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.
If someone is trying to define your relationship, or disbelief, in God, it's just as wrong as someone telling another they have no relationship with God.
I say disbelieve in God, the tooth fairy, or Easter Bunny. Has zero effect on me. I sure as hell don't try to answer another's metaphysical questions. They have to define that themselves.
HELLO.
I've posted this on here, oh, maybe about a jillion times now, but it bears repeating:
The Friends (Quakers) say, "I cannot tell anyone else how to experience God. I can only know how I experience God."
Or don't experience God, we might add for this thread.
Yes, both theists and atheist like to use this correct by default rhetoric (by saying babies are born theists or atheists) as a tactic to push the burden of proof on the other side. Of course, the argument in both cases is invalid. Where the burden of proof really lies comes from the very definition of proof. Proof is what give a reasonable expectation that others should agree with you. Therefore, logically, the burden of proof lies with ANYONE who expects other people to agree with them. If people just accept the simple fact that they cannot expect others to agree with them on things they have no proof or objective evidence for and this mind-numbing-ly boring game dries up.
If someone made an untrue sweeping generalization about another group, say, 'All black people steal watermelons!" you'd grab your crotch and dance around your patio firepit in self-righteous rage.
It's not true that all Christians think what you claim or would "declare" what you say they do, and you know that. Such cheesy Internet-forum tactics are common, but they don't further conversation.
How many Christian denominations are there? It's in the thousands, isn't it? So clearly any statement that "all Christians" do anything would be without foundation. And it is a claim that I did not make. I can safely say however, that most people who consider themselves to be Christians believe that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and then flew away as the foundation point of their Christian beliefs. Most probably have never thought of it that way, but that is an accurate representation of Christian belief. Cheezy internet-forum tactics aside, it is fair to say most (as in virtually all) Christians believe in a flying reanimate corpse. And I have been assured my entire life by Christians that because I do NOT believe this incredibly silly story, that I am destined to spend an eternity in hell. Something else I don't believe in. If pointing out that such claims are foolish superstitious nonsense is a cheezy Internet-forum tactic, then I am most certainly guilty.
I doesn't bother me when other people try to present their beliefs to me. What annoys me is that they often get angry and hostile when I go about pointing out exactly why their beliefs are utter nonsense. When they do it it evangelizing. When I refute every claim they make, I am persecuting them.
It isn't persecution... but if you present yourself as you indicated in this response, I could see if they would say other words besides persecution.
I disagree, with babies they are more than likely, at least to begin with, to follow the belief or lack of belief of their parents.
Not sure what you are disagreeing with. Sounds like you misread my post.
But in any case, what is likely is not what is. We are not born theists or atheists. These positions of belief require the person to consider the issue and make a decision even if it to just accept what they are told. After all, circumstances can change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
There should never be a burden of proof for simply what you believe or don't believe.
Correct. The burden of proof is on those who expect others to agree with that belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
The burden of proof falls directly upon the person making an absolute declaration.
Nope. A person can have direct personal knowledge of something even though they are well aware there is no proof or objective evidence for it. In that case requiring them to be uncertain just to cater to those who do not believe is ridiculous. The ONLY logical consequence of such an absence of proof or evidence is the lack of any legitimate expectation for others to agree with your belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
How is it possible for me to prove to anyone that I don't believe in a god.
Exactly. We can know things like this from our own direct experience even if we cannot prove anything.
However, everyone knows that most people have a direct experience of their own internal state, so it unreasonable to doubt a person knows what he believes unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. It is after all possible someone is lying or confused, but it would be strange to think so without good reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
I have no interest in attempting to prove that a god cannot or does not exist as I do not know that for sure.
And I have no interest in attempting to prove that God does exist because the nature of the God I believe in makes that impossible. Thus I am just as predisposed to find fault in any such proof or argument, if not more so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
If a theist makes the claim that I must believe in God because He is real and everyone believes in Him and if you claim that you do not then you are either lying or you hate Him, it is then up to the theist to try to prove that point if you are having a discussion. If they accept that you can legitimately not believe in a god and they tell you why they do, there is no onus on either.
That would be an example of accepting that you cannot expect others to agree with you if you have no proof or evidence, just like I said. I would categorize not accepting this as a form of intolerance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
That it is inconceivable for some to accept that a person does not believe in God does not mean that you hate god for some reason, the fault is on them.
Or considering an omnipotent God is quite capable of showing that He exists to whomever He chooses, you could say the fault is His. It is quite reasonable to conclude that if God exists then apparently making people believe that He exists is not a terribly high priority of His. In which case, you could ask why the theist is unwilling to abide by this decision of his god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
I have no reason to care if I show I am correct.
That is reasonable as long you don't expect people to agree that you are correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
I just what them to not use their religion to harm others or to push their belief into the science courses
In a free society the freedom of people must be limited by the same freedoms of others. Of course any claim that harm is being done must be objectively demonstrable for such a society to act on it.
Modern science is defined by a specific methodology in which religious beliefs plays no part. It is a measure of the unreasonable nature of their beliefs that they would feel threatened by scientific inquiry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
or to make claims that they do all the good and none of the bad.
They can claim whatever they want, but they cannot reasonably expect me to believe such nonsense.
Originally Posted by badlander There should never be a burden of proof for simply what you believe or don't believe. mitchellmckain "Correct. The burden of proof is on those who expect others to agree with that belief."
