Burden of Proof

[4gold]

An atheist friend of mine and I were having an argument over who has the burden of proof. His position is that atheists do not have the burden of proof, since they cannot prove a negative. My position is that agnosticism is the only religious position that does not have the burden of proof, because they are the only ones that say that the evidence does not impel them in one direction or the other. I say that atheists and Christians both have the burden of proof.

Who wins this argument?

[QED]

You can't see Hector. He's such that he just can't be seen, heard, x-rayed or whatever. I know he's there because I can sense his presence in a way that no instrument can. Do we both deserve to have the burden of proof about Hector's existence?

Agnostics aren't just fence-sitters. Weak categories of theism and atheism exists to accommodate those who accept that possibilities less than 1 for their professed beliefs. The agnostic says we can't in principle know if Hector exists or not. Is he free to say this without having to explain why?

[Rathpig]

Claims require evidence.

The negation of unsupported claims do not require evidence. The burden of proof only shifts once the claim is supported. Fence-sitting is for the most part specious equivocation. The agnostic position seems to be an academic middle-ground, but it is really a refusal to accept the rules of evidence through all applications. I've never met anyone agnostic about Russell's teapot or the invisible pink unicorn. Perhaps this person exists. An object lesson is potential ridicule is still an object lesson.

[McCulloch]

Russell's teapot might be helpful to this argument.

It depends on how the atheist and the theist define their positions.

If the theist asserts that there is a God, then he assumes a burden of proof.

If the atheist asserts that there is no god, then he assumes some burden of proof, however, if the atheist claim is that there is insufficient evidence upon which to base a rational belief in God, then he has a lighter burden of examining and evaluating the evidence.

[The Duke of Vandals]

In the interest of remaining friends with your buddy, think of it this way:

Your burden is to prove Christianity is true.

His burden is to poke holes in your argument and show how you've failed to meet your burden.

[Furrowed Brow]

Which God are we talking about? The Christian God? If so then it is not for the atheist to disprove someone walked on water, rose from the dead etc. The claims are so outrageous that the burden of proof falls on the Christian. I think the atheists needs to show why they find concepts like the holy trinity incoherent, whilst the Christian will have to show why it is coherent. Also dualism and concepts like the soul and so. As an atheist I don't challenge these ideas on evidence for and against but on the point that the ideas are just screwy - logically incoherent - they don't make sense.

Too often - and atheists are guilty of this - the problem is set up as a question of evidence or knowledge. Superficially it can be framed that way. But for me seeking God is a bit like seeking the Jabberwocky. In the case of the Jabberwocky the nonsense is written large and obvious. Questions for evidence for and against kind of misses the point. In the case of Christian metaphysics the nonsense is written even larger. So large its dimensions are lost on some.

[ivansayer]

You can't see Hector. He's such that he just can't be seen, heard, x-rayed or whatever. I know he's there because I can sense his presence in a way that no instrument can. Do we both deserve to have the burden of proof about Hector's existence?

Agnostics aren't just fence-sitters. Weak categories of theism and atheism exists to accommodate those who accept that possibilities less than 1 for their professed beliefs. The agnostic says we can't in principle know if Hector exists or not. Is he free to say this without having to explain why?

Hi QED
Maybe some agnostics say that we can't know *in principle*; but when I was an agnostic I wasn't saying that: I was just saying that I personally didn't know, which was a true statement. At that stage I didn't feel I had an obligation to prove anything to anyone.
My own opinion about 'burden of proof' is that you assume a burden of proof when you begin expecting others to share your belief.
Ivan

[4gold]

You can't see Hector. He's such that he just can't be seen, heard, x-rayed or whatever. I know he's there because I can sense his presence in a way that no instrument can. Do we both deserve to have the burden of proof about Hector's existence?

Agnostics aren't just fence-sitters. Weak categories of theism and atheism exists to accommodate those who accept that possibilities less than 1 for their professed beliefs. The agnostic says we can't in principle know if Hector exists or not. Is he free to say this without having to explain why?

IMO, if I say, "I see no evidence on which I should believe Hector exists", then I have no burden of proof, as there is no proof to show.

But if I say, "Hector does not exist", I would think I have some burden of defending a positive statement like that.

[4gold]

Russell's teapot might be helpful to this argument.

It depends on how the atheist and the theist define their positions.

If the theist asserts that there is a God, then he assumes a burden of proof.

If the atheist asserts that there is no god, then he assumes some burden of proof, however, if the atheist claim is that there is insufficient evidence upon which to base a rational belief in God, then he has a lighter burden of examining and evaluating the evidence.

So, if we apply Russell's teapot to, say, dark matter, dark energy, multiverse theory, the mene, or any other evidence-based theory that is physically impossible to detect, how does that work?

Obviously, the advocate for these theories have the burden of proof. If I say, "I see no evidence for multiple universes", that statement requires no burden of proof. But if I say, "There are no other universes", I would think that statement requires some burden of proof, as you have now stepped away from a negative claim to a positive claim.

[XaWN]

If the atheist asserts that there is no god, then he assumes some burden of proof, however, if the atheist claim is that there is insufficient evidence upon which to base a rational belief in God, then he has a lighter burden of examining and evaluating the evidence.

McCulloch, well said. I would add that an assertion that God does not exist requires the same amount of evidence as the assertion that God does exist. In the same way that someone who asserts there is a Bigfoot is on the same ground as someone who asserts there is no Bigfoot.

Proper atheism (in my opinion) simply says, as you said: "there is insufficient evidence upon which to base a rational belief in God."