(Today is “Respond to Dave Walker Day”)

Believing, Asserting and Burden of Proof

If somebody says to me, “I think its bad luck to walk under a ladder“, I’d think it odd. I wouldn’t, however, demand proof.

If somebody asserted, “It is bad luck to walk under ladders, and this is a reasonable position”, I would demand proof.

Why?? What is different?

The real question here is what is burden of proof and why does one statement incur it and the other does not?

Burden of proof, lest we forget, is a legal concept. The Corpus Juris states “Semper necessitas probandi incumbit qui agit.” Thus Englished, as Locke would say, the claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies with him.

You make a claim, you assume burden of proof. No claim, no burden of proof. I can think that bad luck lurks in the shadows, and that thought in itself doesn’t incur burden of proof.

But when I assert – i.e., make a claim – that bad luck exists, then I’ve incurred burden of proof.

When something is stated as fact, or as a reasonable position, at that point it is entered into the realm of debate. In essence, you’ve claimed that the other person is in the wrong if he or she refuses to adopt your position. This is true because we see reason as binding on all humanity. For this reason, the claim that somebody is “unreasonable” is of itself a denigration.

Law codifies the expectation of people to be reasonable with the criminal standard of “reasonable doubt”.

To say that somebody is unreasonable is to say that they are in the wrong. To claim that somebody is acting reasonably is to say that their actions are justified.

Thus, one may expect to assume the burden of proof when one asserts that his position is the reasonable.

As we discussed previously, there are varied definitions of atheism.

Today I’d like to discuss the topic as it relates to the atheist burden of proof. (Read the comments there by Dave Walker - they are the reason for this post.)

Basically, if atheism asserts that there is no God, atheists assume burden of proof for that claim. If, however, they are simply not believing that God exists, and make no claim in regard to God’s existence or non-existence, then there is no burden of proof on atheists.

(more…)

I’m not a huge fan of theology, or religion, or atheist dogmas. I’m not a fan of dishonest theories propped up by feeble dogmas and fallacy.

One philosophical question, however, does intrigue me. It’s called the “Problem of Evil”, also known as the Epicurean paradox.

(more…)

Often times in atheist debates - the Internet kind - atheists invoke burden of proof. The position held by some atheists is that belief in a god or gods entails burden of proof, and atheism doesn’t.

This is just a quick post to set the record straight.

Whenever a person offers a proposition, the person offering the proposition has the burden of proof. If I, as an agnostic, say “we cannot know whether gods exist”, then the burden of proof is on me to prove that we cannot know.

If an theist asserts that his god exists, then the burden of proof rests with him to prove that his god exists.

If an atheist asserts that gods do not exist, he assumes the burden of proof to prove that gods do not exist.

A common claim by fundamentalist atheists is that they are fighting in a noble struggle against anti-atheism, a struggle perpetuated by rabid “Christian Nationalists” who want to force atheists worship their god.

The claim, far from being credible, is much like the anti-Semitic claim that they are fighting Jewish financial domination.

The vast majority of Christians in America support the absolute separation of Church and State.

(more…)

I usually don’t spend my time responding to anonymous comments. I figure if somebody sincerely believes what they write, they can sign their name.

In this case, however, I want to respond because the discussion could be interesting. I don’t hold out much hope, from the hostility demonstrated, but who knows.

In response to my post about agnosticism, the commenter wrote:

Nice post, John Scott. Nice blog, also. You’re an absolute perfect example of why I find your juvenile, hypocritically selective, and intellectually dishonest position of agnosticism so ridiculous. Yeah, keep sitting up there on your imaginary moral highground, while dishonestly suspending what is absolutely impossible to suspend — a belief or lack of belief either way.

Ignore for the moment the name calling. This person has a point he wishes to make. It is that agnosticism is an impossible position to hold insofar as one will invariable believe that either god or gods exist, or he will believe that gods do not exist.

(more…)

I am an apastapuerist. I’m currently considering my options, and may decide to be a fundamentalist apastapuerist, or perhaps a militant apastapuerist, but for the moment I can say, without doubt, that I am an apastapuerist.

The word is macaronic and derives from the Latin “a” for “without”; the Latin “pasto” for “dough”; and the Latin “puer” for “boy”.

In other words, I do not believe in the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

Now, you may think, “hell, neither do I, but I am not going to spend hundreds or thousands of hours of my life writing about it, getting together with other people who don’t believe in the Pillsbury Dough Boy, and attacking people who do happen to buy Pillsbury products”.

