At Apr 5, 2015, 16:02:10, Mathew Goldstein<'[address removed]'> wrote:

It s not only any particular gods conjured by any particular theists that I reject on the grounds that those theists fail to meet their burden of proof. It is more than that. It is also that I am anticipating that they will never meet their burden of proof because their assertions are counter-evidenced. A discussion of what the evidence would need to be to support theism is absolutely a proper, valid, approach to disputing theism. In fact, such a discussion is not only proper and valid, I think it also essential to promoting atheism effectively and I encourage everyone to do this.

On Apr 5, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Bob <[address removed]> wrote:

"Proof" in this context is synonymous with "the responsibility to demonstrate your case". As with a legal understanding of the term, it is intended to convey a standard by which a justification for acceptance is bound. To use our legal example, and depending on the predetermined standards of evidence for a particular class of case, "proof" may require that a case be made "beyond a reasonable doubt", or to the "preponderance of evidence", or ... Note that this is very different than what would be expected in mathematics or logical "proof" which demonstrate that a "proved" statement must be true as an absolute and can never be contradicted or violated.

Contrary to Matthew's assertion, atheism is not the positive assertion that there are no gods (italicized word added for clarity). Rather, atheism is the rejection of the claim by theists that a god or gods exist. The rejection of this assertion does not confer a burden of proof on the atheist. The claimant (theist) is required to provide sufficient evidence for their claim, otherwise I am completely justified in rejecting said claim. It is appropriate to use the phraseology "burden of proof" in this case, as with the legal example. The requisite standards of evidence must be met before we are justified positioning ourselves away from the default position, which as pertains to existence claims, is non-existence (the null hypothesis).

It is tempting to say that as atheists we accept a burden of proof when we definitively say that "there are no gods". This, however, is also strictly incorrect in an epistemological sense. We are justified in making that assertion as it is the default position. Again, evidence is required to warrant departure from the default. This may be uncomfortable to some since it sounds like a positive assertion. In reality, however, it is really just another means of rejecting the positive existence claim. I will concede, though, that it seems to be common acceptance to shy away from this position in contemporary discourse as these subjects are subtle and oft misunderstood.

I hope this clarifies.

Bob

---

From: Don Wharton <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Sunday, April 5,[masked]:36 PM
Subject: Re: [atheists-27] 6 unlikely developments that could convince this atheist to believe in God

I agree with Mathew in principle here. However, I do think that is reasonable to use proof instead of just the “best fit with the available empirical evidence” phrase. For example, the geological evidence of a 200 million year age for the evolution of the Atlantic Ocean is overwhelming scientific proof that the God of young earth creationism is false.

Perhaps some people think that proof as a term should only be used for proofs of a logical form that have mathematical certainty. No empirical scientific evidence can meet this standard. However, my position is that where the scientific evidence is as overwhelming as available geological evidence it is entirely reason to use proof as a term in our discussions.

Don

From: Mathew Goldstein

Sent: Sunday, April 05,[masked]:18 AM

To: [address removed]

Subject: Re: [atheists-27] 6 unlikely developments that could convince this atheist to believe in God

This is the same argument everyone utilizes in all other contexts. It is a valid and strong argument which neither misuses any terms nor passes the burden proof. Atheists like myself assert positively that are no gods therefore we share a so-called 'burden of proof', we are not agnostics who take no position either way and therefore have no 'burden of proof'. The 'burden of proof' phrase is misleading terminology when taken too literally because there is no 'proof', there is best fit with the available empirical evidence. Therefore I place that phrase in quotes.

On Apr 5, 2015, at 8:05 AM, Derek <[address removed]> wrote:

Thanks for this frustrating article.

It's the same misusing of terms, generalizations, and poor arguments like theists passing the burden of proof to atheists that result in a general misunderstanding of the atheists position in the first place. Argument from design? Aquinas' proofs? Really??. Nothing original...

Here is an example: "We like to point out that religious beliefs are usually unfalsifiable — there’s no possible evidence that could prove them wrong, thus rendering them utterly useless." "We" is referring to atheists in this case. I think the correct bolded word in this context should be unsubstantiated, not unfalsifiable. That's a misuse of terms. Evidence for the existence of god hasn't ever been demonstrates based on falsifiable science. The wording is almost a theist argument being presented from the perspective of the atheist as if: I believe what I believe and no possible evidence can prove otherwise, worded as "there’s no possible evidence that could prove them wrong".

On Apr 4, 2015, at 11:40 PM, Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]> wrote:
4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]