this post was submitted on
737 points (80% like it)
968 up votes 231 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,223,641 readers

1,595 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
AtheistVids atheismbot secularstudents
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
11/9-11 Skepticon - Springfield MO
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

736
737

Gervais on burden of proof. (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by [deleted]

all 86 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]Squalor- 5 points6 points ago

The burden of proof is on us because god said so, duh...

[–]idontwanttobelieve 1 point2 points ago

Because.... God!

[–]azertyqsdf 5 points6 points ago

"athiest" ? Now I'm all for advocating atheism, but at least learn to spell it correctly !

[–]Nyprongx35 3 points4 points ago

Better to be agnostic, then you cal tell both sides to prove their side of the story.

[–]paranode 3 points4 points ago

Most agnostics are atheists whether they admit it or not. Atheism does not require one to assert with absolute certainty that there are no gods.

[–]Nyprongx35 0 points1 point ago

athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\ Definition of ATHEISM 1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\ Definition of AGNOSTIC 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Now there are such things as agnostic atheists and agnostic theist as well that you might be referring to but by definition Atheism and being Agnostic is pretty literal in its meaning. You say most agnostics are atheists, so you must mean most agnostics are agnostic atheist, and this may be plausible but of course I would require additional research to know for sure.

[–]3DBeerGoggles 2 points3 points ago

From the American Atheists:

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

[–]Sometimes_Retarded 0 points1 point ago

Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries

This is when I knew that this was bullshit.

[–]3DBeerGoggles 0 points1 point ago

I'll admit, that part is way too editorializing. Although, I do think it's kind of odd that dictionaries only address it in a monotheistic context.

I left that in because I wanted to quote it "warts and all".

[–]Nyprongx35 1 point2 points ago

"From the American Atheists:"

Thanks for clarifying your source being from an organizational atheist website. Great opinions on varying topics of what atheism is and isn't on that website in the form of essays.

According to the website: "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools:"

[–]3DBeerGoggles 1 point2 points ago

Great opinions on varying topics of what atheism is and isn't on that website in the form of essays.

Correct, but I only wished to point out that a large group of atheists seem to disagree with the "dictionary definition" of atheism doesn't reflect their beliefs. I reflect this, as I have yet to meet any "atheists" that actually meet the definition you provided.

[–]Nyprongx35 0 points1 point ago

Correct.... and that's why the term of Agnosticism was established to apply those that have a position of uncertainty, of any level of uncertainty of whether a deity exists or not.

[–]Droviin 0 points1 point ago

A lack of a belief would mean that you claim neither that their is or their isn't a god. You hold no propositions that address the question.

[–]3DBeerGoggles 0 points1 point ago

I disagree. If someone comes up to you and asks "I have an unicorn in my garage at home, do you believe me?"

Well, with a lack of evidence to support the claim, I would be inclined to say "No". Does it mean that I actively disbelieve in unicorns, or does it mean I am unconvinced?

Perhaps to make a more scientific comparison, let's say String Theory. Now, you might look at String theory and say "Well, it has some interesting ideas, but I'm not sure that it's a complete explanation".

Does that mean you actively believe string theory is wrong?

So, my lack of belief in the garage kept unicorn is only a statement that I am unconvinced by the story. It does not suddenly become my job to prove there are no unicorns in the garage, or that they are impossible. Maybe there is a unicorn, insubstantial and undetectable - but the mere possibility thereof does not mean I have a good reason to think it true.

An opinion on an existing claim is not in itself, a claim. At the biggest stretch, you could say it is a claim regarding your opinion.

[–]Droviin 0 points1 point ago

Anything that you hold as true is one of your beliefs. This can be a thoughtful assessment or just a background assumption.

One don't need to believe that unicorns don't exist to believe that someone doesn't have one in the garage. Likewise, one doesn't have to have a belief about string theory's accuracy (or it's inaccuracy), rather they can believe it exists as a theory and that it has certain predictions and content, i.e., you can believe that there is a theory called string theory and you can believe that it has certain content.

Belief does, in part track credibility insofar that you hold neither a proposition nor it's negation as true.

