Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[Rhythmcs]

You might want to consider that you don't know how solipsism works. For example, under a strong commitment to solipsism..nothing has a burden of proof, and nothing could meet it if it did.

[Jarsa]

Do we really need another 20 pages of this? Very early in this thread jarsa made it painfully clear that he does not understand the difference between belief and knowledge. He thinks knowledge is a belief held to a  100,00000% standard.

Everything else is window dressing. Every conversation with him, thus, is a complete waste of time.

Knowledge :the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition[url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/association][/url]

Belief: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
The difference is that knowledge is apprehending truth, while belief is what is considered to be true. 
By this definition, knowledge is the strongest possible belief.

[Jarsa]

You might want to consider that you don't know how solipsism works.  For example, under a strong commitment to solipsism..nothing has a burden of proof, and nothing could meet it if it did.

I know. Nothing can be proved. But if I have an opinion on something, I need a reason to have that opinion. If my opinion is that god doesn't exist, my reason would be absence of evidence.

[Rhythmcs]

There we go. The end. Your op q has been answered. Atheism has no burden of proof because nothing can be proven.

[Jarsa]

Did you even read my last post? I literally said "if I have an opinion on something, I need a reason to have that opinion."

[Rhythmcs]

Who cares? Atheism has no burden of proof because nothing can be proven. Your opinions are irrelevant.

[Dānu]

Did you even read my last post? I literally said "if I have an opinion on something, I need a reason to have that opinion."

If nothing can be proven, what is the point in considering reasons?

[Jarsa]

That logic is insane. A theist could say "Theism has no burden of proof because nothing can be proven."

[Kim]

Step
Away
From
The
Post Reply
Button

[Jarsa]

Did you even read my last post? I literally said "if I have an opinion on something, I need a reason to have that opinion."

If nothing can be proven, what is the point in considering reasons?

No one lives life on absolute proofs. We live life on beliefs, which we hold because of evidence. If we were to just ignore all that because nothing can be proven, we would probably get killed within a day.

[Rhythmcs]

That logic is insane. A theist could say "Theism has no burden of proof because nothing can be proven."

Who cares what theists could say?  Atheism has no burden of proof because nothing can be proven.

[Jarsa]

Again, that logic doesn't work. One could also claim the multiverse doesn't exist with that logic. That is unscientific.

[Rhythmcs]

Who cares whether or not someone could claim the multiverse doesn't exist? Atheism has no burden of proof because nothing can be proven.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That logic is insane. A theist could say "Theism has no burden of proof because nothing can be proven."

Anything you label as evidence may, according to you, be a figment of your own imagination. What significance can evidence hold at all in this outlook?

[Jarsa]

Yeah, it may be. But no one lives life on absolute proofs. If I want to live a decent life, I have to assume that I am not hallucinating, and the reality I live in is real. Assuming that, I can look at the lack of evidence and say I think god doesn't exist.

[Rhythmcs]

I don't think he realizes he's generating the next set of jarsa vs jarsa.

[Jarsa]

Who cares whether or not someone could claim the multiverse doesn't exist?  Atheism has no burden of proof because nothing can be proven.

Are you just trolling or do you truly think that? Epistemology doesn't work like that. Just because an idea cannot be proven doesn't mean you can believe in it without evidence.

[Jarsa]

I don't think he realizes he's generating the next set of jarsa vs jarsa.

And yet you couldn't give me a single contradiction.

[Rhythmcs]

Who cares? Atheism doesn't have a burden of proof because nothing can be proven.

[Deesse23]

The difference is that knowledge is apprehending truth, while belief is what is considered to be true. 

How do you decide what is actually true (and thus known) and what you consider to be true (believe)?

[epronovost]

There is always going to be some possible explanation for why you could still be wrong. Maybe fireflies don't always make smoke and you mistakenly thought so. Maybe there is a chemical in your house that makes smoke odorless and colorless. Maybe you were hallucinating about looking in your house. If you predefined the situation by saying none of this happens, you could prove a negative. But you can't predefine situations in real life.

We are talking about logic here. If the premises are correct and the logical system is sound, the conclusion must be true. That's what my example was meant to illustrate. 

The problem is that the existence of a deistic god isn't contradictory.

I would content that it is logically contradictory since it projects features of the universe (or of things within it) outside it (in that case into the deity and its direct environment) namely spacetime, causality, sentience, etc.

[Rhythmcs]

Projection is a behavioral manifestation of category error. Theists believe that gods are personal and intervening. Deists believe that gods are personal and non intervening.

[Jarsa]

The difference is that knowledge is apprehending truth, while belief is what is considered to be true. 

How do you decide what is actually true (and thus known) and what you consider to be true (believe)?

As for the actual truth, I simply don't know. There are so many variables. This reality I perceive could be an illusion. Theists could say that this reality is objectively true because their god wouldn't let them be deceived, but as an atheist, I cannot know what is true.

As for what I consider to be true, I just assume that my senses are accurate and I go off that.

[Rhythmcs]

Theists can say all sorts of silly and definitionally false shit. So what. Atheism has no burden of proof because nothing can be proven.

[Jarsa]

There is always going to be some possible explanation for why you could still be wrong. Maybe fireflies don't always make smoke and you mistakenly thought so. Maybe there is a chemical in your house that makes smoke odorless and colorless. Maybe you were hallucinating about looking in your house. If you predefined the situation by saying none of this happens, you could prove a negative. But you can't predefine situations in real life.

We are talking about logic here. If the premises are correct and the logical system is sound, the conclusion must be true. That's what my example was meant to illustrate. 

The problem is that the existence of a deistic god isn't contradictory.

I would content that it is logically contradictory since it projects features of the universe (or of things within it) outside it (in that case into the deity and its direct environment) namely spacetime, causality, sentience, etc.

Yeah, that makes sense. In your example, if your premises are true, one can prove a negative. Likewise, if one assumes that the basic axioms of math are true, one can prove a negative (12 is not a prime number). In real life, we cannot assume that the premises (the lack of evidence for god) is true, because everything could be a simulation. 

There is a parallel between this and numbers.
It is impossible to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 without axioms. (Peano Axioms) 
It is impossible to prove that there are no fireflies in your house without assumptions( Your senses are accurate when they tell you there is no smoke in the house.

We have these assumptions because they make life more convenient. The Peano Axioms give us a number system that is very useful, and our senses help us live a good life. 

But philosophical proof (as opposed to scientific proof) doesn't have room for assumptions. In that case, one cannot prove god does not exist without at least one assumption,

For the second part, could you expand on that? I didn't understand why god is a logical contradiction.