General Rules Of Discussion

[Jason]

Ever since Ben asked about the "burden of proof" in another thread, I've been looking for a good definition of who is required to prove what and when. The best reference is from the renowned author George H. Smith and his celebrated text: "Atheism: The Case Against God." The following quotes are from this text and I think apply quite nicely.

Hopefully we can all learn how to discuss and argue better (especially me!):

"If one presents a positive belief (ie., an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burdon of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be allowed." (15)

"Proof is applicable only in the case of a positive belief. To demand proof of the atheist, the religionist must represent atheism as a positive belief requiring substantiation. When the atheist is seen as a person who lacks belief in a god, it becomes clear that he is not obligated to "prove" anything. The atheist qua atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration; the designation of "atheist" tells us, not what he believes to be true, but what he does not believe to be true. If others wish for him to accept the existence of a god, it is their responsibility to argue for the truth of theism -- but the atheist is not similarly required to argue for the truth of atheism....Atheism refers only to the element of nonbelief in a god, and since there is no content here, no positive beliefs, the demand for proof cannot apply." (16)

[MBASS]

Ya know Jason I think you are too smart! Thats prob why, IMO, you have trouble with most religions. Religion is built on Faith, things not seen. You seem to be searching for facts and hard proof! A good friend, who is atheist, of mine....same way! He wants to analyze and hard core facts that cant be disproven. Not raggin on ya....Im complimenting your brain!

[Jason]

I guess I'll take that as a compliment.

It's not that Im opposed to all religious ideas, but I find it impossible to reconcile everyone's "truth" when they all disagree.

Im not an atheist (at least I don't think so) but some may think that due to my insistance on hard data.

[MBASS]

I dont think anyone will ever agree on truth! I enjoy your posts and opinions!

[StrawberryFields]

Ya know Jason I think you are too smart! Thats prob why, IMO, you have trouble with most religions. Religion is built on Faith, things not seen. You seem to be searching for facts and hard proof! A good friend, who is atheist, of mine....same way! He wants to analyze and hard core facts that cant be disproven. Not raggin on ya....Im complimenting your brain!

VERY GOOD MBASS!!

I think you hit the nail right on the head with Jason, something I haven't been able to do for years 'knowing' him.

[Jason]

First, I don't think there is such a thing as "too smart". That just implies that everyone else is dumb and doesn't want to know anything. It's an insult to Mormons everywhere, and I know that there are Mormons who have a higher IQ than I do.

Second, I would prefer you say that Im "too reasonable". Meaning that I apply reason instead of faith to determine truth. I agree that Im more "reasonable" than most LDS, and I'd happily take that label.

[MBASS]

Ok your dumb and reasonable..is that what you wanted...Im confused! LOL!!!!

[StrawberryFields]

You need to have things PROVEN Jason, FAITH just won't do.

What will you accomplish after you know it all?

[Ray]

Ever since Ben asked about the "burden of proof" in another thread, I've been looking for a good definition of who is required to prove what and when. The best reference is from the renowned author George H. Smith and his celebrated text: "Atheism: The Case Against God." The following quotes are from this text and I think apply quite nicely.

Hopefully we can all learn how to discuss and argue better (especially me!):

"If one presents a positive belief (ie., an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burdon of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be allowed." (15)

"Proof is applicable only in the case of a positive belief. To demand proof of the atheist, the religionist must represent atheism as a positive belief requiring substantiation. When the atheist is seen as a person who lacks belief in a god, it becomes clear that he is not obligated to "prove" anything. The atheist qua atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration; the designation of "atheist" tells us, not what he believes to be true, but what he does not believe to be true. If others wish for him to accept the existence of a god, it is their responsibility to argue for the truth of theism -- but the atheist is not similarly required to argue for the truth of atheism....Atheism refers only to the element of nonbelief in a god, and since there is no content here, no positive beliefs, the demand for proof cannot apply." (16)

It sounds to me like that atheiest was trying to get himself off the hook, by trying to convince other people that he didn't need to do anything to provide reasons concerning his positive assertions that there is in fact no God.

Andwhile I can see how that idea might appeal to you, Jason, you're on the same hook as everyone else, if you ever expect anyone to accept what you're saying when you make a postive assertion concerning your beliefs.

