Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Burden of proof (ad nauseum)

RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:14:26 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

Because some people are so egotistic (both sides) they have an unhealthy need to use logic rules (often incorrectly), appeals to science (often incorrectly), and scripture (often incorrectly) to do 1 thing: j.y.e justify your existence.

It's tripe, childish, and more suited for 15 year old pit heads, not adults.

I'm a non believer and, gasp, just accept you as a human!

Happy thanksgiving bro/sis
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:17:02 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:18:56 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

I refer to the plight of Kim Davis. Her ... situation to God and duty of office was hardly tangential.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
tarantula
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:19:40 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

Proof needs to be provided when people state as fact something to be true!
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:23:01 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:18:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

I refer to the plight of Kim Davis. Her ... situation to God and duty of office was hardly tangential.

And she was jailed for not upholding the law and licenses were still issued. She's in my state :)
Nice try but no go.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:24:44 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

As you said, only partially correct. The US is not the only country in the world. There are many countries that do employ laws that use 'God' as the basis of legality and even though God is not often used anymore to justify a law, christian thinking and christian attitudes can often still be found in the laws that are passed in the western world. One such example in your own country is the law against polygamy.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:30:44 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:24:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

As you said, only partially correct. The US is not the only country in the world. There are many countries that do employ laws that use 'God' as the basis of legality and even though God is not often used anymore to justify a law, christian thinking and christian attitudes can often still be found in the laws that are passed in the western world. One such example in your own country is the law against polygamy.

I'm for polygamy. but this is quickly getting legal: meaning once gay marriage was approved, by the legal mechanisms justifying, equal protection should be extended to polygamists as well.

Other countries, can't comment. Maybe the legal analogy isn't the best? OP may have been more referring to morality for example: abortion, assisted suicide, faith healing, things of that nature.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:36:45 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:30:44 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:24:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

As you said, only partially correct. The US is not the only country in the world. There are many countries that do employ laws that use 'God' as the basis of legality and even though God is not often used anymore to justify a law, christian thinking and christian attitudes can often still be found in the laws that are passed in the western world. One such example in your own country is the law against polygamy.

I'm for polygamy. but this is quickly getting legal: meaning once gay marriage was approved, by the legal mechanisms justifying, equal protection should be extended to polygamists as well.

I hope it will happen because i see no argument beyond the idea that 'God disaproves of it' to justify that law.


Other countries, can't comment. Maybe the legal analogy isn't the best? OP may have been more referring to morality for example: abortion, assisted suicide, faith healing, things of that nature.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:45:02 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

I refer to the plight of Kim Davis. Her ... situation to God and duty of office was hardly tangential.

And she was jailed for not upholding the law and licenses were still issued. She's in my state :)
Nice try but no go.

I fail to see how what she was jailed for or that (shocker!) a system was in place redundant to her office refutes the idea that God was NOT tangential to the point of using God as a cudgel for personal views in government. In her case, God was not a tangent, and at the time, her views/reasons were similar to many people. The controversy (to many people that still to this day invoke God) is not settled law, and campaigns for political office are run around such a topic.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:45:43 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:36:45 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:30:44 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:24:44 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

As you said, only partially correct. The US is not the only country in the world. There are many countries that do employ laws that use 'God' as the basis of legality and even though God is not often used anymore to justify a law, christian thinking and christian attitudes can often still be found in the laws that are passed in the western world. One such example in your own country is the law against polygamy.

I'm for polygamy. but this is quickly getting legal: meaning once gay marriage was approved, by the legal mechanisms justifying, equal protection should be extended to polygamists as well.

I hope it will happen because i see no argument beyond the idea that 'God disaproves of it' to justify that law.


Other countries, can't comment. Maybe the legal analogy isn't the best? OP may have been more referring to morality for example: abortion, assisted suicide, faith healing, things of that nature.

Tradition, inheritance, custody, insurance/benefits...

There's actually a ton of infrastructure questions that will start coming diwn the pipe with divorce law precedent in regards to gay marriage. I opposed same gender marriage simply because our family courts can't figure out consistency in trad marriage which has been around forever. Now we introduce same gender: let the hilarity begin in divorce court (not to mention domestic abuse. Anecdotally I've met tons of gay men and women. Once they realize I'm just an aZZ in that I treat all equal, I've had lots of honest discussions. Again, anecdotally, I've been told just how pervasive domestic abuse is and it's not reported. Disheartening).

So there are plenty of reasons outside of 'God' why some could oppose same gender/poly marriage. But it's law now so extend to er-one. Lol
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:49:03 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:45:02 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

I refer to the plight of Kim Davis. Her ... situation to God and duty of office was hardly tangential.