If that’s what you thought, then you you’re not alone. Many people see atheists in the same light. They don’t believe in god or gods or a combination or gods with goddesses. In fact, they don’t believe in goddesses, deities, Supreme Beings, or First Causes. And, if that was silly enough, they don’t believe in Zeus. Talk about negative energy.

But the difference is, they do feel the need to dwell on their disbelief.

Now why is it that I don’t (seriously) need to go around evangelizing my apastapuerism, but the atheists do feel the need to be evangelical with their atheism?

When you look at the psychology involved, and the sharp emotional energy they put into attacking people who do believe, one must come to the conclusion that atheism is a sort of psychosis or personality disorder.

Socially mature people understand and accept that people will have different perspectives, values and beliefs. A healthy mental state dictates, very simply, live and let live. One could say that that sentiment is the very foundation of peaceful society. After all, how many wars have started, how many genocides perpetrated, because one group of people disliked the beliefs of another group of people?

And yet, atheists not only recognize their intolerance, they celebrate it. They wallow in it. They beat it like a drum, and it’s not unlikely that they light bonfires to dance around while reciting their intolerance. “Faith Heads”, they scream, while prancing around naked in the light of the bonfire.

Science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of god. So why do atheists arbitrarily decide that gods do not exist?

Because, without making that arbitrary decision,  one cannot begin to attack the religious. Agnostics do not make that decision. We do not arrogate ourselves to a position that bypasses both science and epistemology and every credible theory of knowledge. We accept that we do not know. And we also accept that people should be free to believe what they want to as long as they do not impinge upon the the freedoms of others.

Atheism lacks intellectual credibility. So if an atheist can’t win an intellectual debate, why not just bypass debate and legislate atheism? Sounds like a plan. And indeed, it is one that Dawkins and other fundamentalist atheists have endorsed.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish all faith schools and prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology in all UK schools.

In this petition, signed by Richard Dawkins, the atheists want faith schools - private religious schools - abolished, outlawed, and destroyed. The next petition, also signed by Richard Dawkins, wants the government in your home:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.

As we have seen with fundamentalist atheists, their agenda is not one a reasonable person could support. Simply mentioning “god” could possibly be construed as indoctrinating your children with religion, and the atheists want armed officers of the law to treat that as child abuse.

(Credit where credit is due, although Richard Dawkins continued to support both petitions on his website, he did publicly recant support for one of the petitions. The petitions can be found on the website of the prime minister here, and here. It should also be noted that Dawkins recanted support only because he did favor the teaching of religious texts in critical light. He stands by his support for legislation which would take children away from religious parents.)

They call this “the new atheism”. I call it “old totalitarianism” adopted by new atheists.

Atheists like to discuss religious people. They like to portray them as bigots and intolerant, gun wielding tyrants. Of course, a staple of atheist discussions is how to avoid praying when friends get together and pray, such as before Thanksgiving dinner. They intended inference is that, is an atheist doesn’t pray, all hell will break lose and the Christians will behead the damn pagans for their failure to pray.

Interesting thought, but one without basis in reality. The vast majority of Christians, especially Protestants, value individualism and respect the rights of others to not believe or to believe differently from themselves.

The irony is in the intolerance and negativity of the modern atheists. The histrionic name-calling by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and atheists in general is in stark contrast to the tolerance and respect for others demonstrated by Alister McGrath and Christians in general.

As atheists go about attacking religion with name calling and their “Imagine no Religion” placards, one drives by a Churches and cannot help but notice the lack of negativity demonstrated by the religious people who are so utterly demonized by atheists.

Instead of focusing on the perceived faults of non-believers, Christians tend to focus on the virtues of belief. Love, faith, hope, etc. When was the last time you saw a Christian church displaying a placard saying “Atheists are evil” or “No Buddhism” or “End Hinduism”?

If atheism has any virtue, then atheists would be better served to focus on those positive attributes, instead of dwelling forever on the perceived negative attributes of religious persons.

The question is whether or not intolerance is intrinsic to the nature of atheism, or Christianity.

Vicious crimes have been committed in the name of Hinduism, yet Hindu is praised by most as a nonviolent belief system. Even Buddhist have murdered Hindu, Christians and Muslims in the name of their beliefs.

Is violence intrinsic to Buddhism? No. Is violence intrinsic to Hinduism? Or to Christianity? The fact that a Buddhist can remain a Buddhist without the need to kill non-Buddhists proves beyond any possibility of debate that Buddhism is not the cause of the violence. The same goes for Christianity, Hinduism and any other belief system.

A causal relationship between a theism and violence, or between atheism and violence, would preclude the possibility of nonviolent adherence.

(more…)