But as for me and my house, we don't try to convince anyone. We simply share what we believe to be true.

:)

[CaptainTux]

My problem is that the statement of George is myopic. It is a clever semantic argument to take the weight of the argument against deism off the atheist. The atheist has a clever and easy out from engaging an argument.

One could easily say it is up to the atheist to prove there is no intelligence in design and a great many other things.

It is tough when you enter any conversation with a presupposition. An atheist is given license to enter the discourse with an anti supernatural presupposition and the theist has to accept those terms. That is as myopic as the this expecting the atheist to accept the supernatural presupposition. Tough call for these two to meet in the middle.

He also fails to account for the multiple levels of proofs in an argument and when to know which one to apply.

One will prove dove soap floats or sinks by the scientific method. Onw will choose a different method for proving fraud in a court of law.

I feel that Descartes has a better model than George does in the Discourse on Method and even that is limiting and he contradicts himself in matters of reason and faith knowing that not all things can he handled by his method. His conflict on matters of reason and faith show that not all topics can rely on so simplistic a method for truth.

[Jason]

Ok your dumb and reasonable..is that what you wanted...Im confused! LOL!!!!

Something like that. (How about average intelligence but very reasonable?

You need to have things PROVEN Jason, FAITH just won't do.

What will you accomplish after you know it all?

Therein lay the key. I don't need to "know it all". I just need to know myself. Self Illumination.

<div class='quotemain'>

Ever since Ben asked about the "burden of proof" in another thread, I've been looking for a good definition of who is required to prove what and when. The best reference is from the renowned author George H. Smith and his celebrated text: "Atheism: The Case Against God." The following quotes are from this text and I think apply quite nicely.

Hopefully we can all learn how to discuss and argue better (especially me!):

"If one presents a positive belief (ie., an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burdon of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be allowed." (15)

"Proof is applicable only in the case of a positive belief. To demand proof of the atheist, the religionist must represent atheism as a positive belief requiring substantiation. When the atheist is seen as a person who lacks belief in a god, it becomes clear that he is not obligated to "prove" anything. The atheist qua atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration; the designation of "atheist" tells us, not what he believes to be true, but what he does not believe to be true. If others wish for him to accept the existence of a god, it is their responsibility to argue for the truth of theism -- but the atheist is not similarly required to argue for the truth of atheism....Atheism refers only to the element of nonbelief in a god, and since there is no content here, no positive beliefs, the demand for proof cannot apply." (16)

It sounds to me like that atheiest was trying to get himself off the hook, by trying to convince other people that he didn't need to do anything to provide reasons concerning his positive assertions that there is in fact no God.

Andwhile I can see how that idea might appeal to you, Jason, you're on the same hook as everyone else, if you ever expect anyone to accept what you're saying when you make a postive assertion concerning your beliefs.

But as for me and my house, we don't try to convince anyone. We simply share what we believe to be true.

:)

Obviously logic and philosophy are above your reach right now Ray.

It is tough when you enter any conversation with a presupposition. An atheist is given license to enter the discourse with an anti supernatural presupposition and the theist has to accept those terms. That is as myopic as the this expecting the atheist to accept the supernatural presupposition. Tough call for these two to meet in the middle.

First off, I admit that the quotes were short. I just wanted a simply definition that hopefully everyone could grasp. As you can see, even this elementary definition is beyond the reach of some posters here.

Now, I don't know if you've read Smiths book, but it does talk about two types of atheists. One is atheistic because he presumably has never been taught about gods. This type of atheist has no presupposition because he has never encountered theism. The other has learned about theism, and simply rejects any notion of gods, and is your "anti supernatural" atheist. (I'll get his exact terminology when I get home.)

Earlier in the chaper I quoted from, Smith talks about how all children are atheists. He argues (and I agree) that theism is a learned approach towards life, and that it is asserting a "positive". While it may be true that some atheists have developed a "presupposition", it is not true for all atheists.

Again, a deep semantical debate. Im not trying to defend atheism here, im just trying to establish some guidelines on how to debate. We don't have anything here, and some posters clearly don't get it.

[CaptainTux]

And I, respectfully, submit that the proposed standard has many pitfalls and is not realistic.

Frankly, by this standard it would be difficult to prove the existrance of William Shakespeare from a certain point of view.

I have read the work, it has been some time, though. I equate it with Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Though both books claim to give further explanation of their reasons and blah blah blah, they are mainly preachin to the choir (forgive the analogy).

In a moderated debate you can exact rules that both parties agree to (or not), but in a forum such as this, a wee bit more difficult and unrealistic. Sometimes ya just gotta role with it and try to meet in the middle.

[Jason]

And I, respectfully, submit that the proposed standard has many pitfalls and is not realistic.

If you'd like to propose something better, please go ahead.

[CaptainTux]

Nope. I am not sure there is a right way to have these discussions. You just play it by ear and change your step when the music changes.

In Bible College, my Soteriology and Christology teacher told me to always write my theology in pencil in case I learned I was wrong on something......which one will all through life if they have a correct perspective.

[Palerider]

I knew someone who was Atheist once....he gave it up....not enough holidays......don't worry....I won't quit my day job.......

[CaptainTux]

Oh heck with it!

In general discussion, discussion is just that, discussion.

In HS and in Colllege I was in debate team and speech team.

There are 4 types of debates

Parliamentary Debate, Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Cross Examination Debate, and Academic Debate.

Generally, the rules followed are either verbatum or variants of Competitive Debate—Rules and Techniques by George McCoy Musgrave. Here are the rules from chapter one of the book regarding proof.

Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.

This principle applies equally to the two teams. Of course, the affirmative must show that its plan is desirable, which means that it must show that some benefits will result; otherwise it has failed to give reason for adopting the plan, and has lost the debate. The commonly heard statement that "the affirmative has the burden of proof" means that and nothing more.

On the other hand, if the negative wants the judge and audience to accept the idea that there are certain defects which outweigh the plan's good points, then it must assume the burden of proving that such disadvantages actually will result.

If the negative introduces a counterplan, it has the burden of showing how it is better than the affirmative's proposal; the affirmative then has the duty of establishing any alleged objections to the counterplan. In every instance, he who asserts must prove.

Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

The amount of proof required in debating is generally less than that required in law. In law, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty in order to convict him; in debating, an assertion is established if it is supported by the weight of evidence and logic, even though there still may be room for doubt.

One further distinction is this: In law the jury may disbelieve evidence, even though its accuracy is not disputed. In debating, the judge is measuring the relative skill of the two teams, not deciding the "bedrock merits" of the matter in question. Therefore he is required to accept as valid all arguments backed with reasonable proof (as defined above) until overthrown by the opposing team.

A debate coach once remarked, "The implications here are pretty strong. Does this mean that the judge cannot penalize a team which uses a bare-faced lie as proof? Why not manufacture your evidence?" His point is well taken. Manufactured evidence is so rare in debate as to be almost non-existent, but conceivably it might happen some time. In that event, the following rule would cover the situation:

Rule 5c. Facts, presented in a debate as such, must be accurate.

If the judge is certain that the evidence is deliberately falsified, he is justified in giving the decision to the other team on this point alone. More often, it is simply a matter of interpretation of evidence, and if some error in logic is present, it is up to the other team to find it and point it out.

Rule 5d. Any restatement or quotation of an opponent's argument must be accurate.

A word-for-word quotation, in context, is ideal. This is ordinarily possible when the quotation is short or when one of the members of the team knows shorthand. Under most circumstances, however, the debater finds it necessary to paraphrase his opponent's remarks; for this purpose he needs careful notes and an understanding of his opponent's intent.

Misquotation, whether deliberate or not, unfairly places the other team in a false position and should be studiously avoided.

Rule 5e. Visual aids are permissible in debate. Once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

On international questions, one team may desire to point out certain areas on a map. If this be done, the map may also be used by the opposing team. Consequently, it should be left in plain view of the audience, not rolled up and tucked under a table after the first speaker is through with it.

Rule 5f. One-sided visual aids must not be exhibited while an opponent is speaking, unless the opponent specifically requests that this be done.

Some teams prepare an outline of their case on a large poster, and exhibit this poster during the first constructive speech. If this be done, the poster should be removed at the end of the speech so that it does not distract from the attention given the next speaker.

If the next speaker feels that the constructive speech could be refuted more effectively with the poster in front of the audience, he may ask that it be put up again, in which case his request is, of course, granted.

Preferably, visual aids should be introduced in the constructive speeches, rather than held until the rebuttals.

Take the rest of it with a grain of salt since we are not in a judged debate. However, the burden of proof is on whomever is making the assertion in a debate. Refution and Rebuttal has rules as well and does not just get to sit back smugly and watch football.

Refutation and Rebuttal

The rebuttal period is a time for refutation and summary; in fact, such emphasis has been placed on summary that some writers now refer to the "rebuttal-summary" period. Sometime one team believes that it has completely refuted the other team's arguments before the final speech starts, and then it may be devoted entirely to summary.

In all fairness to the opposing team, the constructive arguments of a team should be established in the constructive speeches, to allow time for the opposition to answer. Consequently, the following rule is well established:

Rule 8a. No new constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period.

A constructive argument is generally an alleged advantage or disadvantage in one of the proposed plans. All such arguments must be brought out in the constructive speeches.

Constructive arguments introduced in the rebuttal must be disregarded by the judge, with only one exception:

Rule 8b. New constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period if the rebuttal is the first opportunity to answer a direct question and if these new arguments answer the question.

The long-standing policy against new constructive arguments in the rebuttal period exists to protect teams from the last-minute introduction of new arguments by their opponents. If a team lets down the bars by an indiscreet question, it no longer deserves this protection; accordingly, the opposition may, if it desires, take advantage of the situation by introducing new constructive arguments in rebuttal. Such instances are rare because most teams find it desirable to introduce their constructive arguments early enough in the debate to support them with adequate evidence.

Rule 8c. Refutation may take place in any part of the debate and is not limited to the rebuttal period.

The above rule is so well understood that its mention would be unnecessary were it not that sometimes young debaters claim otherwise. "Refutation" includes the introduction of new evidence, when used to counter a point raised by the opposition.

Rule 8d. Either team, when advocating a plan of action, must explain that plan early enough in the debate so that the opposing team has a constructive speech in which to reply.

Advantages and disadvantages in a proposed plan of action are generally considered new constructive arguments; and new constructive arguments are not permitted in rebuttal (Rule 8a). Therefore, each team must give the other an opportunity to bring out new arguments of this kind before the rebuttals begin.

From the standpoint of the affirmative team, the rule is not particularly important. The affirmative can delay the explanation of its plan until the second constructive speech if it chooses, since the negative still has a constructive speech in which to bring out the defects of the plan before the rebuttals.

From the standpoint of the negative team, however, the rule is significant. Where there are only two constructive speeches per team, the negative must propose any counterplan in its first constructive speech. If the negative waits until the second constructive speech to introduce the counterplan, the affirmative is forced to ignore it or present new constructive arguments in rebuttal.

If the affirmative is on its toes when the negative violates this principle, it can refuse to discuss the matter, pointing out that the negative left it no constructive time in which to bring out the disadvantages. The judge then considers the counterplan irrelevant, out of the debate, and does not consider it in his decision. This, in effect, penalizes the negative.

If, on the other hand, the affirmative chooses to meet the counterplan in the short time remaining, it does so knowing full well that it will be working under a handicap. Therefore, if the affirmative elects this course it is not entitled to any special sympathy; the judge simply reaches his decision on the basis of the arguments presented.

The last affirmative rebuttal presents special problems of its own, since it is the last speech of the debate and the negative has no opportunity for reply. One such problem is covered by this principle:

Rule 8e. The affirmative must, if possible, reply to the major negative arguments before the last rebuttal.

Suppose this rule were not followed. Suppose, for instance, that the affirmative had opportunity to answer some important negative argument earlier in the debate, but failed to do so until the last speech. The negative, having no speech in which to reply, is unfairly handicapped.

If the negative rebuttalist anticipates this problem, he can make the affirmative look very bad by pointing out, as he summarizes, that the affirmative had opportunity to answer this argument earlier, and they did not do so, so any new defense dragged out at the last minute is under suspicion.

Suppose, however, that the negative does not anticipate the problem, and the affirmative does step out of bounds in that final speech. Suppose, for example, that the final speech contains a serious misquotation, or inaccurate facts that seem rather important, or new constructive arguments. What protection does the negative have? What can it do?

