My point was actually aimed at fellow atheists. I'll spell it out to avoid further confusion:

When a theist makes his claim, then yes, he's burdened with proving it.
When an atheist replies by saying that the theist's claim is false, or ludicrous, then they have themselves made a claim, and thus are burdened with proving it.

Works both ways, don't'cha know. The only way an atheist can avoid the burden of proof is by avoiding making claims.

...In other words, I was more or less agreeing with you.

I would say the universe is like the first picture.  So the burden of proof would be on the atheist, right?

but he also slips in a false claim about the parable--that the "atheist" considers the spot a "garden" as well.

As I said, I used the word 'supposes' quite intentionally.  On the other hand, you are making your own supposition which is likewise not supported from the text of Flew's parable when you say,

"The skeptic's senses tell him that it isn't." [a garden]

Here is the full text of this particular section:

"One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener."

That's it, pal.  What information do we have about the plot, from the text?

"In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds."

That's it.  All we know is that the two come to a clearing and one says that there is a gardner and the other says that there is not.  Your entire argument hinges on your pedantic insistence that when I say,

"One supposes from the parable that there is something about this particular clearing that gives us the impression that this clearing is, in fact, a garden."

I am trying to smuggle the notion that it really does appear to be a garden... in actuality, I'm giving our theist just a smidgen of the benefit of the doubt that there was something to trip his perception in that favor.  What you are trying to do insert the benefit of the doubt the other way by 'supposing that there is nothing about this particular clearing that gives us the impression that this clearing is, in fact, a garden.'

You're trying to chalk this up to confused reasoning but all you're really doing is completely ignoring the real point from beginning to end, which is not necessarily an argument about design at all, but where we actually start all of our investigations.  We start them with our own experiences.

There is no way a literate and reasonable person can look at my argument and think that I'm trying to make the argument you are putting in my mouth in light of the fact that I transition from that section with this statement:

This all assumes that there are reasons for thinking our clearing gives signs of being a garden- and our parable is silent on this point.

What is so hard to understand about "This all assumes" ?  And do I think the assumption is reasonable?  No unbiased person can think that I do, as I follow it up with "our parable is silent on this point."  If the parable is silent on the point, we cannot very well determine whether either man in the parable is behaving rationally, can we?  Somehow you manage to miss in all of this the actual reason why I bring up the matter in the first place which is that the two gents start with the plot.

And if they start with the plot, it can't be asserted that they start with notions about 'gardeners.'

So ok, Cop.  You and I come across the plot depicted in the first of the two images.  I say it is a garden.  What about you?

My experience of the world tells me that it is a plot of land that most likely was tended by a gardener.  A gardener is a human being who arranges flowers and vegetables, usually in geometrical patterns, fertilizes, weeds, and otherwise tends to the plants.

The Gardener parable, however, is not about such a plot of land.  It is about a plot of land in which only one person--the stand-in "theist"--perceives a garden.  Your own quotes above show that all the "atheist" does is deny the existence of a gardener.  He does not affirm the theist's perception.  You even admit to biasing the question towards the theist.  I think that you've pretty well made my case. You have introduced a gratuitous assumption.

BTW, greetings from Hyderabad.  It's a bright, sunny day, and I'm going out to do some sightseeing. 

Quote from: Deep Thought on January 10, 2007, 12:49:39 PM

My point was actually aimed at fellow atheists. I'll spell it out to avoid further confusion:

When a theist makes his claim, then yes, he's burdened with proving it.  When an atheist replies by saying that the theist's claim is false, or ludicrous, then they have themselves made a claim, and thus are burdened with proving it.

I agree with this up to a point.  In the Gardener Parable, the "theist" claims that a spot is a perceived "garden".  The "atheist" rejects this claim on the basis of lack of evidence.

Which is certainly true enough in most cases. But eventually an atheist goes a little further than that, and actually makes the positive assertion that the theist's claim is false, that the idea of a god is just plain loony. That, sir, is stepping over the fine line between simply rejecting a claim and making a counter-claim.

So for the atheist, the burden of proof comes when they decide to take it or else unwittingly trip over the fence in their ramblings (because if they had no intention of proving their claim, anyone is, in fact, rambling--atheist or no). Moreover, the burden of proof certainly comes to the atheist who repeatedly asserts the falsity of theist claims, while not quite getting around to telling anyone why it's false. *looks pointedly at Stathei, the Champion of Self-Evidence*

How, then, does the atheist get off without burdening themselves with proof? Well, they could simply word their disagreement negatively rather than positively, as in (for example) "Why should I believe that?" (which pointedly highlights the original claimant's burden) rather than "That's just stupid!" (which practically begs on hand and knee for the person who said it to follow up with some logical backing, at least, to outline just why they think it is in fact stupid.

Now different statements will of course require a different burden of proof--one arguing exclusively against Young-Earth Creationism will not be required or even expected by any rational person to bother trying to disprove the existence of God, for that's not the claim they make. The claim they make is that the Earth is quite a lot older than a mere few millennia, and they cite scientific evidences and scientists themselves in order to argue the point. This is a counter-claim and its claimant's attempt to carry the burden. Simple, no?

One might call this the burden of dis-proof. Whether an atheist answering that the idea of a God or gods is false and/or patently ridiculous, or a defendant in court insisting that no, he did not murder those three young girl scouts by the lake, they bear the burden of dis-proof because they have chosen to take the opposite positive stance.

This should not be so much of a problem, especially for you, who, I assume, are not averse to taking the time to argue your point (countering Johnny's rather long posts with posts that can be almost as long, equally as long, or sometimes longer). Someone who uses the recent tactics of a certain Stathei, however--loudly proclaiming the positive is of the falsity and absurdity of theist (and Christian in particular) claims, while not answering many or any requests for supporting arguments, won't be taken seriously, and rightly so, because the burden of proof, or dis-proof or counter-proof or however you want to word it, was ignored, and thus logic is left alone in the cold dark of the pouring rain, forgotten and left to die of hypothermia or worse. Not because Stathei is wrong, but because he neglected to speak or act to prove he was right or even reasonable.

In this issue, atheists still hold the advantage in many cases. For example, when replying to a theist's posts. That makes the theist the primary claimant and the atheist merely the one who decides whether and how to respond--deciding, in effect, whether to shoulder any, part, or all of a proof-burden, and whether to take that burden and carry it home or toss the burden in the ditch and forget about it. If the atheist is the one making the post, though, and the post is in the form of a statement rather than a question, then guess what? The atheist is the one on the soap-box, the primary claimant, and the advantage of choice falls to the theist instead.

The atheist does have the right to demand the burden of proof be laid on theists when the theist is making the claim, as is the common scenario: Christian evangelists and apologists, after all, wouldn't be getting much work done if they didn't evangelize and apologize, and that's just Christians. The theist, however, is perfectly right to demand that the atheist harbor the same burden, if and when the atheist's statements require such a burden. And the atheist, who perhaps owns his own forum or is boldly stepping onto a theist one, when s/he proclaims the wrongness or stupidity of the theist's claim(s), should not be surprised when a theist steps up and asks, "Why should I believe that?"

Works both ways, don't'cha know. 

Thanks Cimics.  That is right on topic, as I insist as part of my OPs that the question of mind (our own, in particular) precedes even our experience of reality, which I maintained preceded definitions of 'gardeners.'  Good post.  Thanks.

Full quote. 

Nice try, cimics, but sntjohnny's words were that "minds must beget minds", which is equivalent to "If something is a mind, then it is begotten by another mind."  He uses this logic to argue that human minds must have been begotten, since they are, in fact, minds.  Your lawyerly hairsplitting is sometimes also sidesplitting when it goes into all those convolutions.     This is a variant of all the other "uncaused cause" arguments.  All of them involve an ad hoc declaration of a termination of the regress.  The saving grace of the materialist position is that it doesn't land you in all  these chains of infinite regress.  Minds are emergent properties of physical brains, and there is no reason to assume that they can survive the destruction of the physical brain.  All empirical evidence points to the opposite.

but sntjohnny's words were that "minds must beget minds"

You're alleging an explicit statement of mine... 'sntjohnny's words were that...' but I cannot find anywhere where I said that.  Can you please provide the date and time and location where I say "minds must beget Minds"  ?

Thanks.