Of course, you don't need to even be conscious of the belief to have it. Perhaps you have a conscious opinion on the matter, but it's the case that you wouldn't ever act in accordance with either that there is or that there is the possibility of a unicorn in the garage. Is a belief that there isn't, I don't know, but arguably it is.

If you have an epistemic opinion on the matter, then you would not have a belief about the metaphysics, but you would have an opinion on the epistemological aspects.

Basically, the American Atheists would at best leave you with agnosticism and not atheism. The label atheist is properly applied to those who deny god's (gods') existence, i.e., those who make the metaphysical claim and not those who withhold judgment from it.

[–]DollarsThanSense 0 points1 point ago

Better to be an outspoken atheist than it is to live as a hypocrite - George Harrison.

[–]Nyprongx35 0 points1 point ago

How is being an agnostic a hypocrite. Atheists claim that there is no God, Theists claim there is a God. Agnostics don't have a claim because there isn't strong enough empirical evidence showing either is true, that makes us a hypocrite? Lol...

[–]Grindstone50k -1 points0 points ago

Atheism doesn't have a story to prove. Therefore, win.

[–]petzl20 0 points1 point ago

CHECKMATE, THEISTS

[–]Legault -1 points0 points ago

Atheism may not have the burden of proof, but it's still a belief. It involves analyzing the evidence available for a god and then choosing to consider that evidence sufficient or insufficient. There's nothing "objective" or "neutral" about that.

[–]Grindstone50k 5 points6 points ago

Atheism may not have the burden of proof, but it's still a belief.

Not believing is a belief?

[–]Sometimes_Retarded 3 points4 points ago

No, the belief is this: You believe that there is no god. It's as simple as that. Some people believe there is.

Believing that there is no god and not believing in god are the god damn same thing.

Why argue about wordplay? Fuck me if I know.

[–]kafkadre[!] 0 points1 point ago

Just found out that I have an infinite amount of beliefs, because there are an infinite amount of things I don't believe in.

KLaMdalowieqp, the God of non-existence, whom I just made up and don't believe in, is now another non-belief belief I hold dearly. /sarcasm

[–]Droviin 1 point2 points ago

Well, there is a belief whenever you hold a proposition that can be either true or false. Insofar as you haven't thought of it or forgot or likewise, then you can say you hold no belief. When you say that you do hold that god doesn't exist, or colloquially "I don't believe in a god", then you have a belief.

[–]Droviin 1 point2 points ago

Do you hold that: "there is no god"? Because that's a belief.

[–]They_are_coming 1 point2 points ago

No, he's actually correct. Atheists believe that God does not exist, rather than believing that we have no way to know if God exists. Many Atheists look at it incorrectly. The whole idea that since we can't prove God does exist, that means he doesn't exist, is scientifically weak.

Agnostics believe there is no real way whether you can know if God exists or does not exist.

[–]Legault 0 points1 point ago

Mm, well put. Though I'd contend that agnosticism is still a belief as well, although on a lesser scale (instead of making a claim about God, it's a claim about how little we can know about God).

[–]Legault 0 points1 point ago

You believe there isn't a God. This is true for all us atheists: we've been presented with the proposition of a God, have weighed the available evidence, and have concluded that it's insufficient or unconvincing. Belief.

[–]Athurio 2 points3 points ago

Is that some sort of, "I think, therefore, I am" argument?

[–]Grindstone50k 2 points3 points ago

I don't believe, therefore, I believe?

[–]petzl20 0 points1 point ago

I'm so tired of this false equating of theism and atheism.

[–]Legault 0 points1 point ago

They're only "equal" in that they're beliefs. Which is true. It's also true that religion has an element of faith, making it less appealing to the empirically-minded. I'm simply trying to be fair, not biased.

[–]paranode 1 point2 points ago

It requires no more analysis than not believing in a flying teapot orbiting the sun. It's only if you were convinced to believe in the teapot that you would have to choose to stop believing.

[–]Droviin 2 points3 points ago

Right, but you still have a belief about it. Even Russell would say so.

[–]paranode 1 point2 points ago

Agnostics are no different in that respect.

[–]Droviin 0 points1 point ago

Maybe, unless they say that it is impossible to tell whether it is true or not and thus takes the claim out of the possibility of belief.

