RR 2.62: Stealing Candy From an Atheist Baby

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
919 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (RationalRoundtable)

  • You're a twat, you have made me make a video. uploading now.

  • @noelplum99

    anything I can do to make you get back in the game!

see all

All Comments (184)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @OccamKant No, it's not. It's about the definition of a term.

  • @BoethianAcolyte Ok, and the situation he is talking about in the video is the express declaration to others that God exists.

  • @OccamKant My point was that the burden of proof is relative to the situation.

  • @BoethianAcolyte Then what was the point of your comment? I know what the burden of proof is, and when it comes into play.

    RR was poo-pooing it because he said this isn't a court of law. My point is - that is irrelevant. So what were you adding to the conversation?

  • @OccamKant Yeah that's . . . what I said.

  • @BoethianAcolyte The burden of proof is simply a matter of logic and practicality.

    If you want to believe something internally, and you're not talking about it to anyone, then sure, you have no burden of proof.

    But that's not what we're talking about. Theists claim that their beliefs are real. That brings into full force the burden of proof. They are telling us that they have a unicorn (Jesus). By making the claim (Jesus is real, God is real, etc), they now have to pony up the evidence.

  • @OccamKant I don't think he means that it should be disregarded, but that outside the court of law, the burden of proof doesn't work the same way. It's relative to the event. If I am trying to believe in unicorns, the burden of proof is only set to my own standards. If I am trying to convince you of a magical flying unicorn, then I am no longer just holding a belief but also turning that belief into a claim, which now has the threshold of your proof-criteria to be met.

  • @JohnHenryAlex Hmm that's an interesting point. But I still don't think I would characterize it as a lack of a belief in pixies so much as a belief that there are no pixies, with a willingness to change that were evidence presented to me. It seems strange to think that a cognitive event can be characterized as a "mere lack." That's a good distinction, however.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more