The actual words here are, “I’m an atheist because I refuse to pretend to know there is one.” That statement explicitly disclaims belief, and refers only to the speaker’s individual state of mind. It doesn’t ask or tell anybody else to prove anything. The speaker’s own subjective state of mind is actually the one thing that the speaker is qualified to make definitive statements about. “I don’t believe in God” needs no proof. Similarly, “I believe in God” also needs no proof, as it’s a statement about the speaker’s state of mind; “God exists” is a claim about the universe/reality that would require evidence.
The user zenithoclock, as such, has misinterpreted the statement as a positive claim about the universe. As for why, I don’t know for certain, but it does seem that quite a lot of people who believe in God can’t abide and feel threatened when other people don’t.
the burden of proof is not on whoever “speaks”, like the second person incorrectly states, but whoever makes a specific type of claim. The first person is not making a claim of that type by saying “there is not a God” and therefore does not have any burden of proof, but someone who says “there is a God” is making a claim of that type and must prove it before it can be believed
In the teapot example, if I say “there isn’t a teapot floating orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars” I have no burden to prove this before it can be believed, because there is no evidence of the teapot existing. If you claimed the teapot did exist, you’d need to provide evidence of it
Another way to think about it is, imagine someone says “God doesn’t exist”, someone else says “prove it!”, and, for the purpose of the thought experiment, they actually somehow did produce hard evidence that objectively settles the dispute. Did they “prove that God doesn’t exist” or did they “disprove the existence of God”? You can’t prove a negative, so it is the latter. The existence of God is the actual “claim”, so saying “God exists” requires burden of proof, but “God doesn’t exist” is not a “claim”
“A prayed for car gets better gas mileage”, or alternatively “praying for a car does not effect gas mileage.” Are either of these a true or a false statement? Well, at the very least there is no evidence to suggest a correlation. You could argue that you would need to collect data in order to prove or disprove either statement, but how could you even design an experiment let alone measure it? What is praying? Does it matter what time it is, or which direction you’re facing? What if it only works on certain days, or with certain props? Which language? Does it only work on domestic cars? And besides, if at the end of the day you desire better gas mileage the most productive thing you could do is simply drive more conservatively.
Now, is there a god? There is no way to determine what the evidence even looks like. A scale measures weight, but what is the unit which measures god? What can it even be measured against if we can’t have a control? If at the end of the day you believe there is a god, and that good an evil are definable, and there will be a big performance review in the sky, then the most practical thing to do would be to live conservatively.
I mean he’s got a point. You brought it up, why are you telling others to prove it?
Bro literally brought up logical fallacies that the first person was using
The actual words here are, “I’m an atheist because I refuse to pretend to know there is one.” That statement explicitly disclaims belief, and refers only to the speaker’s individual state of mind. It doesn’t ask or tell anybody else to prove anything. The speaker’s own subjective state of mind is actually the one thing that the speaker is qualified to make definitive statements about. “I don’t believe in God” needs no proof. Similarly, “I believe in God” also needs no proof, as it’s a statement about the speaker’s state of mind; “God exists” is a claim about the universe/reality that would require evidence.
The user zenithoclock, as such, has misinterpreted the statement as a positive claim about the universe. As for why, I don’t know for certain, but it does seem that quite a lot of people who believe in God can’t abide and feel threatened when other people don’t.
No, the first person is using burden of proof correctly and the second person is incorrect about any logic fallacies. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
the burden of proof is not on whoever “speaks”, like the second person incorrectly states, but whoever makes a specific type of claim. The first person is not making a claim of that type by saying “there is not a God” and therefore does not have any burden of proof, but someone who says “there is a God” is making a claim of that type and must prove it before it can be believed
In the teapot example, if I say “there isn’t a teapot floating orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars” I have no burden to prove this before it can be believed, because there is no evidence of the teapot existing. If you claimed the teapot did exist, you’d need to provide evidence of it
Another way to think about it is, imagine someone says “God doesn’t exist”, someone else says “prove it!”, and, for the purpose of the thought experiment, they actually somehow did produce hard evidence that objectively settles the dispute. Did they “prove that God doesn’t exist” or did they “disprove the existence of God”? You can’t prove a negative, so it is the latter. The existence of God is the actual “claim”, so saying “God exists” requires burden of proof, but “God doesn’t exist” is not a “claim”
“A prayed for car gets better gas mileage”, or alternatively “praying for a car does not effect gas mileage.” Are either of these a true or a false statement? Well, at the very least there is no evidence to suggest a correlation. You could argue that you would need to collect data in order to prove or disprove either statement, but how could you even design an experiment let alone measure it? What is praying? Does it matter what time it is, or which direction you’re facing? What if it only works on certain days, or with certain props? Which language? Does it only work on domestic cars? And besides, if at the end of the day you desire better gas mileage the most productive thing you could do is simply drive more conservatively.
Now, is there a god? There is no way to determine what the evidence even looks like. A scale measures weight, but what is the unit which measures god? What can it even be measured against if we can’t have a control? If at the end of the day you believe there is a god, and that good an evil are definable, and there will be a big performance review in the sky, then the most practical thing to do would be to live conservatively.
But if we’re talking evidence. It’s, not, looking, particularly, promising.