Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: Do Atheists Bear a Burden of Proof?

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,333
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    189
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,107
    Thanked in
    629 Posts

    Do Atheists Bear a Burden of Proof?

    Do Atheists Bear a Burden of Proof?

    A Reply to Prof. Ralph McInerny (1997)

    Keith M. Parsons


    [The following article was written in response to an article by Ralph McInerny, published by Leadership University at http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html. However, despite repeated requests, Leadership University refuses to acknowledge this rebuttal and link to it. -- Jeffery Jay Lowder, 14 December 1997]
    The "evidentialist challenge" is the gauntlet thrown down by atheist writers such as Antony Flew, Norwood Russell Hanson, and Michael Scriven.[1] They argue that in debates over the existence of God, the burden of proof should fall on the theist. They contend that if theists are unable to provide cogent arguments for theism, i.e. arguments showing that it is at least more probable than not that God exists, then atheism wins by default. It follows that atheists are under no obligation to argue for the nonexistence of God; their only task is to show that theistic arguments fail.
    Some theistic philosophers gladly accept the challenge, eager to display what they think are powerful arguments for theism.[2] Others, such as Alvin Plantinga, reject evidentialism and deny that theists must bear any special epistemic burden in their debates with atheists.[3] Prof. Ralph McInerny goes a step further to argue that the burden of proof should fall on the unbeliever. Here I shall rebut Prof. McInerny's claim and argue that, in the context of public debate over the truth of theism, theists cannot shirk a heavy burden of proof.
    McInerny endorses the tu quoque style of argument practiced by Plantinga in his God and Other Minds and other works:
    This book [God and Other Minds] argues that it is no less reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the existence of other minds. But critics of theism cannot get along without belief in other minds, therefore they have no consistent way of objecting to theism.
    In other words, So's your old man.[4]
    Besides providing an occasion for McInerny's in-your-face rhetoric, what do Plantinga's tu quoque arguments contribute to the defense of theism? Not much. As I argue in my book God and the Burden of Proof, at best such arguments only serve to insulate theism from being proven irrational in certain ways.[5] That is, I argue that if atheists charge that theism is irrational, i.e. that belief in God entails a dereliction of epistemic duty, then the tu quoque arguments might have some point.
    However, the evidentialist challenge may be taken as a question about the truth of theistic belief, not its rationality. I have argued that, in fact, those who pose the evidentialist challenge are primarily concerned with the credentials of a belief, not the rationality of believers.[6] Evidentialists want to know whether, in the context of philosophical debate over the truth of theism, arguments based on recognized canons of logic and evidence can adequately support theistic claims.
    Besides, Plantinga's argument in God and Other Minds does not even effectively support the rationality of theism. Plantinga claims that the only possible argument for the existence of other minds is one based on analogy: I know that I have certain feelings when I evince certain behaviors, so I conclude that others must have those same feelings when they evince those behaviors.[7] Obviously, such an analogical argument is very weak. It is like the charming illogic of one of Darwin's children, who, innocently concluding that his father's obsession with barnacle dissection was widespread, asked at a neighbor's house "Where does he do his barnacles?"
    Plantinga concludes that it is rational to believe in other minds even though no good argument supports that belief. Similarly, he argues, it is rational to believe in God even if there are no good arguments for theism.[8]
    However, as Anthony O'Hear points out, a much stronger argument makes the existence of other minds an inference to the best explanation.[9] There are times when I seem to communicate well with others about feelings. Indeed, others occasionally seem to understand my feelings better than I do. One of the achievements of great poetry is that it can communicate "what often was thought, but never so well expressed." Sometimes great poetry or art can lead me to say "Aha! Yes, that is exactly what I feel!"