And she was jailed for not upholding the law and licenses were still issued. She's in my state :)
Nice try but no go.

I fail to see how what she was jailed for or that (shocker!) a system was in place redundant to her office refutes the idea that God was NOT tangential to the point of using God as a cudgel for personal views in government. In her case, God was not a tangent, and at the time, her views/reasons were similar to many people. The controversy (to many people that still to this day invoke God) is not settled law, and campaigns for political office are run around such a topic.

She used her faith to not administer her duties of that office and law completely discounted faith. So yeah, God was tangential because an individual did not uphold the law and perform their responsibilities. But people still got licenses and she was punished. God was tangential to the individual, not the law. And none of that has squat to do with burden of proof.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 4:11:14 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:49:03 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:45:02 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

I refer to the plight of Kim Davis. Her ... situation to God and duty of office was hardly tangential.

And she was jailed for not upholding the law and licenses were still issued. She's in my state :)
Nice try but no go.

I fail to see how what she was jailed for or that (shocker!) a system was in place redundant to her office refutes the idea that God was NOT tangential to the point of using God as a cudgel for personal views in government. In her case, God was not a tangent, and at the time, her views/reasons were similar to many people. The controversy (to many people that still to this day invoke God) is not settled law, and campaigns for political office are run around such a topic.

She used her faith to not administer her duties of that office and law completely discounted faith. So yeah, God was tangential because an individual did not uphold the law and perform their responsibilities. But people still got licenses and she was punished. God was tangential to the individual, not the law. And none of that has squat to do with burden of proof.

I don't quite think we are 100% on the same idea here.

Re BoP:
"There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed"---- for what reason did Kim Davis shirk her duties? Did she attempt, at all, to justify that position? The answer is of course "God" in general, and no, she didn't. She literally attempted to use her faith as a means of law, and offered no burden for an explanation. God was not tangential to any of that, it was literally the impetus for her activism, and for what she firmly believed was her actual authority on the matter, and one can assume she just expected it to be taken.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 4:12:27 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

The only reason to prove something in a religious sense is to justify what you are doing to someone in my opinion. Its a preamble for people claiming that they are backed by God, god's existence being a requirement for your justification.

The phrase "under God" is my favorite quotation in all of American literature because it is so American. It implies that we are not God, and can make no claim of how others should live or die, only what is right by us. Things we universally hold to be truth as evidenced in our own life, include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Additionally we hold the right to our own voice, and the right to protect that which is right. These are things people hold naturally to be self evident in our existence to be right.

The Bill of Rights was actually debated, because of its redundancy at the time. It was thought by some that it was implicitly included in the good of man, and that writing it explicitly risked assumption that its interpretation is encompassing to natural right.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 4:33:33 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 4:12:27 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

The only reason to prove something in a religious sense is to justify what you are doing to someone in my opinion. Its a preamble for people claiming that they are backed by God, god's existence being a requirement for your justification.

The phrase "under God" is my favorite quotation in all of American literature because it is so American. It implies that we are not God, and can make no claim of how others should live or die, only what is right by us. Things we universally hold to be truth as evidenced in our own life, include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Additionally we hold the right to our own voice, and the right to protect that which is right. These are things people hold naturally to be self evident in our existence to be right.

The Bill of Rights was actually debated, because of its redundancy at the time. It was thought by some that it was implicitly included in the good of man, and that writing it explicitly risked assumption that its interpretation is encompassing to natural right.

I said make no claim. You can claim what you want. I meant in the context of enforcement.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 4:34:43 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 4:11:14 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:49:03 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:45:02 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.

Only partially correct: it was based on legalities that had some religious influence but that's it. Since 'God' can't be used as the basis of legality in this country one can only tie it in tangentially.

I refer to the plight of Kim Davis. Her ... situation to God and duty of office was hardly tangential.

And she was jailed for not upholding the law and licenses were still issued. She's in my state :)
Nice try but no go.

I fail to see how what she was jailed for or that (shocker!) a system was in place redundant to her office refutes the idea that God was NOT tangential to the point of using God as a cudgel for personal views in government. In her case, God was not a tangent, and at the time, her views/reasons were similar to many people. The controversy (to many people that still to this day invoke God) is not settled law, and campaigns for political office are run around such a topic.

She used her faith to not administer her duties of that office and law completely discounted faith. So yeah, God was tangential because an individual did not uphold the law and perform their responsibilities. But people still got licenses and she was punished. God was tangential to the individual, not the law. And none of that has squat to do with burden of proof.

I don't quite think we are 100% on the same idea here.

