Burden of proof

K

Killian_1_4

Registered Senior Member
Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?
 
Yeah, I agree. BUT not to many people are going to worship a God and, more importantly, do as they are told - - unless they are offered life after death. I don't know anyone who would worship a God, with as little as this God gives the in this life, unless they think they'll get to live in a paradise after they die. I've even known some pretty confident atheists that started believing as they got up in their later years, say late 70s early 80s...
 
well im not so sure i have seen grubs or caterpillars
and they go into a caccoon they go through changes in that afterlife caccoon
then they emerge as butterflies
but i dont know if thats death or near death
and they say delai lama has proof but i didnt meet him before and if i did i didnt know or remember if i have or not
then theirs tales of people seeing ghots and experiences of dying and coming back to tell tales ....many say things that would blow the mind away
then theirs psychic that say they talk to the dead nd they have done police work andhelped solve murder investigations
so i really dont know about giving any proof of after life or none at all
guess its what u choose to beleive
 
Killian_1_4 said:
If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise.
Click to expand...


wrong. if the claim sufficiently piques my interest, i'll go look for myself.
what the claimant does is not my concern
 
If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume false until proved otherwise.

Fixed.
 
nah i just wouldnt even bother i read a few of those words
and the only thing that has ever interested me and others is

does after life really exist not santa
so i didnt even bother to even have a thougth bout santa if he exits or not
on the other hand after life has always interested many people and that caught my eye
and i interpreted that and made a say on here
i wasnt expecting an iq test
so dont worry bout if i say the wrong things i just see or percieve differently to prololy others and yourself
 
Killian_1_4 said:
If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume false until proved otherwise.

Fixed.
Click to expand...

true. i tweaked and generalized the proposition. this burden of proof is bit of a soundbite
i would do more than assume. i'd probably ridicule too. humiliate if resistant to revision, hang if the mood strikes me
ja
ridicule till the cows came home
 
Killian_1_4 said:
Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?
Click to expand...

True.
 
well sumthing happened in maryborough queensland australia few years back it made the news and streets were shut down till they found a cure

it goes like this
a man had an argument with his mate another guy bout money they guy owed the man
the guy wouldnt pay up and the man needed the cash for his kids
the man took of then came back with ground up chalk
he threw the chalk on the ground and said .......WELL COP THIS THEN.....
the guy got very extremely sick he called the ambulance and the cops came aswell they musta saw the chalk then they got very sick near death so to the ambulance crew
more ambulance were called to help the other ambulance crew and the cops more cops came by this time people were sprawled out all over the outside on stretchers and the ground near dying they near died
the man just crossed his arms and watched the display
one smart fellow did tests on the chalk after attempting to help everyone
he told them all .....that he didnt understand why everyone was sick cause there was no substance in the chalk and couldnt find nothing in tests he did on their blood
everyone even cops and the guy got up feeling better but they were all near death
the man never got arrested cause there was no substnce in the chalk

thats kinda a bit of proof what people can do with the mind
and is in the news papers local papers of maryborough australia
i was there when it happened and also read the papers all me mates talked bout it for ages after
 
Killian_1_4 said:
If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Well, good for you. But does that also mean that you should ridicule, denigrate or otherwise harrass others who believe differently from you?

If you don't want to believe, then fine. But do you hold that same tolerance for those who might believe differently? Do you allow them to believe as they wish?

Baron Max
 
If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

It is all based on faith and beliefs. If you are a true believer in whatever

your faith tells you then you won't need any evidence other than your own

belief.
 
I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max
 
Killian_1_4 said:
Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?
Click to expand...
Well sure, I mean I dont see why you should have to prove that there is no afterlife.
 
Baron Max said:
I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Only you with INDIGESTION!! :D
 
Killian_1_4 said:
Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking you are correct. The onus is not on the listener to prove anything. The listener may be interested in attempting to verify a claim, but it isn't incumbent on him to do so.

The claimant must always provide evidence or even (as a start) a logical sequence of thought. Take legal cases for example. The defendant never proves the case against himself! It is up to the prosecuting attorney (the accuser or claimant's attorney) to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.

More fundamentally, it is not logically possible to prove the antithesis of a claim. That is attempting to prove a negative...which the listener cannot accomplish.
 
Baron Max said:
I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max
Click to expand...


The degree of collateral damage caused by your belief is irrelevant. The question asks who has to prove said belief, were it to come into question.

For example...I can tell you that all of your beliefs listed there are ridiculous. I however cannot prove that there is not an afterlife, or there is not coffee and whiskey in not-heaven. If you wish to defend or spread your beliefs (like theists tend to with their doctrines), you must provide the evidence.
 
Baron Max said:
Well, good for you. But does that also mean that you should ridicule, denigrate or otherwise harrass others who believe differently from you?

If you don't want to believe, then fine. But do you hold that same tolerance for those who might believe differently? Do you allow them to believe as they wish?
Click to expand...

Baron Max said:
I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.
Click to expand...

You're appealing to arguments the OP didn't make. He's not arguing that there is harm. Nor is he arguing that those with superstitious beliefs should be ridiculed, denigrated, or otherwise humiliated by publicly demonstrating their ignorance. His argument is that if one makes a bold claim, only the claimant is required to support the claim. Therefore, the audience to the claim isn't required to provide evidence contrary to the claim.

Where in the OP did you find his call for harm? Are you implying that the mere acts of questioning, inquiring and criticizing those that make wacky claims are proceeding with the intent to harm over the intent to demand truth and rational discourse?

While the OP doesn't call for ridicule or denigration, I do. Anyone that is willing to publicly favor superstition over science deserves it, particularly when this superstition impedes education, medicine, and progress in technology and government. Religious superstition is responsible for smart, educated people flying planes into skyscrapers. Its responsible for inspiring assholes to bomb clinics and assassinate doctors who provide medical services to pregnant women simply because their superstition tells them life begins with conception. A fly has far more cells than a blastocyst, yet the Pope calls for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for medicines like Plan-B. Religious superstition is responsible -directly- for many of the HIV/AIDS deaths in Africa, where religious nutbars who are bishops are telling their "flock" condoms are laced with AIDS virus.

Yeah. Denigration.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top