    Such experiences are quite explicable on the hypothesis that the poet or artist had feelings like mine which he or she had articulated more successfully. If we deny that the poet or artist had feelings like mine, my "Aha!" experience becomes completely inexplicable. Indeed, vast areas of everyday experience, in which I seem to share thoughts or feelings with others, suddenly become a complete blank when I deny that others have minds. How can I explain those myriad experiences in which others seem to empathize with my feelings or share my thoughts? What alternative hypothesis could even begin to make sense of my everyday experience?
    I guess I can imagine (just barely) an evil-geniues type scenario in which some wicked omnipotent being has surrounded me with automata programmed to mimic intelligent and emotive behavior. However, the consequence of introducing evil-genius arguments seems to be total skepticism -- which is not the conclusion desired by Plantinga.
    The God hypothesis, on the other hand, is not at all on par with the other minds hypothesis. Vast areas of everyday experience do not become inexplicable to the atheist. Scientific and common sense explanations are as readily available to the nonbeliever as to the believer. It simply is not obvious that theism provides a better basis for explaining things than naturalism, and theists have the burden of showing that it does. In short, contrary to Plantinga's claim, there is a strong argument for the existence of other minds that does not equally justify God's existence.
    For the sake of argument, suppose we concede the complete success of the tu quoque claim in God and Other Minds, i.e. we concede that theistic belief, like belief in other minds, is rational even if supported by no good arguments. What follows? Is the skeptic now obliged to believe that the existence of God is true, probable, or even coherent? In general, from the mere fact that certain individuals are within their epistemic rights in believing that P, nothing follows about the truth or falsity of P. Indeed, why can't I take a cue from the Plantingian theist, dig in my heels, and declare without any evidence or argument that it is perfectly rational for me to believe that there is no God?
    Prof. McInerny thinks that skeptics do have the burden of supporting their nonbelief in God, a burden that goes beyond their duty merely to refute theistic arguments. He supports this claim with a version of the "Common Sense Argument":
    I am asking whether the skeptic is justified in calling into question the truth of "God exists." Why not put the burden of proof on him? Why not insist that he is attempting to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, rational animals like himself, whole cultures for whom belief in the divine and worship are part of what it is to be a human being? Were all of those millions wrong? Surely to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience is not done lightly.[10]
    Surely it seems bold to dissent from what everybody everywhere has always believed. But, as McInerny admits, there has been no unanimity in human conceptions of the divine. The "whole tradition of human experience" he mentions has included belief in Zeus, Odin, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva, Ba'al, Osiris, Astarte, the Great Mother, Cybele, Mithras, Marduk, manitou, mana, juju, and innumerable other gods, goddesses, demigods, djinn, and animistic forces. Prima facie, there is little evidence of common consent here.
    McInerny replies that this apparent diversity is superficial and belies a deeper consensus:
    ... the idea of the divine, the concept of a god, is what is shared; the identification of this or that or the other thing as God does not destroy the common assumption. Men disagree about who and even what God is. Another way Thomas [Aquinas] makes this point is by saying that "God" is a common noun, not a proper name.[11]
    I'm not sure I understand McInerny here. It seems that he could be saying the following:
    (1) All who accept some idea of the divine really share the same underlying concept -- "God" -- despite their radical disagreement about the identity of God; e.g., some identify him as :trees, wind, sun, and the world itself."[12]
    (1) seems highly implausible. At the most, human concepts of the divine seem to form only a very loose set of family resemblances. On what possible grounds can it be asserted that these seemingly radically different concepts are, at bottom, the same concept? It seems highly unlikely that even a generic, nondescript God-concept could be extracted from all these views. If McInerny insists that it can, one wonders what it would take for an idea of the divine not to share in that concept. Perhaps, then, McInerny means something like the following:
    (2) All who honor some concept of the divine, whether they realize it or not, are actually expressing an awareness of the being theists call "God."