[–]Legault 0 points1 point ago

The claim that "We can't know X" is still a belief, one based on the criteria for knowledge.

[–]3DBeerGoggles -1 points0 points ago

but it's still a belief

In as much as my hobby of not collecting bottles is a hobby.

[–]Droviin 1 point2 points ago

Belief: the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

Insofar as you take anything true, you have beliefs. Insofar as you assume anything true you have beliefs. I'm willing to bet that you have beliefs.

[–]3DBeerGoggles -1 points0 points ago

I'm willing to bet that you have beliefs.

Yes, I have beliefs - outside of religion. I suppose, given the broad definition provided, I could say that my beliefs regarding gods is as follows: the existence of gods seems unlikely, given current evidence.

This is at best an opinion, and while being defensible to an extent it lacks any larger claims.

I don't claim to know for sure, because that's unreasonable - too many god claims are unfalsifiable to make that statement.

Someone believes in Yahweh, I do not. Someone else believes in Thor, I do not.

Zuul comes to Earth, revealing that it created the universe as a giant practical joke that got of hand... I'll believe that with sufficient evidence.

[–]pollacs 2 points3 points ago

I've been lurking on this thread for nearly a year now. I can definitely say r/atheism has made no progress whatsoever.

[–]nbdb -1 points0 points ago

Awesome quote

[–]jd2220 -1 points0 points ago

How many times is this going to be posted.

[–]ra4king 0 points1 point ago

Hey I've never seen this one before!

[–]DollarsThanSense 1 point2 points ago

As many times as necessary. It's a perfectly valid point and it bears repeating.

[–]moviefreak11 0 points1 point ago

yes, it's getting really old. this time with spelling mistakes though

[–]TrailMix1939 -1 points0 points ago

The dumbed down, retarded version of the already very elementary teapot argument by Bertrand Russell. Now whatever shit Ricky Gervais vomits pertaining to atheism at all, even if it is an argument that is extremely common, recycled, and reused in atheist internet debates ad nauseum, it gets upvoted.

[–]jd2220 0 points1 point ago

Yea no shit, and it gets posted so much you'd think hes the new face of atheism. I see him on reddit with these quotes so much its making me forget that hes an actual comedian/actor and not a spokesman for atheism. And ra4king if you haven't seen this before, then let me welcome you to reddit you must be very new here.

[–]EpicPenguins -5 points-4 points ago

Atheism is a purposed disbelief, not an unbelief. Atheism says there is no God; it makes an actual claim about reality. It's not about you not believing anything since that doesn't mean anything. My belief and your "I don't believe in anything" go together quite well. No one cares what you don't believe. Non-belief doesn't say anything. If you make a claim that my God isn't real, then you have to back it up. You can't just default back to "atheism doesn't have the burden of proof" because you are actually making a claim about reality. Just because you claim there is nothing doesn't mean you need nothing to back it up.

If I had to prove to Ricky Gervais that he couldn't fly, I'd take him up on top of a ~3 story building and push him off. He'd by no means die, but we'd learn pretty quickly whether or not he could fly.

[–]kevo9000 6 points7 points ago

...we'd learn pretty quickly whether or not he could fly.

That would just prove that he didn't fly, not that he couldn't.

[–]EpicPenguins -2 points-1 points ago

Up the stakes a little. 10 story building. Either he flies or he can no longer fly.

[–]Grumpy_Atheist 1 point2 points ago

Unless he's suicidal.

[–]EpicPenguins -1 points0 points ago

Then he is no longer suicidal.

[–]Grumpy_Atheist -1 points0 points ago

Fixed.

[–]Grumpy_Atheist 1 point2 points ago

Atheism says there is no God

That depends on whether you're talking about gnostic atheism or agnostic atheism. I think it's fair to say that most people who claim atheism are claiming agnostic atheism, as it'd be quite a challenge to prove that there cannot be a god.

So I think common atheism isn't making the claim that there cannot be a god. The "claim" they make is that they personally don't believe there is, and I rarely see someone try to prove there cannot possibly be a god.

TL;DR, I'd say that most atheists passively disbelieve, rather than believe in an impossibility. Assuming the passive disbelief, I'd say the theist making the claim should back up his/her claim.

