"No One Can Prove Me Wrong": An Excuse For Atheist Non-Rational Denials Sans Evidence.

[Hat tip to Martin for directing me to Qualia Soup] The completely self-unaware Qualia soup explains why Atheists have no Burden of Proof, and the other guy always does. He starts by making the standard Fallacy-laden attacks on theist claims: They are based on a need to have an answer now rather than waiting on science, which he equates with the argument from ignorance; they have no explanatory power, e.g. how does divine speech create mass/energy? They fail to produce the honorable answer, which is “I don’t know”.

QS equates Theist arguments with "no one can prove me wrong" claims from all sorts of metaphysical quackery. But he is also quick to point out that all the Theist arguments definitely have already been proved wrong, in his opinion. Or maybe he is admitting that they cannot be proved wrong, and that's just wrong, again in his opinion. What he is saying in this regard depends on where you are in the conversation.

He makes the bewildering argument that one need not know everything about the universe, so Theism is of no use. But that is Special Pleading since many Atheists are scientists pursuing knowledge of the universe, so they think that sort of knowledge has value. So that argument fails at the gate.

He then proceeds with the Voidist theory of Atheism: the Atheist makes no claim other than the claim that all the Theist claims are invalid; so the Atheist needs no proof for the validity of his own claim (and it is a claim, despite the claim that the claim is not a claim). And therefore that claim is itself internally contradictory and self-defeating.

According to QS, only the claim maker has burden, yet when the Atheist claims the claim to be false, that claim is not the same thing as a claim, and need not be justified as if the claim were actually a claim. If you catch his drift.

Further according to QS:

“Theism is just one of a “ragbag” of claims, which no one needs to give credence to.”

So he claims the right to deny them along with everything else in the category labelled "Categorically Self-evidently False A Priori". Declaring them false right here up front saves so much time and effort. Unfortunately it is circular and false and irrational. It does set a tone for what's to come, though.

Further, says he, two rules for debate do not exist: only the claimant has a burden. The skeptic has no claim (other than being the claimant claiming that the other’s claim is false, for no claimed reason, no claimed logic, no claimed empirical data for support). See, by claiming that you are making no claim of rebuttal it requires no Burden of Proof for the rebuttal, if you are QS. That makes life so much easier. Skeptics merely claim that Theistic arguments fail (no need to prove that claim, it's just obvious, self-evident, like an axiom). The “real” Double Standard, claims QS, is expecting a skeptic to prove the claims which derive from his skepticism. Expecting that of a skeptic is not a good thing (for the skeptic).

In a string of remarkable claims, QS identifies his idea of a dishonest claim: “lacking the belief in the non-existence of gods”, which is just the Theist version of the Atheist claim, "lacking the belief in the existence of gods" and to QS, that sort of mimicry cannot be acceptable. So QS goes to great lengths to claim that sort of mimicry is just wrong, which he does in order to discount the Atheist's position as also being valid for Theists. This results in a prolonged exercise in Special Pleading:

[the remainder of this is directly transcribed from QS on his Burden of Proof video, and might contain unintentional typos. My comments are interspersed in brackets].

“…aping the skeptic’s position doesn’t eliminate the need for justification."

[Say what? If it works for the skeptic, then it must be allowed for the Other, too. Otherwise it is Special Pleading - Atheist hypocrisy]

"If one goes these lengths to avoid the Burden of Proof, one has to wonder about their strength of conviction. If there are sound reasons for believing in supernatural beings, why not lay out those reasons instead of wasting time in this curious denial dance? "

[Oh my yes! Lay those refutations out! Why should the Atheists get to do the dance of going to great lengths to avoid the Burden of Proof, but no one else gets to dance? Either everyone should get to dance, or no one should; fair is fair!]

" If a scientist speaking at a conference complained about the unfairness of having to present evidence for their claims, they’d empty the auditorium. But in the area of supernatural claims we consistently encounter people who are reluctant, even indignant, when reminded of their Burden of Proof."

[So all auditoriums should empty out when Atheists complain about having to present evidence for their claims. And as for metaphysical claims, one suspects that people do become irritated when material data is demanded for non-material claims - and then the claim for counter proof responsibility is denied. Also, obviously lacking in this QS article is the overt statement that the “proof” required must meet the “standards” of the skeptics and no one else, referring to a standard which is also obviously lacking in this video but which is quite obviously the scientific, empirical proofs endorsed by AtheoMaterialists as the only source of knowledge. Those proofs, of course, require a falsifiable subject matter, which Theist claims are not, therefore invalidating the requirement and making the AtheoMaterialist evidentiary standards false, inconsequential, and trivial]

"In many ways this isn’t surprising. The expectation of evidence is kryptonite to claims that lack sufficient support."

[Such as Atheist claims of theist non-validity while offering no empirical evidence as support for their claims]

"People who pretend to be psychic developed an arsenal of smoke and mirror tactics to fend off critical questions. For centuries, certain religions have demonized questions and in the process developed a skewed complacency about not anwering them. But today increasingly we understand that there is no valid basis for letting supernatural claims escape justification."

[The use of the undefined term “justification” throughout is indicative of the intransigent nature of this demand; one may require different justification for opponent’s claims than for one’s own claims, or one may demand out-of-set justification for the opponents claims, and that’s exactly what this is all about. Further, the invocation of mystery religion and psychics is not an argument against any deity; it is a Red Herring. Finally, justification has already been denied at the outset; and a need for material justification is a Category Error. So this is all just false blather]

"We see through institutions which forbid or evade questions, that declare themselves unaccountable. We are rightly critical of them and we expect and demand better. If certain groups over the centuries have grown accustomed to not substantiating their claims so they regard the mere suggestion as impudent, the way we resolve that is not by letting them remain accustomed to dismissing their Burden of Proof but by pointing out that they were at fault for growing so accustomed in the first place."

[This is totally irrelevant to the issue of requiring Atheists to support their claims of falseness; another Red Herring]

"Supernatural claims that survived/thrived historically by shrouding themselves in mystery are now more than ever in the information age being fished out into the glare of rigorous inquiry. And they are suffering in their new, alien environment where their old tricks aren’t so effective on the more critical modern mind. Booming threats don’t cow us into obedience as in years gone by. Too many of us know what is going on behind the curtain. In greater and greater numbers we are outgrowing the long intellectual stagnation of human kinds superstitious adolescence. When we are exposing supernatural claims that have bluffed and bullied their way into a position of unearned respect, they deserve no reverence and deserve no more ceremony than any other claim."

[More and more irrelevance, having nothing to do with requiring Atheists to prove their claims of falseness]

"Clearly, demanding evidence for every statement uttered would make interaction impossible.

[A common dodge: Atheists want to muddy up the issue by claiming that Theist claims are just part of a stream of claims that they can't take the time to argue properly. So they can all be denied, categorically, as was done initially. But they also claim that they have defeated the theist arguments, and that the theist arguments aren't falsifiable and can't be defeated. What they claim depends on the need of the moment]

"But those who make bold supernatural claims should get used to owning their Burden of Proof."

[Yes. Making the claim of falseness regarding a claim of supernatural existence requires owning their Burden of Proof; merely claiming that it is false with no reason or support or evidence fails the Atheist’s own requirements. Further, their requirements are materialist, and thus their Burden of Proof is to provide material evidence to support their claim of falseness].

"In science..."

[Watch this carefully: science is being invoked in a metaphysical conversation]

"...owning a Burden of Proof is routine..."

[so is owning the Burden of Rebuttal]

"...because it is understood by those who observe scientific principles that claims require justification..."

[including skeptical denialist claims made without empirical evidence].

"It’s expected that authors of scientific papers will explain their reasoning and evidence."

[Including and especially those claiming disproof].

"And it’s common for this to be done, not grudgingly, but enthusiastically."

[Yes! Atheists should embrace this enthusiastically!]

"If we’re interested in holding justified beliefs, finding out which claims have valid support and which don’t is something to embrace, not avoid."

[Absolutely! This includes claims that declare having falsified another claim]

"It’s when we stake our egos, hopes or identities on specific claims that we create needless problems, because anything which threatens the claim also threatens us. The Burden of Proof becomes threatening because having to justify the claim risks discovering that we can’t do so.

[Wherein the QS demonstrates his total self-unawareness: Atheists are threatened so badly by having the Burden to support their skeptical denial claims that they become maximally irrational when pushed hard to do so.]

"In this way our ability to assess the claim becomes fatally undermined by personal need for it to be true whether or not it has valid support. If on the other hand we commit ourselves not to specific claims but to refining knowledge…"

[This is a wonderfully self-unaware statement of the need to adhere to destructive skepticism, and never, ever take a stance on a piece of knowledge, because that would require that the skeptic has to leave skepticism in order to defend his new knowledge; i.e. take a position which requires a Burden of Proof. Skepticism is a refuge from knowledge, where one can take potshots from the front porch without joining the parade. This is their idea of "refining knowledge". They don't actually want knowldge; they want to destroy whatever they don't like, with no repercussions. ]

"we can watch claims gather support or collapse, without the Burden of Proof forming any personal threat."

[no commitment, no threat, so do not leave skepticism for knowledge, ever]

"Meeting a Burden of Proof isn’t always easy. But without this mechanism, without people volunteering “here’s my new idea and the evidence to support it”, our education would be at a standstill."

[Unless “my new idea” is that "your metaphysical claim is false", then as an Atheist I don’t need any evidence for that idea, Of Course].

[And the unstated presupposition is that the desirable education is Materialism-only, because history, math, logic, philosophy, ethics etc have no material evidence]

"Fortunately a long history of genuine contributors to education haven’t been so unforthcoming. Supernatural claim makers who think they are somehow exempt from the standards which apply to other claim makers…"

[BINGO! Here it is: the same standards apply for metaphysical claims that apply to materialism; it’s the infamous Atheist and Materialist Category Error. The always self-unaware QS admits to his erroneous requirements without realizing he has done so]

"…are mistaken."

[thus it is perfectly reasonable under this schema to demand that Atheists provide material, empirical, scientific hard data for their claims that Theist metaphysical claims are false. They are not exempt from their own rules.]

"And in an increasingly educated world… "

[False: technologically trained under Materialist restrictions, not well educated; these folks have no actual knowledge of logic, despite their use of co-opted terms they don’t understand, such as “Special Pleading”]

"...their Special Pleading will only see them left behind in the darkness of past ignorance, where many of their claims originated."

[It is absolutely NOT Special Pleading to demand that the characteristics of a set be used when determining how to analyze the set! If the set is “metaphysical”, then the use of “physical” requirements is irrational: it is a Category Error.]

"Extraordinary claims have an inescapable Burden of Proof".

[Such extraordinary claims as Philosophical Materialism for example; abiogenesis; the material mind; lack of human agency; and the claims that Theist claims are false. Yes, Burden of Proof.]

"When those who make extraordinary claims don’t for whatever reason take their Burden of Proof seriously, they relieve us of the burden of taking their claim seriously."

[Which is exactly why Atheists have no intellectual credibility. Making claims that Other’s claims are false, yet denying that they must support their claims, makes the Atheist an intellectual failure, and more than that, an intellectual coward who runs from his responsibility and hides behind the skirts of denialism – denying that he has any responsibility for his own worldview, and need not justify it.

In fact, returning to the “standards required” statement made by QS above, if the standard is to deny responsibility for any Burden of Proof and just claim without support that the opposing claim is false, then unless that standard is extended to Theists too, the Special Pleading of Atheists is overwhelmingly obvious.

So this whole exercise by QS is false, from start to finish.

For an antagonist to merely claim that an argument is false without having to prove it to be false under the evidentiary theory of the antagonist, is intellectual cowardice and irresponsibility.]