There are two methods for preventing unfairness of this kind. Either (1) the judge must be required to recognize and discard such material from the last rebuttal, or (2) some method must be developed to permit the negative to call the attention of the judge and audience to the situation. Since the negative team can recognize inaccurate quotations or facts more easily than the judge, the following rule seems to provide the preferable solution:

Rule 8f. If the negative believes that the affirmative is making unfair use of the last rebuttal, it may ask for the floor to point out the situation. The affirmative may then defend the statements in question or correct them and apologize.

If the judge determines that the negative charges are true, he penalizes the affirmative by throwing out the arguments in question. If he determines that the negative charges are unjustified, no action is necessary. It seems preferable for the judge to state, before the affirmative speaker resumes his remarks, whether the arguments are to be thrown out or not, for only in this way will the affirmative rebuttalist know whether to continue in the same vein.

The judge makes no distinction between the last rebuttal and any other speech unless the negative points out some unfairness.

The time consumed in appeals and their settlement is not counted.

So, do with that what you will.

[Snow]

Ever since Ben asked about the "burden of proof" in another thread, I've been looking for a good definition of who is required to prove what and when. The best reference is from the renowned author George H. Smith and his celebrated text: "Atheism: The Case Against God." The following quotes are from this text and I think apply quite nicely.

Hopefully we can all learn how to discuss and argue better (especially me!):

"If one presents a positive belief (ie., an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burdon of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be allowed." (15)

"Proof is applicable only in the case of a positive belief. To demand proof of the atheist, the religionist must represent atheism as a positive belief requiring substantiation. When the atheist is seen as a person who lacks belief in a god, it becomes clear that he is not obligated to "prove" anything. The atheist qua atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration; the designation of "atheist" tells us, not what he believes to be true, but what he does not believe to be true. If others wish for him to accept the existence of a god, it is their responsibility to argue for the truth of theism -- but the atheist is not similarly required to argue for the truth of atheism....Atheism refers only to the element of nonbelief in a god, and since there is no content here, no positive beliefs, the demand for proof cannot apply." (16)

I've got his book by the way.

I think that he adopts that stance because it makes his position easier to argue. He starts with the default position that in the absence of proof there is no god. Why not start with the default position that there is a god and that arguing that there is no god is a positive belief requiring proof? 1. Because it makes his case harder to argue, and 2. I think it is fair to say that more people throughout history have believed in a higher power - that is it seems to be the more natural position to start from.

[Jason]

Thanks CT.

Snow,

Why not start with the default position that there is a god and that arguing that there is no god is a positive belief requiring proof? 1. Because it makes his case harder to argue, and 2. I think it is fair to say that more people throughout history have believed in a higher power - that is it seems to be the more natural position to start from.

I see where you're going here. The problem is that we don't have a control group of people raised in an environment without theism, to sufficiently prove whether a belief in theism is really a "natural" thing.

Would I believe in a higher power had it not been pushed into my head? I doubt it, but without a proper test, who can say for sure? Then again, there are kids in the world who don't believe in Santa Claus. Why? Because nobody ever told them about him. Do those kids get presents? Some probably do. Do they realize it's from santa? Not likely. See where Im going? (And why am I the one defending the atheists here?)

[Snow]

Thanks CT.

Snow,

Why not start with the default position that there is a god and that arguing that there is no god is a positive belief requiring proof? 1. Because it makes his case harder to argue, and 2. I think it is fair to say that more people throughout history have believed in a higher power - that is it seems to be the more natural position to start from.

I see where you're going here. The problem is that we don't have a control group of people raised in an environment without theism, to sufficiently prove whether a belief in theism is really a "natural" thing.

Would I believe in a higher power had it not been pushed into my head? I doubt it, but without a proper test, who can say for sure? Then again, there are kids in the world who don't believe in Santa Claus. Why? Because nobody ever told them about him. Do those kids get presents? Some probably do. Do they realize it's from santa? Not likely. See where Im going? (And why am I the one defending the atheists here?)

There may not be a controlled control group but you can look at the whole of human history as a virtual control group. Would humanity, as a whole, over time, in general, gravitate towards the default position? Sure, an individual or group might be under the influence of the parents or authorities but whose influence are the parents under... and before that?

On balance man would tend towards the default, if not because it is true, then at least because it is most natural to the human psyche which would it a good default to argue from.

[CaptainTux]

I would love to have a formal debate with an atheist...even in a team setting. The closest I got was a one on one debate when I was 21. I choose the assertion of believing in miracles and my opponent chose miracles do not happen. I won that one hands down.

[Snow]

I would love to have a formal debate with an atheist...even in a team setting. The closest I got was a one on one debate when I was 21. I choose the assertion of believing in miracles and my opponent chose miracles do not happen. I won that one hands down.

Preytell how did you win that one hands down since a miracle cannot be proven to have been supernaturally miraculous?

[Traveler]

Ever since Ben asked about the "burden of proof" in another thread, I've been looking for a good definition of who is required to prove what and when. The best reference is from the renowned author George H. Smith and his celebrated text: "Atheism: The Case Against God." The following quotes are from this text and I think apply quite nicely.

I disagree, the burden of proof is always with the person that desires the truth. To the fool that does not care there is never enough proof of anything.

The Traveler

[CaptainTux]

Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

The amount of proof required in debating is generally less than that required in law. In law, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty in order to convict him; in debating, an assertion is established if it is supported by the weight of evidence and logic, even though there still may be room for doubt.

One further distinction is this: In law the jury may disbelieve evidence, even though its accuracy is not disputed. In debating, the judge is measuring the relative skill of the two teams, not deciding the "bedrock merits" of the matter in question. Therefore he is required to accept as valid all arguments backed with reasonable proof (as defined above) until overthrown by the opposing team.

I went with some events in the news that had occurred in the last 5 years at that point and then showed that the scientific method for proving things is great in a controlled environment. I used 2 visual aids. I had a fishbowl and dumped dove soap in it to show it would float and I could do this over and over in a controlled environment. I then grabbed a small mr potato head and claimed it had wept three days ago. I can investigate the toy for ducts, tubes, and other trickery, but I could not repeat the event. I further said I could not repeat the healing of a blind person or the raising of the dead. Miracles are unique events.

I pro actively put science into question knowing that was his only trump card on me. I proved miracles by putting the reasonable question that there is more to this world than science knows and understands at this point. It was a little song and dance, but the judges took the bait.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

I would love to have a formal debate with an atheist...even in a team setting. The closest I got was a one on one debate when I was 21. I choose the assertion of believing in miracles and my opponent chose miracles do not happen. I won that one hands down.

Preytell how did you win that one hands down since a miracle cannot be proven to have been supernaturally miraculous?

I was thinking the same thing. Except even if you could prove a miracle, how would that prove that some god (pick your pleasure) was responsible?

<div class='quotemain'>

Ever since Ben asked about the "burden of proof" in another thread, I've been looking for a good definition of who is required to prove what and when. The best reference is from the renowned author George H. Smith and his celebrated text: "Atheism: The Case Against God." The following quotes are from this text and I think apply quite nicely.

I disagree, the burden of proof is always with the person that desires the truth. To the fool that does not care there is never enough proof of anything.

The Traveler

So what if the person who desires the truth is the atheist?

[Traveler]

I would love to have a formal debate with an atheist...even in a team setting. The closest I got was a one on one debate when I was 21. I choose the assertion of believing in miracles and my opponent chose miracles do not happen. I won that one hands down.

I had a formal debate with an atheist about the existence of G-d. We debated at work during our lunch hour. After a couple of months I conceded that he won. When I found out what he thought was G-d I agreeded with him and said that I do not believe that such a G-d exist either.

The Traveler

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Ever since Ben asked about the "burden of proof" in another thread, I've been looking for a good definition of who is required to prove what and when. The best reference is from the renowned author George H. Smith and his celebrated text: "Atheism: The Case Against God." The following quotes are from this text and I think apply quite nicely.

I disagree, the burden of proof is always with the person that desires the truth. To the fool that does not care there is never enough proof of anything.

The Traveler

So what if the person who desires the truth is the atheist?

How can someone desire truth and have their mind made up? If someone wants to know the truth about electrons it is up to them to consider opinions and determine how to validate. If they do not know how to validate a thing they make a big mistake in assuming anything. Especially if they assume someone else must figure it out before they will consider it.

The Traveler