    (2) seems more plausible; it does not require conceptual gerrymandering like (1). Perhaps all believers in the divine are tacitly aware of God, though they vast majority lack the ability or knowledge to articulate that awareness accurately. The problem with (2) is that there is no non-question-begging way to present it to skeptics. Skeptics do not believe in God, so they certainly will not agree that all who have a concept of the divine are tacitly aware of God.
    Let's cut to the chase and concede that the vast majority, say 99% of all humans who have ever lived, have had some concept of the divine. Given the enormous diversity of these concepts -- from animism and shamanism to fetishism to manifold polytheisms to the diverse monotheisms -- what kind of burden of proof does this "common consent" impose on the skeptic? The skeptic would appear to dissent from the common consent of the divine or the sacred. That is, if anything is sacred to skeptics, perhaps they should be counted within the common consensus.
    Is anything sacred for the atheist or agnostic? The answer is often "yes." Though he was not a believer in the God of theism (he endorsed the God of Spinoza -- Deus sive Natura), Einstein expressed a reverential awe for the subtlety of "The Old One," his personification of nature. Edward O Wilson's book Biophilia expresses an almost mystical sense of affinity with all living things. One cannot read the beautiful, powerful closing sentences of The Origin of Species without sharing Darwin's awed sense of the grandeur of the evolutionary view of life. The Soviet astrophysicist Yakov Zeldovich was fond of quoting Proust's remark that "The highest praise of God is the unbelief of a scholar who is sure that the perfection of the world makes the existence of gods unnecessary." Many atheists would add "amen" to that.
    Suppose, though, that an unbeliever has no sense of the divine. Literally nothing is sacred for that person. Should this person feel epistemic embarassment when confronted with the overwhelming common consent of humankind? Well, it all depends on how that common consent is explained. Numbers alone mean nothing; otherwise ad populum would not be a fallacy. What accounts for the near universality of some sense of the divine among human beings? Is it only reasonable to explain such near-unanimity in terms of the (however misconstrued) human awareness of God? The Common Consent Argument implies that this is the only reasonable explanation. Is it?
    Stewart Guthrie's recent book Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion proposes the challenging thesis that the psychological basis of religious belief is the nearly universal human tendency to anthropomorphize.[13] He argues that humans have a nearly universal and overwhelming tendency to attribute human characteristics to nonhuman things and events. He suggests that this tendency is hardwired -- an evolutionary adaptation. Thus, we see faces in clouds and Jesus in a picture of spaghetti on a billboard. (This really happened!) More seriously, we tend to see random events as orchestrated by unseen benevolent or malignant intelligences. When I curse the traffic light that always stops me or the photocopier that breaks down whenever the job is urgent, I'm anthropomorphizing.
    The upshot is that the unbeliever can appeal to Guthrie, Freud, or other psychological, sociological, or biological theories to account for the near universality of some form of religious belief. In other words, the common consent phenomenon can be explained naturalistically without appeal to any awareness of God. The Common Consent Argument therefore reduces to a version of the ad populum fallacy. Hence, the unbeliever need feel no epistemic embarassment at the fact that he or she is in the 1% for whom nothing is sacred. Charles de Gaulle was wily but illogical to reply to a critic "Monsieur, forty million Frenchmen cannot be wrong!" They can be wrong; so can 99% of the human race!
    I conclude that McInerny has given no good reason for placing a special burden of proof on the skeptic. Further, he has said nothing to obviate the burden of proof that the theist must bear in debates over the truth of theism. The evidentialist challenge stands: Is there good reason to think theism true? If not, the skeptic is fully justified in taking the same attitude towards theism that he or she takes towards claims about UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lost Continent of Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, poltergeists, etc. These are interesting claims, but their proponents are perennially unable to offer persuasive evidence on their behalf. In such cases skepticism is an eminently rational position, and its rarity among human beings is not an indictment of it, but of the gullibility of the majority.
    Notes

