Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Show me a post where criticizes religion. Show me a post where agrees with an atheist.
It may not be 100%, but it's predictable.
i agree with the opening post,
that the opening post is just words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I'm not a big believer in 'the Burden Of Proof'. Unless. of course, someone wants me to believe what they're pushing, whether it's a product, a political stance, or a few other things...especially including a matters of faith. So let's think about eight specific people:1. Joseph Smith 2. Pope Francis 3. Dalai Lama 4. Jerry Falwell 5. Sri Ananta Das Babaji (Hindu) 6. Shawki Allam (Islamic) 7. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef 8. MysticPhD I'm not going to talk about each of them specifically, but the point is that each of those eight people have (or had) a specific -- and very different -- religious viewpoint that they preach (or preached). And I'm going to presume -- and I think it's a pretty safe presumption -- that each of them would (or would have) tell (or told) us that their religious beliefs were based on things that they had 'seen' (perhaps in what I will loosely call 'visions'). Let's talk for a minute about Joseph Smith. According to Joseph, he was shown the Golden Plates in Palmyra, NY (my hometown) by the Angel Moroni, and had a number of visions in a place called "The Sacred Grove" (also in my hometown). The 'Three Witnesses' were three men who stated that an angel had shown them the Golden Plates. And, the 'Eight Witnesses' swore that they had seen and handled the Golden Plates. Well gee, with all those witnesses, how could anyone doubt Joseph Smith's teachings? And to my Mormon friends...and I have had several...you are welcome to those beliefs. No problem. That is, until one of your 'missionaries' starts preaching to me. Then they have the burden of proof. On the other hand, some of those same Christians who deny Joseph Smith and his witnesses, they claim to believe a different group of witnesses -- Christ's disciples. They saw all sorts of miracles -- changing water into wine, healing the royal official's son, other healings, feeding the 5000, walking on water, the raising of Lazarus, and of course the epic resurrection. And to my Christian friends...and I have and have had many...you are welcome to those beliefs. No problem. That is, until one of your folks starts preaching to me, whether it be by knocking on my front door, sending me brochures, preaching to the American people via mass media, etc. Then you folks have the burden of proof. And it goes further than that -- let's have a good old-fashioned debate on a stage between someone of Jerry Falwell's ilk and a pope. But whatever they would say based on theirdeep religious experiences...well, just words. I'm not going to talk about each of the other men I have mentioned above. But each of those men believe what they believe based on visions or meditations, etc. And as soon as they preach in public... And then there are so many individuals -- like MysticPhD -- who have their own versions of spiritual belief. And that's fine. But they have the same burden of proof that Joseph Smith, Christ's disciples, and all those other men I listed above have. It's not good enough to say that 'I have come to believe x because of visions or experiences I have had, and therefore you should believe in x, too'. The burden of proof has not been met. And I include myself in that. Some buffoon is going to come along and say, "But you believe in reincarnation, karma, and past lives". Well, sort of. My experiences have led me to believe in karma and past lives, but I look at reincarnation only as a possibility. But to the point -- I admit that I have not met the burden of proof, and so I don't ask anyone else to believe in those 3 things. If it interests them, fine. If it doesn't interest them, that's fine, too. In fact, we Buddhists tend to look down on proselytizing. In closing, let me add this: the burden of proof is NEVER 'cuz I said so'. I would define proof as this: that you show any group of intelligent and reasonable men or women from any culture what your 'proof' is, and they accept your 'proof'.
and to use a phrase from the opening post, "it is just words."
and in the parlance also of the opening post, "someone wants me to believe what they are pushing."
i don't believe what the post above is pushing.
You wish to label anything you can’t adequately respond to as just opinion. I gave concrete examples of how religion tries to interfere with the lives of people who don’t follow it by curbing their rights . You cannot dispute this, so you claim “ it’s just my opinion or beliefâ€.
You should learn to simply admit you are wrong with grace , instead of avoidance . When a religion wishes to use its god to influence the lives of all, the first natural step is to ask “ why should we believe you? Where is your proof?â€. So the BOP becomes the responsibility of the one making claims about gods to influence public and private lives .
You wish to label anything you can’t adequately respond to as just opinion. I gave concrete examples of how religion tries to interfere with the lives of people who don’t follow it by curbing their rights . You cannot dispute this, so you claim “ it’s just my opinion or beliefâ€.
You should learn to simply admit you are wrong with grace , instead of avoidance . When a religion wishes to use its god to influence the lives of all, the first natural step is to ask “ why should we believe you? Where is your proof?â€. So the BOP becomes the responsibility of the one making claims about gods to influence public and private lives .
that is also your belief.
people discuss beliefs in the "religion and spirituality" forum, including this section and including this thread.
burden of proof is irrelevant to paths of religion and spirituality.
it is absurd (definition: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate) with regards to paths of religion and spirituality.
people discuss beliefs in the "religion and spirituality" forum, including this section and including this thread.
burden of proof is irrelevant to paths of religion and spirituality.
it is absurd (definition: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate) with regards to paths of religion and spirituality.
That is true when the discussions are simply about the paths of religion . When others , especially atheists , point to the BOP however, it is almost always in response to some theist making claims that this or that is proper , or wrong and sinful, because their version of god says so. In those cases those being lectured quite often respond with the burden of proof argument, and quite legitimately so. Atheists have little interest in theological debates among theists except perhaps where one individual annoys them with his insistence , or they find the belief particularly stupid .
And yes, before you say it, that is also my belief
That is true when the discussions are simply about the paths of religion . When others , especially atheists , point to the BOP however, it is almost always in response to some theist making claims that this or that is proper , or wrong and sinful, because their version of god says so. In those cases those being lectured quite often respond with the burden of proof argument, and quite legitimately so. Atheists have little interest in theological debates among theists except perhaps where one individual annoys them with his insistence , or they find the belief particularly stupid .
And yes, before you say it, that is also my belief
What she is saying over several posts is that in her view there is no burden of proof. Well, isn't that convenient?!?
That is true when the discussions are simply about the paths of religion . When others , especially atheists , point to the BOP however, it is almost always in response to some theist making claims that this or that is proper , or wrong and sinful, because their version of god says so. In those cases those being lectured quite often respond with the burden of proof argument, and quite legitimately so. Atheists have little interest in theological debates among theists except perhaps where one individual annoys them with his insistence , or they find the belief particularly stupid . And yes, before you say it, that is also my belief
it's hardly a lecture, when people are on a public discussion board, in the section devoted to "religion and spirituality" and they are discussing paths of "religion and spirituality"
if it is a "lecture" for someone on a public discussion board to state their views, and share their opinions and discuss their beliefs,
then the post above is a lecture. and the opening post is a lecture.
and every post where, for example, atheists state their beliefs about what they find wrong with religion, then all those posts are "lectures."
interesting choice of words. it's only fair to use it even-handedly across the board to apply to all posts which state a view or belief or opinion.
regarding "they find the belief particularly stupid" well that's surely not "true dialogue"
Says the man who repeatedly parrots his own conditioned knee-jerk response rather than addresses my posts.
May be because he likes dogs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
