In Religion, Why is the burden of proof on the Non-believers?

Answer 1

Logically, to prove anything you need to prove it. However, there are few logical people who engage in this kind of discussion.

A person who says "I will not believe in your god until you provide me with sufficient empirical evidence that you are correct" is being EXACTLY as prejudiced as someone who says "I will believe in my god until you provide me with sufficient empirical evidence that I am not correct". The only REASONABLE position to take with NO evidence is one of ambiguity. You don't know.

Which isn't to say that there might not be reasons to believe one way or the other without evidence. Nor that there aren't kinds of evidence that cannot be shared. I happen to think both of these are the case in this particular issue.

That's my take anyway. Peace.

Answer 2

Because the believers cannot provide any proof. They know that proving that something does not exist is impossible. Therefore, by shifting the burden of proof, it becomes impossible to disprove god and unnecessary to prove god. That works great for those who do not like to have independent thought. It really irks the believers when there are people who are critical thinkers who want proof.

Following this reasoning, if I say I am the new emperor of Earth and that all humans must do whatever I say because god said it was so, then the non-believers must prove that god did not say this. There is no way they can prove that, therefore I must be the new emporer of Earth and all humans must do whatever I say.

You see, placing the burden of proof on the non-believers is not the correct way to figure stuff like this out. People make claims all of the time. We cannot sort the garbage from the fact if we have to provide the proof that the claims are false. Science is based on the idea that a claim has to be supported by evidence.

Answer 3

Capt_takes gave the same answer I would have and I support the answer for best A. I hope asker does not leave it up to vote bec so few vote after answering and if they vote they vote for their A even if it is inferior.

The burden of proof can't go both ways because as was said by Capt- takes you can theoretically point to something that exists but not to something that does not exist. Where do you point in the latter case? People who do not understand the asymmetric nature of proving by logic and evidence what exists or what is the case and what does not exist or what isn't the case is either , well, ignorant or ideological. I mean no insult intended to anyone. who can't or won't understand the point.

Answer 4

There's no reasoning with believers, so why bother. Faith is remarkably impervious to reason, there's no point in it. Nueroscientists have pin-pointed the so-called 'god-gene' in the limbic systems of all our brains. This is the place where all our irrational belief systems reside. They can even articificially trigger the 'religious experience' by probing this part of the brain.

The cerebral cortex is a more recent addition to our species, say within the last 100,000 years. This is where our rational and logical thoughts reside and where athiests find their basis in reality.

Obsolete genes do not die overnight, so we'll be seeing religion and irrational belief systems for some time to come........

Answer 5

That's actually a good question. And like religion, I think it comes down to faith. The basis of any religion is faith--faith in the teachings, the rules outlined, the 'god' or 'goddess' figure. There is no need for proof for the believer, they have faith. However, because non-believers do not have the faith in the religion, they generally require tangible proof to "convince" them. Hence, the burden of proof is on the non-believer, as they are the one requiring it.

That's my thought anyway :)

Answer 6

is it? I think it goes both ways. Whomever is leading the argument puts the burden on the one trying to disprove their premise. In this case there is no proof either way and the argument rages on in all of it's illogical directions. Personally I would think that the burden of proof would be on the side that claims there is 'something" because how can you ever prove that there is "nothing"

Answer 7

There is no burden but it goes both ways. When only plain reason really matters, it is no way to prove God either exists or do not.

Well, today well instructed Catholics knows that until you prove to some people that his religion or no-religion way is better for the other with own experience, there is no other way to prove it.

I am catholic but i never hear a converted says i am converted because of philosophical causes. And i know a lot of converted people -that's means no originally catholics-.

Answer 8

the burden of proof lies with non-believers because the believers have "proof". unfortunately, their proof cannot be measured or otherwise quantified. true, they may have had a profound religious experience of spuernatural origin but, while it is fundamentally true to them, it is absolutely unreasonable to someone who has never had a similar experience.

I think that main question is, when someone has a profound, life-altering experience, why do they assume they are the only ones? Why do the christians assume that the mind-blowing experience of first glimsping yaweh or allah is any different from their own experience with jesus?

Answer 9

The Bible says that salvation will come "from faith alone." Asking for evidence or proof is contrary to Christian belief, and shows a lack of faith. Other religions have similar beliefs. Some, such as Buddhism, advocate a direct experience of the divine, which is not open to empirical argument.

Trying to create or destroy faith through empirical argument is like trying to empty the ocean with your hands. Spend your energy elsewhere.

Answer 10

the short answer is that the belief is as old as man.less than 300 years ago atheists' testimony was not acceptable in court & they were a rarity. the better answer is that the "burden" is a fool's errand.if I believe that the Spirit communes with my soul enabling me to cry out "dear Father" to God Himself what string of numbers would you use to dissuade me? if I see the glory of the Creator in my own open hand, how powerful a proof is a theory based on a trillion random accidents over "billions & billions" of years? the converse is also true-the Word is not for disinterested people.Christ was careful to teach us not to cast our pearls before swine (no offense intended)