    [1] Antony Flew, "The Presumption of Atheism" in God, Freedom, and Immortality (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1984); Norwood Russell Hanson, "What I Don't Believe" in What I Do Not Believe and Other Essays (ed. Stephen Toulmin and Harry W. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1971); and Michael Scriven, Primary Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).
    [2] See, e.g., Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979).
    [3] Alvin Plantinga, "Reason and Belief in God" in Faith and Rationality (ed. by Alvin Plantinga and N. Wolterstorff, Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1983).
    [4] Prof. Ralph McInerny, "Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist," http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
    [5] Keith Parsons, God and the Burden of Proof (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989), pp. 32-60.
    [6] Ibid., p. 37.
    [7] Plantinga, God and Other Minds (Ithaca, NY: Cornell, 1967).
    [8] Ibid.
    [9] A. O'Hear, Experience, Explanation, and Faith (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), pp. 103-105.
    [10] McInerny.
    [11] Ibid.
    [12] Ibid.
    [13] Stewart Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../mcinerny.html

  2. #2
    Moderator
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 4th, 2020 @ 08:09 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    76
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    343
    Thanked in
    230 Posts
    Do Atheists bear a burden of proof? That's a hard question.

    If the idea is of simply not believing, or believing that a divine notion does not exist - then obviously there is no burden of proof. You cannot prove that something does not exist, the burden of proof from that perspective would be upon the believer, supposing a notion that belief had a burden of proof.

    But since belief had a burden of proof - if that Atheism is joined with a belief in the supremacy of science, and that all is explainable not by faith but science - there is then an entirely different burden of proof: It is that of proving that there is a scientific explanation for something.

    Whilst something is neither proven religiously nor scientifically, it is still a draw, and both strands of thought would have their very special burdens of proof, on proving that they were right.

    Ideally, on the other hand, the believer, would stride to find notions where both religion and science are proven concurrently, as this essentially gives validation to his claim also in the eye of the Science-Believing-Atheist.
    -In kalte Schatten versunken... /Germaniens Volk erstarrt / Gefroren von Lügen / In denen die Welt verharrt-
    -Die alte Seele trauernd und verlassen / Verblassend in einer erklärbaren Welt / Schwebend in einem Dunst der Wehmut / Ein Schrei der nur unmerklich gellt-
    -Auch ich verspüre Demut / Vor dem alten Geiste der Ahnen / Wird es mir vergönnt sein / Gen Walhalla aufzufahren?-

    (Heimdalls Wacht, In kalte Schatten versunken, stanzas 4-6)

  3. #3
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 21st, 2020 @ 06:54 AM
    Ethnicity
    American
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Massachusetts Massachusetts
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Family
    Having a longtime compani
    Occupation
    bartender
    Politics
    conservative
    Religion
    agnostic
    Posts
    190
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Even though I'm agnostic, I'd have to say the burden of proof is always on the theists and not the atheist. The theist must prove that their deity or deities exist despite the fact that no sane person has ever laid eyes on it or them. Saying that the burden of proof is on the atheist is like saying one must prove there really is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.
    Theism is illogical, but we aren't an irrational species. Maybe that's why we came up with things as nonsensical as god(s).

  4. #4
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Siebenbürgerin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    6 Days Ago @ 04:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Subrace
    Alpinid/Baltid
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Location
    Hermannstadt
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethno-Cultural
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    2,760
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    237
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    494
    Thanked in
    240 Posts
    The burden of proof lays on the person who makes a statement which defies what's accepted universally. Most peoples here believe in God. So if an Atheist comes and says there is no such thing as God, it's expected for him to back up the assertion with something. But if the society is predominantly Atheist, then the person who says there is a God must try to prove it.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Le Tour-Noir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 26th, 2012 @ 08:02 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Saxon, German
    Subrace
    Nordid/Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Nebraska Nebraska
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    College Student
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    31
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Both have the "burden of proof" to a certain extant, but I would say theist since they are the ones who are trying to prove something and atheists are trying to disprove it.

  6. #6
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, August 29th, 2010 @ 02:37 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Icelandic
    Ancestry
    jhmgj
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    Greenland Greenland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    62
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Yes, but not to the degree that the theists have.

    See, the theist says there is a god, the atheist not. But you can't just assume something exists and then have to go set out to prove it doesn't. If you go along these lines then we can assume that every god, demigod, angel, devil, etc exists and now the atheist must go prove they don't.

    I still say that if you make a claim then you must back it up. Otherwise people can go around making any claim and we'll have to believe them.

  7. #7
    Member
    weybrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Saturday, October 23rd, 2010 @ 11:50 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    German-Swiss
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    professional driver
    Politics
    non-affinated
    Religion
    non-judgmental
    Posts
    18
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    tTo Believe or Not.....