Of course, if you encounter a gnostic atheist, then go ahead and demand some sort of proof.

[–]TheBrownie 1 point2 points ago

Can I see a source on the claims:

I think it's fair to say that most people who claim atheism are claiming agnostic atheism

I'd say that most atheists passively disbelieve

If no source exists please complete a giant study with no major biases before I accept. Thanks

[–]Grumpy_Atheist 0 points1 point ago

Edit: I just now saw this was a response to the "5 out of 5 doctors" post. Please ignore my previous diatribe, and nice example!

[–]EpicPenguins -2 points-1 points ago

In the context over an argument of burden of proof, it's safe to assume (let's all freak out because I said assume) that we're talking about gnostic. If we were talking about agnostic atheism, then we have no trouble because it doesn't actually make a claim. It's fine and dandy over what one personally believes. It only matters when they are actively saying that God isn't real or that unicorns aren't cool or whatever.

It's probably true that most people are agnostic atheists, but they hope on the gnostic train every now and then because it suits them. But even if it's a passive disbelief, you can't criticize me about my stuff without opening yourself to my criticisms.

[–]Grumpy_Atheist -1 points0 points ago

Yeah, I think we're on the same page, then. As long as we both agree that theism has the burden of proof against those who make no claim, that is (and that it's fair to pass the burden to gnostic atheists). I think that's what you said. Maybe?

[–]EpicPenguins 1 point2 points ago

Theists and gnostics both have the burden of proof. Each would have the burden of proof if he were to find a skeptic. Those that make no claim have no burden of proof, but that renders moot any potential argument.

[–]Grinstall -1 points0 points ago

In the context over an argument of burden of proof, it's safe to assume (let's all freak out because I said assume) that we're talking about gnostic.

Why assume gnostic? If both sides are making a claim, they both have a burden of proof for that claim. I don't think that's any less obvious than the side not making the claim not having a burden of proof.

[–]EpicPenguins 0 points1 point ago

Theists and gnostic atheists both make claims. We can assume we are talking about gnostic when talking about burden of proof since agnostic doesn't need burden of proof since it makes no claim. It's pointless to argue that those that don't make claims need no burden of proof since it's obvious. We have to point it out since some aren't aware that the majority of forms of atheism make no claims about reality.

[–]3DBeerGoggles 0 points1 point ago

Well, I'm happy to scroll down and find you're on the same page regarding gnostic/agnostic atheism. I do have a question though: Why assume gnostic? It seems that gnostic atheism is an uncommon claim as a whole - I have yet to run into anyone myself that actually does.

[–]EpicPenguins 0 points1 point ago

Because gnostic is the only one that needs burden of proof. It makes no sense to argue whether agnostic needs the burden since you can't back up a non-existent claim. Lot of atheists act like gnostics in the way they say things and scoff at religious people and the like for every other issue, but when it comes to the burden of proof they default back to agnostic so that they don't have to prove anything.

And diehard gnostics certainly are few and far between.

[–]chuckknucka 2 points3 points ago

Atheism says there is no God

Not true. The literal definition of atheism is "without god" or not believing in god. Some atheists choose to make a stronger claim and say that there is no god. In that case, the burden of proof is on the atheist who needs to prove his claim that there is no god. But proving that something doesn't exist is impossible.

He'd by no means die, but we'd learn pretty quickly whether or not he could fly.

Only if he actually flew could you make a definitive statement about his flying abilities. In other words, that wouldn't be a sufficient proof.

[–]EpicPenguins 0 points1 point ago

If we are going to get done to literals, the term atheos was coined in the Greek as an insult to those who rejected the gods. Skeptics were just skeptics. When the term was adopted later into English, it gained the secondary meaning of "those without belief" and eventually lost the derogatory nature. Then the secondary definition became the primary.

It's not impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. Go back to the main of /r/Atheism and look for the posts about starving children in Africa or about the problem of evil.

Would he choose not to fly just to spite me? If he were so intent on proving his flying prowess, then he would fly. I can't make him fly. But he also can't prove it if he doesn't. We are then at an impasse.

[–]Helterskelters 0 points1 point ago

How does starving children and "evil" have anything to do with god?

