Burden of proof
- Thread starter Killian_1_4
- Start date
No one has implied that your god, whichever it may be, is some sort of "lawsuit." Nor is it true that "burden of proof" resides only in courts of law.
This is readily present in every day life and one can find this truth by simply shopping for a used car. If the salesman assures you that the car runs fine and expects you to take his word for it, will you not still demand a test-drive before forking over your money? This same analogy can be applied to countless examples of where ordinary people demand some sort of qualifying evidence before accepting a claim, particularly a far-fetched one, to be true. That isn't to say that there aren't many instances of people accepting wild-ass claims without evidence: religious superstitions, believers in tarot, astrology, fung shei, bottled water, alien abductions, and the effectiveness of garden gnomes as gardeners are but a very few examples.
Moderator's Note: About a page full of off-topic and nonsensical posts were deleted. Please don't clutter up threads in this forum that way. PMs were sent to two of the three members involved and yet they continued to post.
No one is disputing that the phrase is used in circumstances of law. There is a reason, which is because those that make claims have a burden to evidence their claims. This applies in aspects of life that extend beyond law, whether you choose to accept it or not.
I get a big kick watching people who are hypnotized. Probably something like that occurred.
I once watched a guy who was hypothesized (on TV) who then thought he was a bee. He rubbed his butt against a person and then flew around and finally laid down and "died". But he obviously really wasn't dead. The hypnotist asked why he had laid down and one of the camera crew said he "died" and the hypnotist asked why - he hadn't told him he was dead so he should still be a bee and the crew said it's because he lost his stinger when he rubbed his butt against someone "stung it" - even the hypnotist got a huge laugh out of that!
I wouldn't call it the "power" of the mind but I'd say there is something funny about consciousness.
And that's the point. People believe things without needing any sort of proof. Type II errors have probably saved our ancestors since before we were even Hominidae and thus this line of reasoning was written into our DNA by mother nature long ago. For most people there is no amount of "reasoning" that is going to override this type of consciousness - for whatever reasons.
Yes the burden of proof belongs with the claimant but there's little point discussing it with someone who disagrees. They can not think logically about the topic.
Michael
onlinerotter1
Registered Member
commun mob discussion.....the mou(greek--means "my god")...why people stuck on the word (god, christianity, deth, afterlife etc.) everything is placed in the right way of nature. if someone find the proof of the existent of god ( whats kinda difficult), but than he has found the answer of "why me exist). but i think thats not the point. the whole point is to understand and o find an acceptable way to get the knowledge about things are really are. Ask u self whats menkinds way is: burn, growing up, get an adult and being in the position to make another men(kid), getting older and dieing. thats nature way. before and after is just a combination of all descrption of humans mind. just for this.....everything needs power to live and to exist. also human. sokrates said in the composium that god is energy (everywhere).....human exist just to product this energy. how and all the other question needs answers with a lot of time for explaining. ( im trully sorry for my english)
I would concur that the presence of an after life is a claim. But that depends on what you mean as an "afterlife". It is another term that is constantly abused by religion. But never mind that. From your perspective yes it does equate to a claim.
I would concur too that the evidence of proof lies on the individual to provided thus. Yet not all situations can be judged accordingly. It establishes an internal conviction for both parties. Which is a claim either way.
In a scientific endeavor, one attempts to prove the null hypothesis, which is the opposite of what one is really trying to prove. In the case of the existence of God the null hypothesis is that God does not exist. One finds evidence to accept or reject that hypothesis.
In a western court of law with the presumption of innocence the same rules apply. In this case the null hypothesis is that the defendant is guilty. Evidence is provided to establish guilt only, accepting the null hypothesis. Rejecting the null hypotheses means finding a person not guilty. The defendant is never found innocent.
In a debate however, which some would like to optimistically think these forums are, both the affirmative and the negative positions must prove anything they assert. Of course there is no real debate here; instead it is mostly ridicule and denigration as our esteemed moderator points out, which is completely against forum rules but hey, he's the moderator. It's his little way of playing god so to speak.
His position is of course also completely false as it is trivial to point out the evils of atheism as well. Just pick up a grocery tabloid any day, or look at the great atheist regimes like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others. But hey, his biased position rules as he makes the rules. Fortunately there are much better rules to live by.
In short, you are entirely correct.
The burden of proof always lies with that view that runs contrary to convention.
Now, that being said, do not that this says absolutely nothing whatsoever as to the veracity of either claim, conventional or otherwise.
In a completely fallacious and unsupported argument informed by bigotry, superstition and an apparent substandard education, one equates atheism with evil when there isn't a logical or reasoned argument to be made. The "stalin, mao, pol pot" argument has been destroyed so many times by so many people that it can only be a substandard education that allows such a fallacy to continue. Tsk.
How is an ideology responsible? How do we go about associating a direct cause and effect nature between bad decision making of an individual to his or her being misled by falsehoods? How then do we identify all under the same umbrella of accusation.