Re BoP:
"There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed"---- for what reason did Kim Davis shirk her duties? Did she attempt, at all, to justify that position? The answer is of course "God" in general, and no, she didn't. She literally attempted to use her faith as a means of law, and offered no burden for an explanation. God was not tangential to any of that, it was literally the impetus for her activism, and for what she firmly believed was her actual authority on the matter, and one can assume she just expected it to be taken.

That's what I told sillybilly legality is prob not the best example. God has no bearing on US law except in personal choice. None of which requires a proof of a deities existence/no existence.

Why I used tangential is God had zip to do with the law. Tangential to me is that one individual deciding on her own...

Btw she still has her position (at least did before the election, haven't checked since) and still doesn't sign the marriage her. Her assistants do (ironically her relatives).
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

If a claim is confirmed then the best position is to believe. If the position is refuted the best position is to believe it is false. If it is unsupported and unrefuted the best position is to lack belief which is what a non-believer does. So as long as you lack evidence then being a non-believer makes the most sense, and they don't even need evidence against you to lack belief.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:07:48 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 4:45:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

If a claim is confirmed then the best position is to believe. If the position is refuted the best position is to believe it is false. If it is unsupported and unrefuted the best position is to lack belief which is what a non-believer does. So as long as you lack evidence then being a non-believer makes the most sense, and they don't even need evidence against you to lack belief.

My truck is blue.

Where is the proof?

I cannot post pictures, nor prove that they are my truck.

I believe what you say is false. (*I do not believe what you are saying is true)
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:15:33 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 5:07:48 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/24/2016 4:45:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

If a claim is confirmed then the best position is to believe. If the position is refuted the best position is to believe it is false. If it is unsupported and unrefuted the best position is to lack belief which is what a non-believer does. So as long as you lack evidence then being a non-believer makes the most sense, and they don't even need evidence against you to lack belief.

My truck is blue.

Where is the proof?

I cannot post pictures, nor prove that they are my truck.

What I said mostly applies to extraordinary claims. For example if I claimed that I found an alien in my yard you probably wouldn't even believe pictures I gave you. However if I claimed to see a cat in my yard you would probably take my word for it.

Claims about ordinary daily life stuff are very likely to be true because people are unlikely to lie about that sort of thing. However there are thousands of different religions and lots of different religions and tons of controversy so in this case taking someone's word will most likely give you a wrong religion.

I believe what you say is false. (*I do not believe what you are saying is true)

Those are not the same. Believing something is false is a belief. You have decided that something is false.

To not believe something is to lack belief or have no belief. Lacking belief is not the same as believing against.

If belief is an apple, a lack of an apple is not the same as a rotten apple (belief against).
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:18:17 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 5:15:33 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:07:48 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/24/2016 4:45:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

If a claim is confirmed then the best position is to believe. If the position is refuted the best position is to believe it is false. If it is unsupported and unrefuted the best position is to lack belief which is what a non-believer does. So as long as you lack evidence then being a non-believer makes the most sense, and they don't even need evidence against you to lack belief.

My truck is blue.

Where is the proof?

I cannot post pictures, nor prove that they are my truck.

What I said mostly applies to extraordinary claims. For example if I claimed that I found an alien in my yard you probably wouldn't even believe pictures I gave you. However if I claimed to see a cat in my yard you would probably take my word for it.

Claims about ordinary daily life stuff are very likely to be true because people are unlikely to lie about that sort of thing. However there are thousands of different religions and lots of different religions and tons of controversy so in this case taking someone's word will most likely give you a wrong religion.

I believe what you say is false. (*I do not believe what you are saying is true)

Those are not the same. Believing something is false is a belief. You have decided that something is false.

To not believe something is to lack belief or have no belief. Lacking belief is not the same as believing against.

If belief is an apple, a lack of an apple is not the same as a rotten apple (belief against).

Couldn't say it better myself.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 2:51:13 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 5:07:48 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/24/2016 4:45:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

If a claim is confirmed then the best position is to believe. If the position is refuted the best position is to believe it is false. If it is unsupported and unrefuted the best position is to lack belief which is what a non-believer does. So as long as you lack evidence then being a non-believer makes the most sense, and they don't even need evidence against you to lack belief.

My truck is blue.

Where is the proof?

Good question. You made the claim. The burden falls on you.

I cannot post pictures, nor prove that they are my truck.

Then I am perfectly entitled to not believe you.

I believe what you say is false. (*I do not believe what you are saying is true)
dee-em
Posts: 6,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 2:53:27 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

What you "feel" is irrelevant to how logic works.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

Simple. The burden falls on the person making the positive claim. This is an elementary logical principle.
Osmium
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:16:15 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

The site name has the word "debate" in it. And...