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander The burden of proof falls directly upon the person making an absolute declaration.
mitchellmckain"Nope. A person can have direct personal knowledge of something even though they are well aware there is no proof or objective evidence for it. In that case requiring them to be uncertain just to cater to those who do not believe is ridiculous. The ONLY logical consequence of such an absence of proof or evidence is the lack of any legitimate expectation for others to agree with your belief."
Perhaps the aspect of "Going public" obtains here. The burden of proof is not -in practical terms - on someone having a belief, if they keep it to themselves (how can it be applied? ) but on someone making a claim. And coming here and saying what you believe is making a claim. Longtime since I argued that those playing the "Just telling - not arguing" card were in error. They were in fact, cheating, even if they didn't realize it. The effect was to put their views in the market -place but forbid anyone to refute them.
Of course, if they say 'It's what I believe - but I don't have any good reasons for it" then that IS an end to the discussion - and a satisfactory one for those who don't agree with it.
How many Christian denominations are there? It's in the thousands, isn't it? So clearly any statement that "all Christians" do anything would be without foundation. And it is a claim that I did not make. I can safely say however, that most people who consider themselves to be Christians believe that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and then flew away as the foundation point of their Christian beliefs. Most probably have never thought of it that way, but that is an accurate representation of Christian belief. Cheezy internet-forum tactics aside, it is fair to say most (as in virtually all) Christians believe in a flying reanimate corpse. And I have been assured my entire life by Christians that because I do NOT believe this incredibly silly story, that I am destined to spend an eternity in hell. Something else I don't believe in. If pointing out that such claims are foolish superstitious nonsense is a cheezy Internet-forum tactic, then I am most certainly guilty.
Not sure what you are disagreeing with. Sounds like you misread my post.
But in any case, what is likely is not what is. We are not born theists or atheists. These positions of belief require the person to consider the issue and make a decision even if it to just accept what they are told. After all, circumstances can change.
Correct. The burden of proof is on those who expect others to agree with that belief.
Nope. A person can have direct personal knowledge of something even though they are well aware there is no proof or objective evidence for it. In that case requiring them to be uncertain just to cater to those who do not believe is ridiculous. The ONLY logical consequence of such an absence of proof or evidence is the lack of any legitimate expectation for others to agree with your belief.
Exactly. We can know things like this from our own direct experience even if we cannot prove anything.
However, everyone knows that most people have a direct experience of their own internal state, so it unreasonable to doubt a person knows what he believes unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. It is after all possible someone is lying or confused, but it would be strange to think so without good reason.
And I have no interest in attempting to prove that God does exist because the nature of the God I believe in makes that impossible. Thus I am just as predisposed to find fault in any such proof or argument, if not more so.
That would be an example of accepting that you cannot expect others to agree with you if you have no proof or evidence, just like I said. I would categorize not accepting this as a form of intolerance.
Or considering an omnipotent God is quite capable of showing that He exists to whomever He chooses, you could say the fault is His. It is quite reasonable to conclude that if God exists then apparently making people believe that He exists is not a terribly high priority of His. In which case, you could ask why the theist is unwilling to abide by this decision of his god.
That is reasonable as long you don't expect people to agree that you are correct.
In a free society the freedom of people must be limited by the same freedoms of others. Of course any claim that harm is being done must be objectively demonstrable for such a society to act on it.
Modern science is defined by a specific methodology in which religious beliefs plays no part. It is a measure of the unreasonable nature of their beliefs that they would feel threatened by scientific inquiry.
They can claim whatever they want, but they cannot reasonably expect me to believe such nonsense.
That is it, we don't have problem with what people believe, sometimes we have a problem with how they believe. For example, They don't have to "save" me. Well, not in the way they mean anyway, we all could use a little help. Especially the ones that don't think they do.
As far as what God did, I believe that God is the Creator, although not in the snap-your-fingers, Merlin-the-Magician way that the ancients imagined. We know now that it was a lot more complex than that and that there is still so much we don't know. The unfolding of the universe is much more awe-inspiring than everything happening in an instant, but I still believe that a power greater than mere chance set it in motion. IMO, of course, and if you take note of this thread title and my earlier posts on the thread title, yes, I do get that you and lots of others don't believe in God. It's easy to understand disbelief in God. Disbelief makes more sense, logically. I have no interest in trying to change your mind, so if you're thinking about going the "prove to me that there's a God!" route, find someone else. I won't engage.
For the purpose of this particular discussion, I am assuming that a God exists.
The Christian belief in a Creator-God is based solely on the account in Genesis. There is nowhere else in the Bible in which there's a creation account about how everything came to be. Now you're basically saying - "Well, I know that's what it says in Genesis. The words are very particular. But we now understand that Genesis was merely poetic language, and creation was much more mysterious than that. We don't really know how God did it."
So, the question is - Do you believe in Christianity anymore if you don't believe in the creation account in Genesis? Or is this a much more ambiguous form of religious belief that doesn't have a clear meaning anymore?
Correct. The burden of proof is on those who expect others to agree with that belief.
The BoP is on those making anassertion. When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a BoP to justify or substantiate that claim.
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.
HELLO.
) but on someone making a claim. And coming here and saying what you believe is making a claim. Longtime since I argued that those playing the "Just telling - not arguing" card were in error. They were in fact, cheating, even if they didn't realize it. The effect was to put their views in the market -place but forbid anyone to refute them.