    As a very worthy Poster once said, [and I hope she reads this], " Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot ! "
    You people who choose to, are so easily stricken with the desire to [futily] explain weather or not God exists with words.
    I wish I knew who said, " For the believer, no explanation is nessesary; for the non-believer, no explanation will suffice." It's not nessesary for you [your ego] to accept "God", or any other name you choose to use; the cells know, the atoms know, and the molecules of every other thing knows their Creator.
    HELLO!! This past, present, or future isn't existing by the power of words, belief, faith,feelings, wishes, time,or above all, intellect! These are all created by man for convienience from the same mind that's so "flabber-gasted" by the "presence of God",it has the everlasting and unconquerable urge to [feebly] attempt to explain the awsomeness of its presence to any one who'll listen. Words Don't Work!
    The proof lies within & without you. One looks, but doesn't see; One hears, but doesn't listen; One speaks, but says little.
    Reflect within... A simple thought, a spark of intuition, the glow of creativity, the awsome power of freewill; Where do you think these abilities come from???
    Objects are created by thought..Not the other way around...All objects stem from electrical impulses rattlin' around in the brain only becoming physical, tangible, due to our creative manipulation of the elements with tools.
    Nothing is new under the sun. Think about it..or not..it doesn't change anything.
    You are the captain of your ship. You are the director of your movie..Not your Ego..which at best is a worthy advisor...at worst,an irrational little tyrant! Make no mistake...it will do everything in its power to convince you otherwise.

    Here's one... Any one can tell you how many seeds are in an apple; Only God knows how many apples are in a seed.

    I'm not trying to get you to believe... I am only asking you to realize...

    Thank you for your time.

  8. #8
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Online
    Sunday, June 26th, 2011 @ 07:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Baden-Wuerttemberg Baden-Wuerttemberg
    Gender
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Religion
    Agnostic Atheism
    Posts
    16
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Do they have a burden of proof? No.
    The burden of proof always lies with the one that claims that something exists.
    If my mother told me that there's a donut on the moon, it's not up to me to proof differently.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Ediruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    3 Weeks Ago @ 08:24 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    German-American and proud
    Subrace
    Alpinid-Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    1,296
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18
    Thanked in
    18 Posts
    No, I don't think atheists bear a burden of proof. This is like trying to argue if everyone is an agnostic in theory because we all don't know if there is a God or not. The whole case of agnosticism is pretty void. The argument that as individuals we don't know whether or not a god exists is saying there is a 50/50 chance God is real or not. I can apply this to anything. Like for example, there is a 50/50 chance there is a unicorn in my closet. My closet is closed, so I don't know whether or not a unicorn is there. So, I have a 50/50% chance of knowing whether or not a unicorn is there. I'm 100% positive there is no unicorn there.

    Besides, why just say if you're unsure of there being the Christian God, since that is what most agnostics ever argue about. Why not claim you're unsure if Odin, Zeus, or Cthulhu exists? Why not give them a 50/50 chance?

    I don't really identify myself as an atheist. I'm more of a Nihilist, or Cosmicist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism But, I would say I'm 100% sure there is no supreme cosmic spaghetti monster wizard lording over all of us.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    OnePercent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 09:52 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic-American
    Ancestry
    Swiss/Irish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Arizona Arizona
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Occupation
    Tech Support
    Politics
    Independent
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    472
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Do Atheists Bear a Burden of Proof? I think it really depends upon the circumstances of the specific argument. If an atheist is trying to convince a theist that there is no god than yes, the atheist most certainly bears the burden of proof in that argument. It is absurd to think that a persons entire belief system is going to be changed without offering some proof to the contrary. On the other hand, if the situation were reversed the burden of proof would then lie upon the theist. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

    I also disagree with the position that it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist because lawyers and police do exactly that all the time. People who are charged with crimes often make up elaborate stories using fake names and imaginary people to exonerate themselves. In these cases the authorities go to great lengths to disprove them. In fact, that is basically the job of a prosecutor, to prove that the story the accused is telling is untrue. Once again, in this case the burden of proof is on the party that is making the assertion.

    I'm not saying that atheists are wrong, I am just saying that whenever a person makes an assertion they have a duty to provide proof if they want others to agree with them.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vox Day's: The New White Man's Burden
    By Cuchulainn in forum The United States
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Saturday, June 18th, 2011, 11:01 PM
  2. Arab Turmoil is Europe’s Burden
    By The Aesthete in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 03:09 PM
  3. When Democracy is a Burden
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 05:56 PM
  4. Atheists Battle Against Religion
    By Aptrgangr in forum Agnosticism, Atheism, & Irreligion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 02:11 PM
  5. The White Man's Burden
    By Glenlivet in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, December 6th, 2003, 02:37 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •