The Burden of Proof

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Contagious Locc

Contagious Locc

Sicc OG
#1
Apr 8, 2004
1,362
10
0
#1
Is it placed upon the accused or accuser? I can give a couple examples of where the burden of proof is on the accused, here are a couple of famous ones that people know or have heard about....

The Salem Witch Trials
McCarthy's investigations of the Communism

Atheism vs. Theism...Who has the burden of proof?

I would just like to know what you guys think about this because in this forum we talk about alot of things. When difference of opinions are shared I've noticed alot of people are attacked or "accused" of having a certain view or belief when actually alot of times it's nothing more than one's intrepretation of what's being read, which is one reason why I feel debate on the internet is futile. After this the person is forced to defend his or her position rather than the initial argument and this is how threads get high jacked.
 
R

rekomstop

Sicc OG
#3
Mar 4, 2007
2,678
5
0
#3
EDIT: i like your quote antoniog^^


hmm so your asking, if we think the burden of proof is ON the accused here? or on the accuser?
i think(on siccness) its half and half, if it isn't then USUALLY, not always, but usually, depending on the kind of users on at the time, someone will call it out, or back up the other person.

of course it depends on the majorities opinion.

if the majority of siccness are indeed catholic, then bashing the pope would be a lil ridiculed and called out on, if the majority of sicc are athiest, then bashing modern science, and scientific findings would be looked down upon and ridiculed, if the majority of sicc are hindus, then we'd be all peaceful and accepting lol..
jp.


but you get where i'm going, thats how it is in this society, whatever is the public opinion, or POV, will be the deciding factor on what is acceptable, and what isn't we are all dependents on this structure and have designed our way of thinking to that structure.

it makes sense from an anthropological POV. lol.
 
2-0-Sixx

2-0-Sixx

Sicc OG
#4
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#4
Contagious Locc said:
Atheism vs. Theism...Who has the burden of proof?
Click to expand...
The burden of proof lies on the Theist obviously (or the accuser).

For example if I were to say I have a purple fire breathing half human half leprechaun living in my bedroom closet, it's up to me to prove it exists if I want people to take me seriously (or at least provide evidence). Its not up to everyone else to prove it doesn't exist (and how could they if I never let them in my room??) since they aren't the ones making the claims.
 
Contagious Locc

Contagious Locc

Sicc OG
#7
Apr 8, 2004
1,362
10
0
#7
hey rekomstop, i don't think it has anything to do with the majority, well it does, but initially all it takes it someone or a group to make a wild accusation, then the majority factor or the shaping of public opinion takes place. all it takes is one idiot, literally, with the right status and/or paper behind them to throw a jacket on someone and the masses will follow because most are ill informed and/or lack critical thinking skills anyways.

hey 20sixx, it's interesting that you use the purple fire breathing leprechaun as your example because just recently i heard of something to the same effect, except this was a half human fire breathing dragon in someone's garage, but anyways, it was in a science class and the professor went on to say that the burden of proof wouldn't lie with the accuser (the person who said the creature was in their garage), but burden of proof would be on the accused (the person who says that their is no creature in the garage) because they would have to prove that the creature doesn't exist nor is in the garage. He used this as an example of explaining scientific method or proving or disproving theories.

I'm not saying I agree, I would just like to know how you would respond to that.

@Heresy

Can you give me an example(s), in regards to atheism vs theism, as to when the burden of proof changes?

Thanks to all those responding, hopefully we'll get more replies.
 
P

Puehlhofah

Member
#8
Feb 25, 2006
47
0
0
38
#8
As if your existence wasn't proof enough for god...

As long as you are not able to show me how to create life by yourself, you will have to proof against god. It is not possible.
 
2-0-Sixx

2-0-Sixx

Sicc OG
#9
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#9
Contagious Locc said:
hey 20sixx, it's interesting that you use the purple fire breathing leprechaun as your example because just recently i heard of something to the same effect, except this was a half human fire breathing dragon in someone's garage, but anyways, it was in a science class and the professor went on to say that the burden of proof wouldn't lie with the accuser (the person who said the creature was in their garage), but burden of proof would be on the accused (the person who says that their is no creature in the garage) because they would have to prove that the creature doesn't exist nor is in the garage. He used this as an example of explaining scientific method or proving or disproving theories.
Click to expand...
Hmm, yeah I would definitely disagree with your Proffessor. Especially when were dealing with a so called God. How does one prove that a God doesn't exist? If god doesn't even fit into a material sense, cannot be tested by scientific means, and cannot even be really DEFINED, how could one disprove it? My above apology about the half-man/half-leprechaun isn't actually a good one because we already know what a man is, we know it exists. We are half way there already.

I made some posts about this years back. I can't remember what I came up with exactly...I think I called it something like 2-0-Sixxopolous and painted a picture of an inviable being above the skies of Brazil that created life. How could anyone DISPROVE that? They can't. It's impossible. Same goes for the belief in God. If person A says, an unknown entity unknown to mankind which we have no idea what it is, but it does exists! How can I disprove that? What am I looking for??
 
F

Fucky McFuckerson

Sicc OG
#10
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#10
Puehlhofah said:
As if your existence wasn't proof enough for god...
Click to expand...
Irrelevant opinion to this thread.

