Dear fellow atheists and skeptics,
These are some things that we should stop saying, in my opinion, part 1.
"I don't BELIEVE in evolution. I accept it."
The common usage of the word "believe" does not in fact imply believe without cause, nor believe without evidence. It means you think that's how things are. I believe my hair is green. I believe I will not start eating steak any time soon. I believe that complex life forms arose slowly from earlier lifeforms due to a change in genetic frequency over time driven by natural selection. Choosing to use "accept" in place of "believe" when you use your own words seems totally reasonable, but derailing a conversation if someone asks you if you "believe in evolution" is in my opinion obnoxious and unhelpful. It ignores both dictionary definition and common usage of the word without any helpful clarification.
"Burden of proof"
Seriously, can we stop using the term "burden of proof" when talking about the existence or non-existence of god(s) and other supernatural things? "Burden of proof" arose as a legal term. Am I suddenly switching horses from my opinion from above in regards to using terms as they have naturally evolved? I don't believe I am. (See what I did there?)
Burden of proof as a legal concept has little to do with establishing objective truth. Rather, it is about who is accepted as being correct in the absence of reasonably compelling evidence for or against something. The idea of burden of proof is ethical and not ontological.
I would not apply this to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I concur with that quote and concept. However, the "burden of proof" retains part of its legal roots while abandoning the realization that it does not argue for or against ontological truths. If no one is attempting to convince anyone else of anything, the idea of a burden of proof is absurd. Theists enjoy insisting that the burden of proof is on the skeptic to prove that god(s) do[esn|n]'t exist. Simply repeating the opposite back at then isn't helpful. "I fail to see any evidence of any gods, so I do not believe that any exist until some evidence indicates them" comes across very differently - and indeed is conceptually different - to "The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that gods DO exist!" The latter doesn't reasonably present the reason for your lack of belief but instead treads lightly into the ground of making the argument personal. Bringing up a burden of proof in the case of someone emotionally insisting that you must believe is reasonable, but because the argument is not about discussing the nature of existence but only the nature of insistence about one person's beliefs.
Now accepting counter-arguments about the utility of using these two items.
"I don't BELIEVE in evolution. I accept it."
The common usage of the word "believe" does not in fact imply believe without cause, nor believe without evidence. It means you think that's how things are. I believe my hair is green. I believe I will not start eating steak any time soon. I believe that complex life forms arose slowly from earlier lifeforms due to a change in genetic frequency over time driven by natural selection. Choosing to use "accept" in place of "believe" when you use your own words seems totally reasonable, but derailing a conversation if someone asks you if you "believe in evolution" is in my opinion obnoxious and unhelpful. It ignores both dictionary definition and common usage of the word without any helpful clarification.
"Burden of proof"
Seriously, can we stop using the term "burden of proof" when talking about the existence or non-existence of god(s) and other supernatural things? "Burden of proof" arose as a legal term. Am I suddenly switching horses from my opinion from above in regards to using terms as they have naturally evolved? I don't believe I am. (See what I did there?)
Burden of proof as a legal concept has little to do with establishing objective truth. Rather, it is about who is accepted as being correct in the absence of reasonably compelling evidence for or against something. The idea of burden of proof is ethical and not ontological.
I would not apply this to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I concur with that quote and concept. However, the "burden of proof" retains part of its legal roots while abandoning the realization that it does not argue for or against ontological truths. If no one is attempting to convince anyone else of anything, the idea of a burden of proof is absurd. Theists enjoy insisting that the burden of proof is on the skeptic to prove that god(s) do[esn|n]'t exist. Simply repeating the opposite back at then isn't helpful. "I fail to see any evidence of any gods, so I do not believe that any exist until some evidence indicates them" comes across very differently - and indeed is conceptually different - to "The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that gods DO exist!" The latter doesn't reasonably present the reason for your lack of belief but instead treads lightly into the ground of making the argument personal. Bringing up a burden of proof in the case of someone emotionally insisting that you must believe is reasonable, but because the argument is not about discussing the nature of existence but only the nature of insistence about one person's beliefs.
Now accepting counter-arguments about the utility of using these two items.