Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God" as defined by Stanford Universities Online Dictionary of Philosophy. It would logically follow that the idea or concept of theism came first, at least by practical application in our language, being that by definition atheism references theism and not the other way around . Much the way that we can know by definition that John Doe Jr. came after John Doe Sr. As in the court of law the burden of proof is strongly on the shoulders of the accuser would this be the case in the matter at hand." Lastly please spare our audience unnecessarily technical verbiage, ordinary language is more than capable of handling our query as per JL Mackie in his apologia of ordinary language.
2006-07-25 03:43:25 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
BOTH hold the burden.
Why should I Automatically believe either way?
It makes sense to withhold the judgment until more is known.
That is why agnosticism is the most viable position.
2006-07-25 04:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by hq3 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Even though your thought process is 100% correct I believe that it still falls on the burden of theism for the simple fact that it is so easy to just not believe in a religion. There is concrete proof that certain things in life have happened and they can all be explained scientifically. There really isn't a way for someone to show us any concrete proof that god exists or for that matter any supper powered figure from any other religion. Though we could just say an event happened because god wanted it to but like I said unprovable. Who knows though we never know whats out there.
2006-07-25 03:53:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has always been my contention that the burden of proof lies at the feet of the theists. Atheism simply denies the existence of God based upon sound proof beyond faith. If you study all early Christian philosophers and theorists, faith is the basis of proof. Anselm of Canterbury, probably provided the best flow chart of proof in that time (middle ages) that is still most plausible today. The Catholic church spent much time effort and money to prove the existence of God. Without continuing a diatribe, the burden is and always will be with the theists.
2006-07-25 03:57:26 · answer #3 · answered by anywurld 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If someone were to state that there was an invisible rabbit in the room who I was incapable of interacting with in any way and I were to state that that was not the case; I assert that the burden of proof is still on the person who has made the initial statement.
The burden of proof is not a matter of who said what first. It is, however, a matter of who more accurately describes the world as we experience it.
2006-07-25 04:16:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof is on those that make the claim. If I claim that the garden fairies are making my flowers bloom better then it is up to me to prove it if challenged. I must either produce a garden fairy or demonstrate their existence in a manner which leaves no doubt. Not only must I be able to do this repeatedly, but anybody else should be able to reach into my garden and produce one.
If I were to respond to your doubts about my fairies by saying, "Prove that garden fairies don't exist," it would place you in a position of proving a negative, which you cannot do. I could say that you don't have enough faith in fairies, your hair color is wrong, or you first need to make a donation in the name of Intelligent Fairy Design, or some other manner of excluding your ability to prove fairies.
So it is with people making claims of deities.
2006-07-25 04:08:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the burden of proof is a pointless issue in this case. It is impossible to scientifically prove without a doubt that there is a God or that there is not a God. The bottom line is that one's personal views and beliefs are dependent upon their level of faith. Believing in and worshiping God is a personal issue. God reveals himself to individuals, and those individuals must choose whether or not they will allow their personal revelation to grow as they spend time searching Scripture and building their faith.
2006-07-25 03:53:54 · answer #6 · answered by men_so_totally_suck 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither side holds any burden of proof. I am free to be an athiest, just as you are free to believe in God. Your question assumes that one group should be able to impose its view on the other, but that is never going to happen. Nobody has to "prove" anything about their beliefs. Just leave well enough alone.
2006-07-25 03:51:03 · answer #7 · answered by memphisroom 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoever makes the first assertion in a discussion has the burden of proof.
That is, if the Atheist says "There is no god!" then s/he must prove that assertion. Likewise, if the Theist asserts, "Obviously, there is a God!" then the burden of proof is his/hers.
There is no absolute burden of proof, as there is in law where the prosecution is always required to prove its case.
2006-07-25 03:47:53 · answer #8 · answered by P. M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Perry Mason
2006-07-25 03:48:24 · answer #9 · answered by rightonrighton 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very good question.
It hard to say. Yours is another question I must look up.
2006-07-25 03:50:24 · answer #10 · answered by Sick Puppy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