I'm neither, I ride the fence because I think no one knows if there is a God or not. I am accountable for that belief. You could ask me to provide you with proof that everyone else here cannot prove their position. I say that an atheist can't prove their stance and I say that neither can a theist. It's my job to state why my position is correct. It cant be "just because I say so".
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 1:46:54 PM
Posted: 5 days ago
At 11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.
I can understand your position. However, this hasn't been put into practice. The main reason for opposition to gay marriages amongst Christians put into practice (legal voting procedures) is what would inevitably happen to certain businesses that didn't comply to specifically servicing gay marriage ceremonies based on their religious view. So the position has been shifted from acceptance to compliance (certain businesses required to service gay marriage functions).
tarantula
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 1:48:27 PM
Posted: 5 days ago
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

The people who state as a FACT something, which is only a matter of faith, need to put up or shut up!
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 1:56:35 PM
Posted: 5 days ago
At 11/24/2016 3:14:26 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

Because some people are so egotistic (both sides) they have an unhealthy need to use logic rules (often incorrectly), appeals to science (often incorrectly), and scripture (often incorrectly) to do 1 thing: j.y.e justify your existence.

There's certainly egotism on both sides.

The exception to the rule as far as a Christian possessing the burden of proof would be the one who actually (for whatever reason) demands that others believe. I guess obviously there's a certain amount of aggression that would require proof to justify that aggressive position. But generally even the most aggressive street evangelist, no matter how forward they may appear, will back off once their target once they pass through that brief 3 minute encounter.

It's tripe, childish, and more suited for 15 year old pit heads, not adults.

I'm a non believer and, gasp, just accept you as a human!

Happy thanksgiving bro/sis
A little late (for me) to wish you a happy thanksgiving. So happy holidays to you and yours.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:02:02 PM
Posted: 5 days ago
At 11/29/2016 1:46:54 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:14:08 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

There shouldn't be unless that God is used as an argument to why certain things should be outlawed. For example, Gay people have finally won the freedom to marry others of the same sex and a lot of the opposition against this is based on the notion that God does not approve of Homosexuality. When God is given as a argument, it is no more than fair for people who feel differently to challenge the validity of that argument.
I can understand your position. However, this hasn't been put into practice. The main reason for opposition to gay marriages amongst Christians put into practice (legal voting procedures) is what would inevitably happen to certain businesses that didn't comply to specifically servicing gay marriage ceremonies based on their religious view. So the position has been shifted from acceptance to compliance (certain businesses required to service gay marriage functions).

And that is the heart of the problem, certain religious views are serving as justifications to discriminate others which makes the whole quesion whether or not a certain God exists extremely relevant to those who would be discriminated because of the religious views ascribed to that God.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:02:54 PM
Posted: 5 days ago
At 11/24/2016 4:12:27 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

The only reason to prove something in a religious sense is to justify what you are doing to someone in my opinion. Its a preamble for people claiming that they are backed by God, god's existence being a requirement for your justification.

The phrase "under God" is my favorite quotation in all of American literature because it is so American. It implies that we are not God, and can make no claim of how others should live or die, only what is right by us. Things we universally hold to be truth as evidenced in our own life, include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Additionally we hold the right to our own voice, and the right to protect that which is right. These are things people hold naturally to be self evident in our existence to be right.

The Bill of Rights was actually debated, because of its redundancy at the time. It was thought by some that it was implicitly included in the good of man, and that writing it explicitly risked assumption that its interpretation is encompassing to natural right.
I agree. That would be the only reason I can see that would require burden of proof. I just don't think it's needed in the U.S. There's no reason to have to prove God exists in any arena in American society save for individuals who may extend beyond a certain boundary of acceptable aggressive behavior.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:03:09 PM
Posted: 5 days ago
At 11/29/2016 1:56:35 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:14:26 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 3:07:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
As a believer, I feel absolutely no burden to prove God exists anymore than an atheist would feel burdened to prove otherwise.

Why should any burden at all be placed on either party (believers and non-believers?

Because some people are so egotistic (both sides) they have an unhealthy need to use logic rules (often incorrectly), appeals to science (often incorrectly), and scripture (often incorrectly) to do 1 thing: j.y.e justify your existence.

There's certainly egotism on both sides.

The exception to the rule as far as a Christian possessing the burden of proof would be the one who actually (for whatever reason) demands that others believe. I guess obviously there's a certain amount of aggression that would require proof to justify that aggressive position. But generally even the most aggressive street evangelist, no matter how forward they may appear, will back off once their target once they pass through that brief 3 minute encounter.


It's tripe, childish, and more suited for 15 year old pit heads, not adults.

I'm a non believer and, gasp, just accept you as a human!

Happy thanksgiving bro/sis
A little late (for me) to wish you a happy thanksgiving. So happy holidays to you and yours.

Lates better than never and I agree with you.