness.<BR/><BR/>Now, let me ask this question, what sort of "evidence" do theists have?<BR/><BR/>No objective empirical data at all.<BR/><BR/>Testimony and Literature? Yes, but it comes from enthusists who have been programmed by their culture to believe. If there is a personal "religious experience," it comes with a huge load of cultural baggage.<BR/><BR/>So why do we want to call justified false beliefs "evidence?"<BR/><BR/>Why do we want to call cultural programming "evidence?"<BR/><BR/>Why do we want to call majority belief "evidence?"<BR/><BR/>Let's be specific: What sorts of "evidence" do theists have that is anything other than inherited cultural memes?<BR/><BR/>???<BR/><BR/>Should the theist be held culpable for their false beliefs? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but why would atheists ever want to concede the debate and so easily expand the definition of "evidence?"<BR/><BR/>What purpose does it serve except to hand theists an easy and unnecessary victory?<BR/><BR/>If we're looking for common ground with theists, let's start with the definition of "evidence," and let's argue that real evidence must have some kind of verifiable/valid truth relation, whether it be empircal data or incredibly reliable, objective testimony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-62120593206016100582007-09-24T19:53:00.000-07:002007-09-24T19:53:00.000-07:00Dean 192(Wesly, good-stuff)Thinking about belief a...Dean 192<BR/>(Wesly, good-stuff)<BR/><BR/>Thinking about belief and evidence. The theist thinks they have evidence for their belief, but do they have a justified true belief to have knowledge. Their evidence can be in various spiritual (subjective) events, but how can they convince me that they have knowledge of their belief based on this type of evidence? How can we ever really know or even understand the theist-knowledge based on their judgments of their empirical events (we do not share minds). I am wondering if this in fact hinders the sharing—or even the expression—of knowledge of their belief. <BR/><BR/>With this in mind, if some of our knowledge is based on the collective, how can we even consider that we have truthful knowledge without verifiability? Granted we cannot exist everyday with a blank slate and prove everything, and yes we have to take some knowledge for granted (and as fact), but when there is a belief that influences, controls and manages society—in its fashion—those that are of a different persuasion, have the right to request that we be fully provided with the evidence that so requires our following.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55871825113484867272007-09-24T11:10:00.000-07:002007-09-24T11:10:00.000-07:00Well, I was thinking that if you are going to reas...Well, I was thinking that if you are going to reason about beliefs and which ones to hold, then you have to have some measure of which beliefs are better and which are worse. Say that you hold belief A. If that belief is reasonable then it is held because of some reasons that are (presumably) backed by evidence. To change from belief A to belief B is done by changing which evidence is found to be reasonable. The evidence of belief B is weighed against belief A and found to be better, so when we reason we use whatever evidence we have and weigh it against other evidence. I mean, there is reasoning like if A, then B, A, so B, (I guess you could call A obtaining evidence), but really I meant- "Someone drank my milk (Belief A). The carton is empty, I bought it today, and I don't remember drinking it (evidence) but then again, no one has been here as I've been here all day and the doors are locked (evidence), so I guess I must have drank it and fogotten (Belief B). Evidence for A is weighed against B, and since it is more reasonable to conclude that I drank the milk rather than someone else, belief B is preferable given the evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91237222826409189662007-09-23T20:17:00.000-07:002007-09-23T20:17:00.000-07:00Dean 192Wesly, would please expand on your below c...Dean 192<BR/>Wesly, would please expand on your below comment (mostly, "weighing the value of..,")<BR/><BR/>"reasonable is a process of weighing the value of one set of evidence over another),"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45094515106788213282007-09-20T12:06:00.000-07:002007-09-20T12:06:00.000-07:00In my experience, atheist bloggers tend to be angr...In my experience, atheist bloggers tend to be angry and use their blogs to vent. This does not seem to be confined to bloggers, however. Dawkins, Hitchens, and, to some extent, Harris appear in their writings to be feverishly propelled by personal needs to release years of pent-up frustrations over religiously motivated irrationality and its resulting destructiveness.<BR/><BR/>I am guilty of venting as well. In fact, in my humble opinion, I am a master of religious sarcasm, and, truth be told, impressing friends is probably largely why I continued for so long. However, I find that I have to agree with you that "atheism as a movement has got to grow up." I would add that this must begin with individual representatives of that movement.