Strong atheism and it's burden of proof.

[Bunyip]

I often see Strong atheism as being said to bear a burden of proof. As I do not see how this can be the case, I would appreciate any input from members on this notion.
Does strong atheism bear a burden of proof?
If so what would fulfil it?

 

[leibowde84]

I often see Strong atheism as being said to bear a burden of proof. As I do not see how this can be the case, I would appreciate any input from members on this notion.
Does strong atheism bear a burden of proof?
If so what would fulfil it?

Proving a negative is not always a logical fallacy, but I agree that in this case it certainly is. This is due to the fact that proving that an invisible supernatural entity, without the burden of adhering to the laws of nature, cannot be proven to not exist. In the same way, If I say that a fictional entity, Tom, is a supernatural being, omnipotent and omnipresent, being the source for morality/justice, and was our creator, could you prove that Tom is not somewhere out there looking down on us in the same way that God would. I don't see how that would be possible.

I am a strong supporter of the burden of proof ALWAYS being on those making positive (not negative) assertions. Unless this is the case, the situation is not fair, and the discussion will not bear any fruit.

 

[Bunyip]

Proving a negative is not always a logical fallacy, but I agree that in this case it certainly is. This is due to the fact that proving that an invisible supernatural entity, without the burden of adhering to the laws of nature, cannot be proven to not exist. In the same way, If I say that a fictional entity, Tom, is a supernatural being, omnipotent and omnipresent, being the source for morality/justice, and was our creator, could you prove that Tom is not somewhere out there looking down on us in the same way that God would. I don't see how that would be possible.

Thanks. Beautifully put.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I often see Strong atheism as being said to bear a burden of proof. As I do not see how this can be the case, I would appreciate any input from members on this notion.
Does strong atheism bear a burden of proof?
If so what would fulfil it?

Strong atheists are tough and don't need to prove anything.

 

[Thief]

How about dealing with strong likelihood?
So many copies of a learning device....and each one is headed for termination and silence in the grave......

Not much 'point' in the formation of Man.
Man then as a complete mystery with no purpose or resolve.

You don't need proof to believe.(Webster's definition on faith)

and if you prefer the strong likelihood of the grave......ok.

 

[leibowde84]

How about dealing with strong likelihood?
So many copies of a learning device....and each one is headed for termination and silence in the grave......

Not much 'point' in the formation of Man.
Man then as a complete mystery with no purpose or resolve.

You don't need proof to believe.(Webster's definition on faith)

and if you prefer the strong likelihood of the grave......ok.

I think you are confusing "belief" and "preference". I for one would love to believe fully in an afterlife, but I certainly cannot force myself to do so simply because it is preferable, right? I need good, solid evidence to believe in something supernatural like this. I am strongly opposed to simply accepting faith because it merely "makes sense" or it "makes you feel better". It should be more than that.

 

[Thief]

I think you are confusing "belief" and "preference". I for one would love to believe fully in an afterlife, but I certainly cannot force myself to do so simply because it is preferable, right? I need good, solid evidence to believe in something supernatural like this. I am strongly opposed to simply accepting faith because it merely "makes sense" or it "makes you feel better". It should be more than that.

Most people believe what they prefer.

 

[Thief]

Why prefer a terminal fate?
Why so down on the strong likelihood of an afterlife?
and with soooooo many people.....
Not one chance of continuance?.....not so much as a handful?

I think the odds are favorable to the positive.

 

[Bunyip]

Why prefer a terminal fate?
Why so down on the strong likelihood of an afterlife?
and with soooooo many people.....
Not one chance of continuance?.....not so much as a handful?

I think the odds are favorable to the positive.

Well thanks for contributing. But I don't think that what most people prefer defines their beliefs. I for example tend to believe what the evidence shows, rather than what I prefer.

 

[leibowde84]

Most people believe what they prefer.

I never said otherwise. I just think it is foolish and unfounded.

 

[leibowde84]

Why prefer a terminal fate?
Why so down on the strong likelihood of an afterlife?
and with soooooo many people.....
Not one chance of continuance?.....not so much as a handful?

I think the odds are favorable to the positive.

Strong likelihood of an afterlife?! Please support this outlandish statement with objective proof. And, I'm not sure that purely subjective "near-death experiences", which as far as we know could easily be explained with hallucinations, don't really help your case too much.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Most people believe what they prefer.

Why prefer a terminal fate?
Why so down on the strong likelihood of an afterlife?
and with soooooo many people.....
Not one chance of continuance?.....not so much as a handful?

I think the odds are favorable to the positive.

Saying that there is a strong likelihood of an afterlife is statistical claim, isn't it?
What is the strong likelihood? Show us some numbers.

It's a question of plausibility and probability.
No one prefers a terminal fate - it's simply the most probable outcome given what we've observed.
There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, other than wishful thinking.

Has anyone ever returned from death? Has anyone ever witnessed or visited the "afterlife"?
No.

 

[Thief]

Strong likelihood of an afterlife?! Please support this outlandish statement with objective proof. And, I'm not sure that purely subjective "near-death experiences", which as far as we know could easily be explained with hallucinations, don't really help your case too much.

So the abundance of humanity means nothing to you?
7billion people and not one chance of someone continuing after that last breath?

 

[Thief]

Saying that there is a strong likelihood of an afterlife is statistical claim, isn't it?
What is the strong likelihood? Show us some numbers.

It's a question of plausibility and probability.
No one prefers a terminal fate - it's simply the most probable outcome given what we've observed.
There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, other than wishful thinking.

Has anyone ever returned from death? Has anyone ever witnessed or visited the "afterlife"?
No.

Hmmmm......seems to be more than one story of resurrection.....

 

[Thief]

I see a preference to the grave.....without cause.

 

[Thief]

Well thanks for contributing. But I don't think that what most people prefer defines their beliefs. I for example tend to believe what the evidence shows, rather than what I prefer.

and you already know.....no evidence will be presented one way or the other.

all we really have are large numbers.....with equation and no results!?!?

 

[Bunyip]

I see a preference to the grave.....without cause.

I don't see how, but ok thanks.

 

[leibowde84]

So the abundance of humanity means nothing to you?
7billion people and not one chance of someone continuing after that last breath?

Why would the number of people in the world have any impact on the likelihood of an afterlife? The number could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, but it still wouldn't make an afterlife more or less likely than if there was only 1, unless I am missing something. Can you flesh out your reasoning a bit more?

 

[leibowde84]

Hmmmm......seems to be more than one story of resurrection.....

There are stories about a lot of things ... but they provide absolutely no evidence of an afterlife. They could easily just be stories.

 

[leibowde84]

and you already know.....no evidence will be presented one way or the other.

all we really have are large numbers.....with equation and no results!?!?

what do the large numbers have to do with anything?