Who (if anyone) is required to give reasons for their views - theists, or atheists?

Question

I believe if you make a claim that something exists, natural or supernatural, you should be able to provide conclusive evidence.

Is it necessary for someone who disagrees with your claim to provide reasons for his or her disagreeance, if you have provided none for your claim?

Answer 1

Unlike some wishful thinking by some posters here, disagreement with a claim does not require proof on the part of the person who disagrees.
If someone makes a claim, and another person doesn't believe the claim, it's up to the person making the claim to provide proof, not the person who doesn't believe them. Could you imagine the chaos that would insue if everyone who doesn't believe a claim made by someone else was required to provide proof that the claim was wrong? That would mean that I or anyone else can say ANYTHING we want, and you'd be obligated to believe it until you could prove it false. That's crazy.

Now if someone came along and said, "There is a God." and the responder said, "I know for a fact that there isn't a God", then both would be required to provide proof, because both are making absolute claims. However, if someone said "There is a God" and the responder said "I don't believe you", then it is up to the person making the claim.

Answer 2

It is both because, unless defeaters are provided, an argument stands as stated. Of course, what you rarely see here is an argument put in propositional form to make it clear what is being asserted and what conclusion or conclusions are being drawn.

Moreover, presenting a defeater isn't just saying, "Well, your point #1 is false." It is educing reasons why one should not believe or can call into questions a step in the argument.

But you have to be careful about what you are asserting in asking this question. Some argument do not involve "evidence." For example, the following statement is true: Every circle drawn on a flat piece of paper divides the paper into exactly three pieces: inside the circle, outside the circle and the circle itself." There is no "evidence" you can give to prove that statement, since it is not the kind of assertion that is true or false on the basis of evidence. Intuitively it seems obvious, but proving it takes a little logical machinery. There are, of course, many, many such assertions.

This is a failing of many of the assertions of both atheists and theists. Both make a false assumption that "god exists" is the sort of assertion for which evidence can be given. It is not. The assertion "god exists" or "god does not exist" are both legitimate objects for discussion; both have long and honorable histories in both philosophy and theology.

HTH

Charles

[Very Late Edit]
Catherine, below, misunderstands what an "argument" is. An argument is not the naked assertion of some proposition, but rather a set of assertions from which it is claimed that a conclusion follows. I.e., if statements 1 through 5 (say) are true that statement 6 follows. Two people standing on a street corner each saying to the other "God exists" and "God does not exist" are not having an argument. Bu if one of them says, "The following 5 statement are true, and if they are true then statement 6 is also true because the first 5 entail the truth of the 6th." Now, the second person replying "I don't believe 6" is burdened with providing a defeater to one of the 5 statements presented, or they must present another set which leads to the opposite conclusion.

So, to say "X" is true and another to say "X" is not true is not having an argument.

HTH

Charles

Answer 3

In reverence of how the evidence is only
conclusive to the 5 senses in accordance
of the boundaries limited to the point of where we may create limitations of the physical aspects of what we know is what we found as tangible and cant go no more
on the subject as physical human beings..

I agree.

On the other hand for the individuals that
point out the conclusive evidence that what we do know as human beings that do not
correlatate with the emotional stand points
of the human being is the end result of logic
robotizing the entire human race and not leaving room for the spiritual growth is
pure non-belief of one not having a soul is
only evidential through the holy bible.

Please have some respect for the ones that are trying.

Answer 4

Both need to be justified in their views. To say otherwise amount to cultural relativism. Relativism is basically nonsense because it implies that there is no right or wrong. So one could take this to the extreme and say that people that believe the earth is flat are just different from those that say it is round.

Unjustified beliefs or unbeliefs result in nonsense arguments and unnecessary mud slinging.

The logic your claim is based on is a fallacy
It isn't a matter of two wrongs don't make a right. I could turn around and say that I shouldn't have to show you proof if I found it because you didn't show me proof when I didn't have proof.
See? The argument now becomes a question on when we should show proof rather than if we have it or not. Yet we can take this a step further and say that if your beliefs are justified you should be entitled to those beliefs regardless of the proof you have. To say that one needs proof to believe essentially takes away the other persons free will and directly contradicts the values of th opposite party.

Answer 5

A person can "claim" whatever they like, but there are 6 billion people on this Earth who need convincing, so it's usually a good idea to have some evidence to back yourself up with.

Answer 6

no one is required to give reasons - we do it voluntarily.
but.
just a small correction: 'supernatural' is just a part of 'natural'
this world consists of things we can see ( normally called natural) and things we cannot see ( often called supernatural) but both are part of our reality.

And about conclusive evidence_
such a thing doesn't exist - neither among 'natural' or 'supernatural' to believe in such thing as evidence is an illusion.

Answer 7

It is not necessary for either side unless they wish to get others to join them then and only then do you need to give reasons and evidence to back up your side. I believe what I believe I don't have to prove to anyone that I'm right because it's a personal belief. I don't want to convert anyone therefore I don't have to prove anything.

Answer 8

You only need to provide conclusive evidence for your claim if you expect other people to agree with you. Since I don't care if anyone agrees with me (my belief in personal), the burden of proof is not on me. Therefore, when an atheist wants to /prove/ I'm wrong, the burden of proof is on them. They are welcome to hold the personal belief that my gods do not exist, but when they want me to agree with them, it is they who need the evidence.

Answer 9

The thing is, no matter how much evidence religious people provide, it's not enough for most who don't believe.

Personally, I think BOTH sides should present reasons to believe the way they do.

Answer 10

no one is required to give reasons, they should only do so if they expect anyone else to take their views seriously. if two parties can't agree on how to evaluate existence claims there is little point in debate.