<BR/><BR/>I have recently resurrected my blog and my intention is to stick to the facts (and theories, mostly) and stay away from humor, or at least sarcasm, as much as possible. Like some of your readers, I am not convinced that reason will, at the end of the day, matter when dealing with faith, but my intuition is that even faith is bound by a reasonable conception of some object of belief, which can be analyzed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91266439319621210592007-09-19T17:53:00.001-07:002007-09-19T17:53:00.001-07:00To anonymous- Nah, not really. Actually I was try...To anonymous-<BR/> Nah, not really. Actually I was trying to analyze the implications of saying that it is not unreasonable to believe in God. Even if I or anyone else was trying to please theists it doesn't matter much, as questioning someone's motives is fallacious. Maybe you have a crystal ball; mine tells me that you don't. Why not attack what was said? I'll debate you if you want. You won't even have to use your name. If you win, it'll be better than an ad hominem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-16660236469903401492007-09-19T17:53:00.000-07:002007-09-19T17:53:00.000-07:00To anonymous- Nah, not really. Actually I was try...To anonymous-<BR/> Nah, not really. Actually I was trying to analyze the implications of saying that it is not unreasonable to believe in God. Even if I or anyone else was trying to please theists it doesn't matter much, as questioning someone's motives is fallacious. Maybe you have a crystal ball; mine tells me that you don't. Why not attack what was said? I'll debate you if you want. You won't even have to use your name. If you win, it'll be better than an ad hominem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-50758847560055513602007-09-19T12:45:00.000-07:002007-09-19T12:45:00.000-07:00Bending over backwards to please the theists. Tha...Bending over backwards to please the theists. That's what I see here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-39117257335758287492007-09-18T11:18:00.000-07:002007-09-18T11:18:00.000-07:00These are separated to correspond with the separat...These are separated to correspond with the separations in Chris's posting regarding my last blog comment.<BR/><BR/>I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'll give a shot at a reply. True, it does seem like a rough description. You're right about it being compelling evidence to them (unless you mean that the reasonable theist's evidence is of the same value as the reasonable atheist, by which I would reply that it would then be no more more reasonable to be an atheist over being a theist as being reasonable is a process of weighing the value of one set of evidence over another), but given that belief in God is either rational or irrational, and for the sake of this discussion it has been deemed rational, evidence and rationality are central. If it takes R (reason) to get to a belief in G (God) or A (atheism) and reason is directed by E (evidence), then believing A or G would be wholly determined by R and E, unless of course believing A or G is not a product of R (but it is) and R is not directed by E as to what is reasonable. R is clearly directed by E as to base a decision on E is better than basing a decision on not E. So belief in A or G is determined by R and E. R and E are central and so are at issue. <BR/><BR/>No, I wasn't thinking that it is a distinctive characteristic of atheism in general, but rather a necessity of anyone diverging from the dominant train of thought around them. I thought maybe it would make sense that way in the context of my posting itelf but apparently I should have been more clear. The following is actually less clear. If one believes x and changes her belief from x to y in a situation r that reinforces x it will take time t, with t being proportional to the amount of reinforcement and strength of the belief. Given that there are churches everywhere and God is written into the pledge of allegiance and just about every form of entertainment it is going to be a big value of t, which I call a long time. If one were to change x and y to Islam and Judaism it would still take awhile. It isn't anything exclusive to atheism but a characteristic of holding beliefs against the popular view, beliefs that one has adopted to replace the popular view. In American society atheism happens to be a y.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-8271788375239892532007-09-18T00:30:00.000-07:002007-09-18T00:30:00.000-07:00As to the 'social burden of proof' premise: My goo...As to the 'social burden of proof' premise: My good friend who watches Bill O'reilly, the news (fOX), the history channel, and movies only - He has a particular epistemic viewpoint of the world. He does not believe that humans have played a role in global warming. He probably got that advice from O'reilly (authoritative figure) who once said that "I am not convinced that global warming is human caused, and warming may be positive for humans anyway". I advised my friend to also look into the view's from the scientific community, because they are supposed to be the objective experts with no political motive. It seems that people in general enjoy listening to evangelizing which helps to shape their outlook.