As long as you are not able to show me how to create life by yourself, you will have to proof against god. It is not possible.
Click to expand...
The same thing could be said for someone who is on the other side of the ball. Until "god" comes down here and says "i created all you bitches", you will have to prove against science. It is not possible.
 
Contagious Locc

Contagious Locc

Sicc OG
#11
Apr 8, 2004
1,362
10
0
#11
@20sixxx

but at the same time, one cannot prove that God exists through scientific means either so how can we conclude that God does or doesn't exists if neither the theist or the athiest can prove each other wrong?

again, this is not my position, we have been down this road some years back discussing the existence of God, just discussion.
 
2-0-Sixx

2-0-Sixx

Sicc OG
#12
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#12
Contagious Locc said:
@20sixxx

but at the same time, one cannot prove that God exists through scientific means either so how can we conclude that God does or doesn't exists if neither the theist or the athiest can prove each other wrong?
Click to expand...
Well that's the thing, you cant really prove or disprove the existence of god, that's where all the fun comes in :). If you could, this debate wouldn't continue on as there would be a definite answer.

I'm atheist because I don't think it's logically possible for a god to exist. And like my purple fire breathing half-human, half leprechaun, just because I can't prove it doesn't exist doesn't mean it does exist.

Speaking of leprechaun, after all these years no one can PROVE that they don't exist, without a doubt. Same with unicorns. However we can trace back the history and the origins of when these things were first talked about, and conclude that they are fairly tales/myths. Same goes for (specific) gods as well, imo. We can trace back the origins of certain religions, what they were influenced by, who plagiarized what, etc. and make logical conclusions based on those findings.
 
HERESY

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
#13
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#13
@Heresy

Can you give me an example(s), in regards to atheism vs theism, as to when the burden of proof changes?
Click to expand...
IMHO, the burden of proof simply depends on who brings it up. If you're minding your business and some guy walks up and says, "God is real" he should be the one proving it. If you're minding your business and some guy walks up and says, "God is not real" he should be the one proving it. Now all of this makes sense in theory, and even philosphically, but it gets tricky when you look at things like court cases (which you mentioned.) So we have all these laws, rules and regulations that say a person is proven innocent until proven guilty or that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. You and I both know these things are not true. Hell, everyone else here knows these things aren't true.

Now here look at this:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

Here is the rebuttal

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/mcinerny.html
 
Jae iLL

Jae iLL

Sicc OG
#16
Jun 27, 2003
2,457
10
0
37
#16
2-0-Sixx said:
Hmm, yeah I would definitely disagree with your Proffessor. Especially when were dealing with a so called God. How does one prove that a God doesn't exist? If god doesn't even fit into a material sense, cannot be tested by scientific means, and cannot even be really DEFINED, how could one disprove it? My above apology about the half-man/half-leprechaun isn't actually a good one because we already know what a man is, we know it exists. We are half way there already.

I made some posts about this years back. I can't remember what I came up with exactly...I think I called it something like 2-0-Sixxopolous and painted a picture of an inviable being above the skies of Brazil that created life. How could anyone DISPROVE that? They can't. It's impossible. Same goes for the belief in God. If person A says, an unknown entity unknown to mankind which we have no idea what it is, but it does exists! How can I disprove that? What am I looking for??
Click to expand...
I remember a thread back in 03 or 04 where I was trynna argue that a historical Jesus existed, and you brought up the purple fire breathing dragon under your bed and then the 2-0-Sixxopolous. Funny thread, if I remember correctly.
 
Talus

Talus

Sicc OG
#17
May 14, 2002
1,355
0
0
40
#17
I agree that the burden of proof should be on the one who claims the fact, however it most often falls on the one who goes against the majority.
 
Contagious Locc

Contagious Locc

Sicc OG
#19
Apr 8, 2004
1,362
10
0
#19
2-0-Sixx said:
Speaking of leprechaun, after all these years no one can PROVE that they don't exist, without a doubt. Same with unicorns. However we can trace back the history and the origins of when these things were first talked about, and conclude that they are fairly tales/myths. Same goes for (specific) gods as well, imo. We can trace back the origins of certain religions, what they were influenced by, who plagiarized what, etc. and make logical conclusions based on those findings.
Click to expand...
In my opinion I don't even think the existence of God is a question for science at all because science can't answer it. We can't re-create the universe or the formation of the first life in some laboratory, therefore there's no way to trace back the origins of the supposed "creator of the universe". I believe that there are some things in the universe that transcends our understanding, because in reality our knowledge (exploration) of the universe stops in our solar system.

HERESY said:
IMHO, the burden of proof simply depends on who brings it up. If you're minding your business and some guy walks up and says, "God is real" he should be the one proving it. If you're minding your business and some guy walks up and says, "God is not real" he should be the one proving it. Now all of this makes sense in theory, and even philosphically, but it gets tricky when you look at things like court cases (which you mentioned.) So we have all these laws, rules and regulations that say a person is proven innocent until proven guilty or that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. You and I both know these things are not true. Hell, everyone else here knows these things aren't true.

Now here look at this:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

Here is the rebuttal

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/mcinerny.html
Click to expand...
I feel the same way. I think the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim (the accuser), but we know that's not true. Thanks for those links, I'm going to check them out when I get back in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom