# Why do so many skeptics give believers a free pass? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2007, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113 "2007-02-21T17:56:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/161 "2007-02-27T18:06:53Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] But “he who asserts must prove” is an aphorism. If one person says God or Leprechauns exist, then logic requires that that person bring forth proof of that assertion. [/QUOTE] Not in general. Just if they intend to convince anyone else. People aren’t normally required to bring forth proof for every single thing they say. > [@](#): > > You cannot make an argument saying that those who deny the existence of God or Leprechauns must bring proof of their nonexistence. If they expect to convince other people who, for what seem to them like good reasons, do believe in God or Leprechauns, they have to. > [@](#): > > Refusal to believe in the existence of God or Leprechauns until proof of their existence is produced is the natural default position. This is an understood corollary of the aphorism “He who asserts must prove.” Wrong. There are lots of things that can’t be proven, but can be established as more probable than the alternative. And if “he who asserts must prove,” does the asserter also have to proof that the mathod of proof he’s using is vaid? And that the way he proves _that_ is valid? And so on? > [@](#): > > By the way, Tomndeb, since I have come to the conclusion that SD is a bloody waste of time and since I have decided to get a life, and since my one-year subscription ends soon, how do I ensure that it is not automatically renewed? Could you direct me? I am certain you will be more than happy to se the back of me, so it is in your interest to do so. 😃 Why does **tomndebb** seem to attract all the Dopers with persecution complexes? I didn’t know people could be held on the SDMB against their will. I suppose it could happen if somebody else paid your renewal for you. Personally, I’m happy to see a poster leave if, and only if, they’ve established a pattern of being a jerk. Right now I can’t think of anyone currently active who fits that category, though I’m sure there are some somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/162 "2007-02-27T19:07:49Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] He did imply that belief in God was an unfounded superstition, and by capitalizing God he clearly meant the Western God. It is conceivable that god could exist, but western religions are still unfounded. Certainly if Judaism is the true religion, Christianity is unfounded. In post #4, your first, you brought up the “prove there is no god” strawman, immediately after a post saying, correctly, that God is unfalsifiable. [/quote] He didn’t imply that it was an unfounded superstition, he implied that it was a horrible, horrible thing to teach children. I was looking forward to his proof that it was terrible because God is a bold-faced lie, which was the direction I saw this thread going. It would seem he didn’t get around to it before he was banned. He was (likely) banned for being a troll, and I viewed his OP as such. I’m not going to put a lot of thought and effort into a response to such obvious trolling. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have replied at all. I’ll remember that when the inevitable **RTT** shows up. > [@](#): > > So don’t go playing all innocent on us. Your post had nothing to do with the OP, and was a knee jerk reaction at an OP not even directed at you. His OP was most certainly directed at me. If/when I do have children, you can be sure that I will be talking to them about my beliefs. He suggested for doing so I should be investigated by CPS, have my children taken away, and get thrown in prison. If you don’t see how that’s directed at me, then I’d like you to pass me whatever it is that you’re smoking, because that must be some really good shit. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/163 "2007-02-27T19:21:26Z")
And…I just realized that when I initially posted to this thread I had it confused with the one started right about the same time as the one by the also recently banned **William Strunk Jr.**. Never mind… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113.md?page=8)