Burden of proof

[DavidDvorkin]

The GD reaction to Hawking's statement about Heaven and God shows again that theists just don't understand that the burden of proof is on them, not on non-believers.

[laconicsax]

1. That's standard.

It goes hand in hand with the "burden of proof is on the reader" maxim of theists.

[truebrit71]

2. It's a really interesting thread though...

...and I too have had the "prove it doesn't exist" line thrown at me...Made me grin...

[Ninjaneer]

3. I keep offering them

Tea, but none of them seem to want to drink. :shrug:

[DavidDvorkin]

7. I wish Russell's teapot were taught in schools to very young children

They'd find it amusing and would probably respond well to the argument.

[Ninjaneer]

8. It might end up in that

children's book on critical thinking Richard Dawkins is considering writing. At least I hope. :)

Here's a http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html">link. He mentions it in there.

[Odin2005]

4. That thread is maddening.

And I was annoyed by a poster I usually agree with lambasting me about denying "universal consciousness".

[laconicsax]

5. But don't you know? If you use ambiguous terms in excessively broad contexts, you're always right.

:banghead:

[sudopod]

16. What does "universal consciousness" even mean? :3 nt

[laconicsax]

6. On that thread, I'm reminded of late 2002/early 2003.

During the lead-in to Iraq, Kofi Annan spoke out against invasion, and the news reader on Faux said after playing the clip, "...a great man, but sometimes great men go wrong."

Compare that to the "Hawking's a brilliant man, but he's talking out of his ass" comments.

Can you see a difference? I can't.

[laconicsax]

9. Oh, and it's been moved to R/T

Wheee! :banghead:

[DavidDvorkin]

10. Sheesh.

[Ninjaneer]

11. If I had a dollar for every person in that thread who doesn't understand the

burden of proof concept...:crazy:

Even funnier is that for every patient, logical person attempting to explain, 3 new idiots post saying "AH! but the BoP is on Hawking!"

[laconicsax]

12. Just like those who accept evolution!

For every person who understands and accepts evolution, you get 3 more who pop up and say 'gawd did it' or 'I dunno.'

I sometimes wonder if there's a correlation...

[Ninjaneer]

19. Stupid people breed more than the intelligent/rational?

:shrug:

[onager]

13. What could possibly be worse? Well, this...

Michael Wenham writing in the Guardian.

He claims Hawking is dead wrong about an afterlife, and Wenham has PROOF!!!

Strangely enough, my theory that there is a form of life after we die is not some sort of wishful thinking. It's based on evidence. If the brain is a computer, then, when I was studying where Stephen Hawking now teaches, I came on a mass of data of which the most convincing, the neatest, explanation was that death is not the end of life...

And what's his evidence? And what data is it based on?

You won't believe it. I mean, you literally won't believe it.

Linked to the Pharyngula thread, in case you haven't had your FDA daily required minimum of snark:

On edit: it would probably be nice if I included the damn link. Sheesh! Sorry, long day...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/how_not_to_argue_with_hawking.php

[laconicsax]

14. I believe it.

It's not even close to the craziest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Compare to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK6tkcxAHIw#t=2m7s

[onager]

15. I was making a bad joke...

That none of in this forum would believe his "proof" - JEBUS! - since we're all non-believers in here. Except for our Watchers.

I probably should not attempt humor late in the day...

Craziest thing I ever heard? In the religion dept., I wouldn't know how to begin ranking the crazy things in a search for Number One.

Thanks for that link - some truly serious crazy.

Back in long-ago days of the internet, I hung out at an atheist board with one name-changing troll. He would come in and spend waste an hour or so asking detailed questions about atheism. People would patiently respond to him. Then he would start asking about evolution and science...and end by offering the Grand Canyon as scientific proof of Noah's flood. At least he was entertaining, the first couple of times.

[DavidDvorkin]

22. That's truly awful.

[DavidDvorkin]

23. And here's another equally serious challenge to Hawking:

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/stephen-hawking-vs-colton-burpo-does-heaven-exist_b30596

[elleng]

17. 'Burden of proof?' Its a matter of 'faith,' either got it or don't, NOT 'proof.'

[Ninjaneer]

18. In that case the religious should

stop howling with outrage every time anyone dismisses their fairy tales as such. As soon as they play the "prove that he doesn't exist" card (usually while asking for special concessions to be made for religion), they've walked into the world of logical and rational thought. A place where religion can't survive.

Keep religion out of that sphere, recognize that it is your right to believe ridiculous things but it will be treated as such, and no one will bring up 'burden of proof'.

[Evoman]

20. To them, God is the null hypothesis.

Like I said in another thread, it comes from thousands of years of no dissenting thoughts. It's a given in their minds....and the absurdity of asking for proof of non-existence is the both dumbfounding and terrifying in it's implication. That people can be so absolutely devoid of logic and reason.......

We've failed somewhere. In school, in life....I want to suggest more scientific training, more courses in logic. But at this point, I don't think it matters.....I don't think it would make one bit of difference.

[FiveGoodMen]

24. Let's not forget that their side has the world's biggest and most pervasive network

of indoctrination centers anywhere.

They start brainwashing their kids at a very young age and use group pressure and fear on them till they crack.

Then they get booster shots AT LEAST once a week.

What mindset wouldn't become 'obvious' after that kind of assault?

[Deep13]

21. Anything at all can be assumed.

It's not that there is some divine command that says "Thou who hath proposed existence shalt beareth the burden of proof." It's just practically, it would be impossible to prove anything if every idea were just assumed to be true until disproved. And when they take umberage at being compared to santa claus or pink unicorns, they insist such a comparison is ridiculous and insulting (I grant them the second one) but cannot explain just why god is not as ridiculous.