[–]EpicPenguins 0 points1 point ago

Something along the lines of "If your God is so loving, why does He let children in Africa starve to death?"

And the Epicurean dilemma: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Many state that a perfectly good God would destroy evil out of his benevolence. They assume that a perfectly good God would have to destroy evil because of His character, and since evil still exists, then God is either not omnibelevolent, omnipotent, or God at all.

[–]painperdu 1 point2 points ago

It's not that I just don't believe in any god. It's that I don't believe in your god. I don't believe in what you tell me about god. You can put whatever name you want to my disbelief but it remains the same and I still don't believe what you say about your god.

[–]EpicPenguins 0 points1 point ago

Then you are not a Christian. Not believing in a particular religion doesn't make you an atheist. Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Deist, just not atheist.

[–]Directors_Cut 2 points3 points ago

Unicorn denialism is a purposed disbelief, not an unbelief. Unicorn denialism says there are no unicorns; it makes an actual claim about reality. It's not about you not believing anything since that doesn't mean anything. My belief in unicorns and your "I don't believe in unicorns" go together quite well. No one cares what you don't believe. Non-belief doesn't say anything. If you make a claim that unicorns aren't real, then you have to back it up. You can't just default back to "unicorn denialism doesn't have the burden of proof" because you are actually making a claim about reality. Just because you claim there are no unicorns doesn't mean you need nothing to back it up.

Does that make sense?

[–]EpicPenguins 0 points1 point ago

It seems fine to me. Those that either say that unicorns are real or unicorns aren't real both need to back it up. If you're trying to make a point, being less subtle would be appreciated.

[–]Directors_Cut 0 points1 point ago

Do unicorns continue to exist, unless proven otherwise?

[–]EpicPenguins 0 points1 point ago

No. The default is skepticism. Each side would be responsible for proving the existence or non-existence of unicorns.

[–]jstev612 -1 points0 points ago

does anyone else hate these super tacky "quote on a picture" images?

[–]stitchesandlace -1 points0 points ago

This is like the 3rd or 4th repost on the front page today. >.<

[–]Chester2707 -2 points-1 points ago

Fuck. Yes.

[–]amolad 0 points1 point ago

For a lot of people, the burden of proof is on Gervais to prove he's funny.

[–]pack_yo_lunch -2 points-1 points ago

I think that the re-branding of atheism (as a lack of belief) over the past 10 years has led to intellectual and philosophical laziness.

It enables people who have not thoroughly grappled with the issues to memorize 2 or 3 talking points and regurgitate them instead of thinking. These talking points are often misunderstood and misapplied to boot.

[–]DollarsThanSense 1 point2 points ago

What has been misunderstood or misapplied in this case? Can you go into some further details, or do you only deal in rhetoric?

[–]pack_yo_lunch -2 points-1 points ago

Nothing in this meme. Just a general grievance. But I can demonstrate it for you if you like. I'll play devil's advocate, you just be you. Game?

[–]DollarsThanSense 1 point2 points ago

No, I called you out on it and you admitted that it was just rhetoric and that your "grievances" against the point in this submission was just blowing gas out of your ass. There's nothing more to say.

[–]pack_yo_lunch -1 points0 points ago

Well, you just proved my point. How ironic.

And I didn't admit it was "just rhetoric," so I guess there is more to say.

[–]DollarsThanSense 1 point2 points ago

Nope. I called you out. I smelled your bullshit rhetoric a mile away. Vague waffling of intellectual laziness, accusations that the point of the submission was misunderstood and misapplied. But when asked to go into any detail about what you were referring to, of course you have nothing to offer. Because it was all just BS rhetoric and you were counting on upvotes from anti-atheist sentiment alone. There will be no more replies from me, because I know that you have nothing even remotely intellectual to say.

[–]pack_yo_lunch -2 points-1 points ago

You said, can you go into further detail.

I said, yes I can, if you'd like me to demonstrate, which I was and am willing to do.

You put your fingers in year ears and scream "la la la."

You seem like a brilliant person.

because I know that you have nothing even remotely intellectual to say.

you are the embodiment of everything that is wrong with r/atheism.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 12353 on app-62 running e103ce9.