You really can't. What you are displaying is an emotional response to acts of violence and destruction. Politics call it the blame game whether it be video games, movies or religion and tabo's.
There is a measure of blame. Don't get me wrong but the Blame Game doesn't seek the complete cause it seeks only a scape goat. It suggest in error by rooming this one single aspect the problem will be cured. It's as though saying man is pure if not for the bad influence of religion. Man is pure if not for the bad inflence of ignorance.
Perhaps it will be a slow realization for those as religion continues to decline but man is not pure.
You really can't. What you are displaying is an emotional response to acts of violence and destruction. Politics call it the blame game whether it be video games, movies or religion and tabo's.
There is a measure of blame. Don't get me wrong but the Blame Game doesn't seek the complete cause it seeks only a scape goat. It suggest in error by rooming this one single aspect the problem will be cured. It's as though saying man is pure if not for the bad influence of religion. Man is pure if not for the bad inflence of ignorance.
Perhaps it will be a slow realization for those as religion continues to decline but man is not pure.
Religion plays a similar "blame game" way of thinking with God. In the face of desasterous events pastors will claim God is responsible. When a person dies, whether by violence or natural causes, God is responsible. Yet theire own teachings show he is not.
It's the same emotional reaction Dawkins and other scientist have inversely to religion. It's the tactic of emotional generalization. Let's Identify reasonable responsibility.
Reason means to yield and responsibility is an obligation. So we're looking for a ideology to yield and take an obligation. But of those are actions. Do we expect the Constitution of the United States to yield or take up an obligation? Do we expect Socialism to yeild or take up an obligation? Do we expect Math and Science to yield to and take up an obligation?
Absolutely not. Why? Because these are the things we are supposed to yield to. Only a living thing can yield and take up an obligation. Our boundaries are set by science, religion, math, the Constitution, socialism and etc. Everything can be interpretted to mislead but the obligation not to belongs to man and man alone.
It's the same emotional reaction Dawkins and other scientist have inversely to religion. It's the tactic of emotional generalization. Let's Identify reasonable responsibility.
Reason means to yield and responsibility is an obligation. So we're looking for a ideology to yield and take an obligation. But of those are actions. Do we expect the Constitution of the United States to yield or take up an obligation? Do we expect Socialism to yeild or take up an obligation? Do we expect Math and Science to yield to and take up an obligation?
Absolutely not. Why? Because these are the things we are supposed to yield to. Only a living thing can yield and take up an obligation. Our boundaries are set by science, religion, math, the Constitution, socialism and etc. Everything can be interpretted to mislead but the obligation not to belongs to man and man alone.
How is an ideology responsible, you ask. Simple answer. An ideology is a set of beliefs and beliefs inform our actions.
What do you mean by "man is not pure " ? With what are you comparing us ?
It shares a responsibility but it does not take responsibility. Just as a soldier holds his orders as his ideology the burdeon or responsibility is not on the order but the soldier and the commanding officer. Thus...the ideology...the order or that which informs our actions is not a propper excuse for retaining responsibility.
All of the Civilized world shares that perspective to war crimes why should the expectation change with any other ideology? The truth is it doesn't. A court of law of these societies do not excuse soilders for folllowing orders.
Yet you would excuse the people of religion for following orders. That's not a logical application of the burdeon of responsibility.
This is an understood social fallacy and a reprehensible use of logic on a scientific forum.
-----
I mean pure as to say no one of us is fautless. There is no apparent direct comparison.
All of the Civilized world shares that perspective to war crimes why should the expectation change with any other ideology? The truth is it doesn't. A court of law of these societies do not excuse soilders for folllowing orders.
Yet you would excuse the people of religion for following orders. That's not a logical application of the burdeon of responsibility.
This is an understood social fallacy and a reprehensible use of logic on a scientific forum.
-----
I mean pure as to say no one of us is fautless. There is no apparent direct comparison.
Last edited:
No, religion claims responsibility for what is good ,which it attributes to its god. Evil is ascribed to the Devil. That's truly logical, given that the claim is that god created everything, including Satan.
I am sure you are truly offended by the reprehensible use of logic. When it suits you, that is. Would you care to tell me what is logical about Noah. As a logician, you should have no trouble explaining a few problems I have with the Bible.
Your insight into human nature is truly astounding. You have logically deduced that mankind is fallible. As you have no "apparent direct comparison " can you please stae your premises
Last edited:
You're talking about a singular ideology to which you apply generally. That's another social Fallacy. All religions even of the same root do not share the same ideology. Therefore it's illogical to present one ideology to respresent them all.
I'm sure it is your intention to draw out a debate but would be the logical purpose behind such an endeavor?
I'm sure it is your intention to draw out a debate but would be the logical purpose behind such an endeavor?
Last edited:
Thank you for pointing out the obvious about different religions. I am not generalizing; I am asking you to explain things from your Christian perspective.
If you are reluctant to debate what you believe in, I think I undetrstand why. Are you frightened by an inability to support your views with reason as opposed to quoting the Bible ?