But that in itself is a claim and can the atheist prove that claim? Is such a claim merely a generality that ought to be examined in each specific case?
In EXISTENCE claims, the burden of proof rests on the one who claims a thing exists. Not on the one who doesn’t immediately believe the other guy with zero evidence. Basic logic, really.
Edit: A good punch. Although it would depend on what kind of person comes to tell about the bomb, the best thing to do in that situation is to play it safe and go outside nonetheless. You know where that fails, however? In this case there’s only two options: Stay inside or go outside. In the case of a supposed god’s existence, there’s an infinity of different options. Not just many, but an infinity. These are from gods through history that we know of (~30 000), to gods we don’t know of (an infinity of possible gods). Most would also doom you if you pick the wrong one, therefore it doesn’t bear reseblance at all to the bomb-scenario. It would be more like having a multitude of different buildings, one of which you must choose, all of which may or may not have bombs. See how little the conclusion you want to draw resembles the original scenario?
The analogy is flawed and breaks down, and thus cannot be used to infer conclusions the way you want to.
Edit2: No, it definitely doesn’t work. It in no way shows that the burden of proof rests upon someone else than the claimant. The only thing it shows is that sometimes it’s best to play safe, no matter who the burden of proof rests upon.
Edit3: “The point is that the claim would be assumed true until proven false because of the worth of our lives.”
No, it would not be assumed true. When you exit the building, you don’t automatically assume there’s a bomb. You exit it because you lose relatively little if you go outside for a few hours even if there is no bomb, but lose much if you stay inside and there is. It’s the classic “playing it safe”-strategy. The very reason why this cannot be applied to gods I already explained to you: Because there isn’t two choices.
Edit4: “We cannot honestly search for anything we do not assume to exist.”
What’s with always sticking to the extremes? Not everything has to belong to the categories: ‘Assumed to exist’ and ‘assumed not to exist’.
When we search for oil somewhere, we do not have to automatically assume it’s there in order to search for it. We just have to think that there’s a worthwhile possibility it might be there. Same thing with anything we think might exist. We don’t have to make the positive claim that it does in order for us to search for it. Very poor reasoning you have there.
Edit5: “There is either one Creator of me or there is none. ”
That much is self-evident: That there either is a creator/creators or there isn’t. However, like I’ve explained there is an infinity of possible creators. That’s why the analogy does not work here. It’s even possible nobody has described the actual creator yet, and that this creator is unknown to mankind. Therefore, there is an infinity of possible creators to whorship, many of which would doom you for worshiping the wrong one. And therefore, your analogy fails.
Edit6: “If we act on something, it means that we have assumed that it is real or we wouldn’t have acted.”
That is bullshit and you know it. When you play a safe strategy in a game, like chess, you don’t need to assume your opponent is actually going to do something to which your strategy is a safe response, only that it’s likely he will. It’s pure bullshit that you need to positively assume bombs exist in order for you to search for them. All that’s required is a credible suspicion that they might.
Edit7: Please stop this. It simply is not true that you need to positively assume for the duration of the search that there is a bomb. Only that it’s possible there is, and therefore everything has to be checked diligently. You CAN assume that if you want, nobody’s going to stop you, but you definitely don’t need to nor does that shift the burden of proof.
Thank you for your time, but please understand that because you can do something it doesn’t mean you have to. Now excuse me, I have a life to get back to.
Btw. that’s some thick troll-stuff you have there. When you are beaten in a debate, the way NOT to do it would be to switch subjects like you try to do, but either face the point or gracefully admit you were wrong. As it seems you are unable to face the point that just because you can assume a bomb exists in order for you to search it doesn’t mean you have to, then if you were honest you should admit you were mistaken.
The thing is, you are defending the person making the bomb threat. I mean, who knows, maybe there is a bomb in the building, right? I mean, there could be a bomb in any building.
So it is okay to call up random places and say “I think there’s a bomb in your building!” and then hang up? I mean, maybe there is.
Let’s do a Pascal’s Wager on it:
1) Say there’s no bomb. Okay, they evacuate the building. They waste some time and money. But nobody gets hurt.
2) Say there’s a bomb. Lives get saved.
Yep, I should definitely make the call. Why take the risk that there might actually be a bomb?
Now do you see why the burden of proof must always be on the claimant? Otherwise, claims would be useless. “I just made up X” conveys no useful information about anything.
That was a weak attempt at a reductio ad absurdum.
A positive claim requires proof to be verified. You say A exists. You must then demonstrate that A exists.
A negative claim requires proof to be falsified. I say A does not exist. You must then demonstrate that A does exist to prove me wrong.
The burden of proof rests on theists.
Edit: If a bomb threat was called in then I would evacuate the building, but would return once it had been determined whether there was a bomb or not and the situation dealt with accordingly. That is not an analogy that helps your case.
Edit: Claiming your bomb analogy works has no bearing on the fact that it does not work. It is a claim that something exists. The existence of the thing in question is verifiable. It either exists or it doesn’t. I suspect you are trolling, because it is hard to believe you are really as obtuse as you are coming across.
