The burden of proof

[nonoyes]

I don't know if this has been shared before here, since I'm rather new to DU. I find it to be a well thought-out argument. What do others think?

I thought it was worth sharing here, and perhaps it is suitable for the Religion forum as well. If so, feel free to post it there or to suggest that I do.

[Scuba]

1. Put your faith in one who seeks the truth ...

... and doubt anyone who claims to have found it.

[dimbear]

2. Have pity on the poor wretches with dialup, and post a tiny text summary, pls.

TIA

[nonoyes]

3. A ten minute analysis of all arguments for the existence of a god,

and how they all miserably fail to provide anything close to a "burden of proof" of their assertion.

That's about as brief as I can be.

It really is a well done summary as to how logical reasoning trumps milenium old mythologies.

[dimbear]

4. Thank you. Your summary is a gem in itself.

Tnx from the electronically disadvantaged.

[gcomeau]

5. Umm... no?

It was not an analysis of arguments for the existence of god, it was an analysis of the concept of the burden of proof itself.

(A very very good one. Worth the time to set your dial-up to downloading it then go eat dinner or something)

Of course the fact that arguments for God inevitably fail to meet that burden does account for how they consistently miserably fail, but that wasn't the focus of the video. I think for about 15 seconds it threw up list of a lot of the arguments but it never bothered diving into them.

[nonoyes]

6. Try re-reading my ENTIRE FIRST SENTENCE particularly the second clause

and how they all miserably fail to provide anything close to a "burden of proof"

The "analysis" of any and all assertions for the existence of a god are similar, as the video shows, in that they all fail to establish a "burden of proof".

Tomato/Tomahtoh


Funny how some people feel the need to nit pick,.

[gcomeau]

7. Ok, I did. It still says the same thing.

Your ENTIRE FIRST SENTENCE started in the title. So it says this:

"A ten minute analysis of all the arguments for an existence of god, and how they all miserably fail to provide anything close to a burden of proof".

That is not what the video is. It is not analyzing ANY of the specific arguments for the existence of god, let alone all of them. It is not diving in to, say, the ontological argument (or any other argument) and explaining how it fails to meet the burden of proof.


It is explaining what constitutes a failure to meet the burden of proof in general. It includes commentary that this specifically applies to arguments about the supernatural but it is not an analysis of those specific arguments.


The guy asked for a description of the video, he deserves an accurate one. Go ahead and get all huffy and call it nitpicking if you want, your description was misleading.

[nonoyes]

8. So give us yours.

Don't insult people, just be accurate, and talk about all the quotes in the video from various arguments you evidently never read, were not familiar with

Why do you need to argue with me, by the way? What did I ever do to your ego that made you feel the need to nit-pick a rather casual one sentence summary of a very worthwhile video?

Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, or do you just insist upon your intellect being better than mine for some reason.

Please block me, I don't want to have to see you criticize me ever again. I'm too old and my time is too valuable to be bothered with that stuff. Either you can be nice to fellow atheists, or you can be a total asshole. Your choice.

[gcomeau]

9. If you've been reading along I already did.

And telling you that you're incorrect isn't insulting you. If you think it is you have an issue.

(And I've heard *every* argument referenced in the video before, that doesn't alter that your description was inaccurate... it doesn't have the first thing to do with it actually so I'm having trouble figuring out why you even bothered trying to claim something about it)



Just to repeat myself slightly more explicitly though, the super short description of the video is that it is a description of the concept of the burden of proof and various techniques used to try and avoid meeting it.

Those techniques are of course completely independent of whatever argument it is the person using them is trying to avoid meeting their burden on... whether it be for God, or ghosts, or psychic were-walruses.

[nonoyes]

10. Of course, you are right.

Have a nice life.

[nonoyes]

11. You are so much more capable to summarize a 10 minute video

than I am.

You really should have been given more acclimation in real life than I got.

Yeah you DO really show off your superior analysis skills, and got so far in life with your attitude to make me look so stupid.

You won, and you feel so superior to me, how nice of you. A simple analysis didn't make you happy, but you had to show off your superior analysis......so wonderful of you to show off like this.


I look at the Gestalt, you look at each tree in the forest. How nice of you to screw up a wonderful video with your less than skillful ability to analyze reasonably, and need to assert your own superior skills.

How nice of you to show off in such an insignificant way!

Dead to me, people who insist upon showing off their superior intellect, with no diplomacy, and so little ability to think like a poet.

Just want to make sure I understand you, or make sure I know how to get you angry, for not stating things in a way you can comprehed.

[gcomeau]

12. Get help.

You gave an innacurate description and got corrected. That's it. That you appear to be interpreting this as some kind of assault your mental faculties is silly.

That you are so compulsive about it that you felt the need to go back and compose a *second* more elaborate snide offended response to that simple correction is just sad.