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74592985246499368812007-09-17T15:22:00.000-07:002007-09-17T15:22:00.000-07:00Appreciate the follow up post and nice comment Wes...Appreciate the follow up post and nice comment Wesley. <BR/><BR/>The sort of Atheist described in McCormick's post is probably more common than we would like to admit. The sort of evangelical atheism that develops a kind of blanket disregard for all evidence in favor of the existence of any particular deity is prevalent in sizable quantities across atheist/free thought groups and clubs. When present at events at the Secular Student's group at Sacramento State, I regularly found myself attempting make charitable suggestions towards theistic positions in an effort to steer discussions away from the traditional "preaching to the choir" syndrome (appropriate analogy...). <BR/><BR/>McCormick raises a good point about the need to really get clear on one's own ontology. Theists and non-theists would benefit greatly from a sense of epistemic accountability with regard to the solidity of their beliefs. The kind of arrogance that many in the evangelical camps (on both sides) tout reflects a rather juvenile understanding of the arguments on both sides.<BR/><BR/><I> <B> Wesley said </I> </B><BR/><I>Being an atheist is not a choice or something you just say, if I am understanding, but is rather a bi-product of weighing the available arguments and testing them against experience, of being rational for a long time in the right setting.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that this may be a rough description of how we would ideally align/ascribe ourself with any beliefs. Unless of course you are drawing a distinction between a choice and an "informed decision." I think the main point here is that in most cases, rationality and evidence are not at issue. Atheists don't agree with the interpretation or the quality of evidence, but the majority of those that believe in God, believe in God on the basis of what is compelling evidence to them. <BR/><BR/>Your description also postulates that "being rational for a long time" is distinctive (separating) property of the atheist decision. This idea may fall prey to the very argument that McCormick was making in his post.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174744196556627458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78610108852650130962007-09-17T02:50:00.000-07:002007-09-17T02:50:00.000-07:00...atheists need to get out of the habit of dismis......atheists need to get out of the habit of dismissing all believers as “having no evidence at all..." you just come off as dogmatic<BR/><BR/>...shirking their own epistemological responsibilities...<BR/><BR/>I completely agree. Upon reflection many of my theist friends have evidence for the existence of god, albeit strange interpretations of phenomena and various arguments that indicate design and direction, but evidence nonetheless. Dogmatic athiesm is tempting and fun, but like most things, has a down side. <BR/><BR/>I could imagine a great many ills being alleviated by dogmatic atheism, such as marching around with signs that say "God hates fags" and thinking that Jesus wants you to cut down all the trees and burn more coal. I could also imagine a dogmatist's unreflectiveness being dangerous, as reasoning would just not be part of the package and there would still be many other decisions to be made beyond and more pressing than whether god exists. I think Dr. Mccormick's point is that, "yes, we have no god, however, that is not the issue. It is how we arrived at this conclusion that is of importance." <BR/><BR/>Ahh grasshopper, you think that it is to stand on the peak that is important, but that is only the product of the climb. A parrot can say "I am an atheist." I do all the time, and I rarely mean it the way that I should. It is very hard to change in any meaningful way, especially when it comes to things laid down in childhood and reinforced throughout life; I try all the time and just show myself lacking. This seems to be the burden of proof, a burden that, while imposed by society, is also one that should be fulfilled in order to be genuine and truthful to oneself, one that once fulfilled will show the opposition to be reasonable as well, if lacking in approach and/or environment. Being an atheist is not a choice or something you just say, if I am understanding, but is rather a bi-product of weighing the available arguments and testing them against experience, of being rational for a long time in the right setting. I'm pretty tired. This may not make sense. If not, I will try not to make sense when I am less tired.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-5458800007420467172007-09-17T02:18:00.000-07:002007-09-17T02:18:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com