The difference is that you can determine whether or not the bomb exists by searching the building, so the claim is falsifible.
It is impossible to falsify the claim that ‘God’ exists. But we do know that humankind has invented over 10,000 gods in its history, none of which can be falsified. This is however evidence that man is good at making things up.
If it was the 10,001th bomb hoax id probably ignore it !!!!
Although a better analogy would be that some loon had told me 10,000 times that some fairys lived in my garden, I might bother to go check the 1st time though I’d probably ignore his pleas that the fairies were invisible but that he had an ancient book that tells him all about them.
Religion you couldn’t make it up …. err could you ?
No, considering that the weight of evidence for theism used to be on no account met. You fairly have not notion this by way of. Theism on no account proved its case, it used to be unfold broadly through the sword, and someone who dissented used to be killed off. If you get a host of folks to consider you, that is not evidence, it is getting folks to consider you (see the Argument From Popularity fallacy) And additionally, atheism does not assert that gods always do not exist. It asserts a loss of notion that theistic claims had been proven. It does NOT imply an statement that the reverse of theistic claims are honestly actual. You understand not anything approximately some thing, and your entire lifestyles has accordingly some distance been a failure. EDIT: Wrong. Maurice H isn’t addressing the problem competently. Atheism isn’t a notion that there are not any gods. It is a responsive function to theism that the weight of evidence has now not been met. The proof to help atheism is for that reason that theism has no proof to help it.
The reason is simple!! There is so much evidence against your claims and none for it!!!
Academia states that in the absence of proof of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable proof is found – thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.
There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record – that is right – not one!!! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah – all of whom are well recorded!!
There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!!
He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?
Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!!
Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!!
At best he was an amalgam of those others!!
The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he was a pagan not god!!! He also organized Christianity into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!! Not in Israel or any of the countries of supposed origin but entirely ITALIAN!!
Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?
What a wonder full disinformation and deception campaign he waged against his Christian enemies – so good in fact that Christians are still following the deception to this day!!!
The first person to provide a shred of verifiable evidence for God will become world famous and mega rich!! Ain’t happened yet and it never will!!
So how does this primitive belief survive? The answer is simple and very down to Earth!!
Acceptance of a supernatural claim tends to promote cooperative social relationships. This communication demonstrates a willingness to accept, without skepticism, the influence of the speaker in a way similar to a child’s acceptance of the influence of a parent. By encouraging this kind of behavior where the most intense social relationships occur it facilitates the lack of skepticism and deters more open minded thinking.
They are christian, Muslim or the other religions depending where they were born simply because they were indoctrinated by their parents as very young children. They will go on to indoctrinate their own children and those will go on to indoctrinate their grandchildren!!
Atheists have the intellect to see through the conditioning and escape into the real world!!
Agnostics have the intellect to see through the conditioning but lack the courage to throw of the conditioning entirely.
Sadly Christians are still held firmly prisoner by the self perpetuating brainwashing!!
This is an example of what happens when logic is applied to a religion, which is usually a backfire.
You’re referring to Pascals wager, “There may or may not be a god, but either way I will believe in on so that should there be one I will be safe” This a fallacious argument, with the amount of religions past and present, and fractions within each religion, it is not statistically safe to believe in any one.
I’m sorry, I don’t think it’s possible to really answer your question the way you worded it, “can atheists prove that the burden of poof rests on the claimant”
Atheists do believe that in order for a claim to be accepted it must be proven, they hold themselves up to that idea as well, not just members of a religion. When a scientist comes forth with a hypothesis, lets say “The universe was created by a god” he/she is expected to follow the scientific method and supply their peers with definitive facts that prove the hypothesis or at least show that it is a possibility as a theory, if they fail to do so it is not accepted.
Your question is almost intelligent, but misses by just enough to be completely the opposite I’m afraid.
Just quickly, because you don’t strike me as the type to care, it doesn’t actually matter where the burden of proof lies – if someone says “there’s a bomb in your building” pending further evidence, I’d be out of the building. If the building blows up, there’s a bomb, If it doesn’t, and no sign of a bomb can be found, then I’d assume there was no bomb, and re-enter the building.
No burden of proof – just common sense.
Same with God. The building didn’t blow up, no bomb can be found, so I assume God doesn’t exist. Pretty simple.
Your bomb analogy doesn’t work. Bottom like question is, does God exist or does he not exist and a negative can’t be proven. You are assuming that God exists and insisting that atheists prove otherwise while not providing proof that your assumption is even a valid one.
Not any claim; a positive claim. If I was to claim there was a mermaid in my bathtub that would be a positive claim of existence because I would be asserting that it existed. In that case it would be my responsibility to prove or support my claim and the assumption would NOT be that it was true simply because you were unable to prove otherwise.
The same applies to those claiming the existence of a deity.
By the standards you just listed Odin and Zeus both exist because you can’t prove otherwise. Hypocrisy can be accurately defined as imposing standards upon others that you fail to impose upon yourself.