For there to be a burden of proof, three things need be true: 1. One has made an existential claim that, if true, is demonstrable. 2. One wants to convince and be believed. 3. The one asking for proof uses evidence and reason to decide what is true about the world. Regarding point 2, there are times when I make existential claims that I can prove, but don't care enough to do so, or don't care to do so again, or is already accepted as common knowledge by those I do care to convince. This is the case with arguments like human chromosome 2.
I generally agree to what you have written here but I see it applying both ways. The
burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It
is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context
is: "the necessity of
proof always
lies with the person who lays charges. So if you claim there is no God (
wiki). If
anyone has a position on a belief they have a
mutual obligation to burden of proof.
Athiesm assumes that non existence of God is the default position until evidence is provided. This argument has been rejected by many over the years as bogus by arguing that "the true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but
neither positions, adding "a claim to knowledge or no knowledge needs to be substantiated, ignorance need only be confessed".
Another words if you do not know and you have no evidence either way honesty is simply saying you do not know if there is a God or no God. If you believe God does not exist and have no external evidence that God does not exist then you also have a burden of proof to prove what you believe. If you cannot then your belief is one based on faith. All claims to truth have burden of proof. Although this is not important for a Christian as there evidence of God is in their personal experience with God and the collective witness in every generation since the beginning of time which is evidence in and of itself.
Regarding point 3, if a person is not open-minded and a critical thinker, by which I mean a person willing and able to consider evidence and any attendant argument dispassionately and logically, and is willing to be convinced by a compelling argument, then there is no way to prove anything to him, and thus there is no burden to even try.
Agreed but once again this is simply an argument that can apply both ways IMO and applies to both thiests and athiests.
I generally tell apologists requiring references to go find them themselves, since I know that they aren't really interested or else they would already have at least partial answers, probably won't even open any references provided, and won't understand them if they do. Since it's been invariably a waste of time in the past, I'm disinclined to comply.
Well big call on your side I would say. I would simply say not every person is the same or the reasons people make for requesting more information on something. It is not for me to say if someone cannot understand something or not IMO.
Learning is a cooperative effort between teacher and student. The student has to be receptive to learning to learn. Nobody can be convinced of anything that they have a stake in not believing, which causes them to be unwilling or unable to cooperate in this process. There is no way to prove anything to such people, so no obligation to try. Many do anyway, but this thread is excellent evidence of the futility of that.
Well your analogy I do not think that relevant here. We are not in a school this is simply a discussion board where people have a variety of beliefs and views before coming here. It is true however whatever one believes if they are not opened to changing their views and learning they views will never change. This is simply applicable to everyone that has a belief not simply targeted groups that you disagree with.
You've never provided any evidence that you understood what
@Subduction Zone said, and plenty that you didn't. Repeatedly, you transform the words "I don't believe in gods" into "There are no gods." Then, you tell people that they claimed the latter by faith.
Nonsense. SZ made both claims that I posted in his own words after asking him directly that stating in his words that he does not believe in God or in the existence of God. The evidence I have provided is his own words.
Dan is one of my favorite Christians on RF, one of a minority of Christians who have learned to compartmentalize faith-based beliefs, and to reject all of the worst of Christianity such as its anti-intellectualism, homophobia, and atheophobia. There is nothing extreme or foreign about his thinking to me, which is similar to my own except for the god belief.
Well your claims I do not agree with in realation to Christianity so I will simply ignore them. I will just say you like him because he agrees with you and has more in common with your beliefs than he does with mine.
Nor does he seem to want to impose his beliefs on others, nor even to try to promote them. And he feels comfortable with unbelievers, not threatened or judgmental
I guess that what I am saying is that his religion doesn't seem to have harmed him. I believe that he would be just about the same gentle, empathetic, intelligent, well-educated person without it.
And I suspect you agree, and are dissatisfied with that. It seems that you'd like him to be more religious - more like you, who has not compartmentalized his faith, but rather, allowed it to bleed into all areas of his thinking.
Whereas you would like Christians like Dan to become Christians like you, I prefer that we move in the opposite direction. I'd like to see Christians become more like secular humanists. It seems that cultural Christianity - Christian culture without theism - is on the rise.
When I was a Christian, we were asked whether people would know that we were Christian without us telling them. The implication was that if they couldn't, you just weren't zealous enough in promoting Christianity. It was seen as a defect. One's faith was too weak, and your fire for God too small. Of course, that just serves the church and its desire to grow and increase bank deposits and its cultural clout. It wants adherents to advertise for them, also called evangelize or proselytize, whatever the personal price or social stigma.
And they know that there would be a price paid by the evangelizer, so they made it seem like a virtue when people reject not just their message, but them personally. When potential customers rebuff them, they wear it as a badge of honor, tell us how this was predicted in scripture, and see it as a sign that the unbeliever is struggling with his unbelief, when it is merely a reaction to their arrogance and presumption. I generally feel like I should be giving them advice on how to live, but I don't, because it would be arrogant and presumptive to offer unsolicited advice like that. Maybe if I added that it was a gift of love and that I really cared about them it wouldn't be arrogant.
When I lived in the American Bible Belt, I'd frequently get a business card with a Jesus fish on it - somebody selling Jesus again. But this was counterproductive with people like me, who wouldn't do business with such people. Their church was surely glad that he was out selling Christianity, and I'm sure they didn't mind any price he paid to benefit them.
I am not threatened by you or anyone here. I disagree with you however and given my reasons why I disagree. If I felt threatened in any way I would be silly to come here by myself when I am by myself. Although I do some others here that have a similar view to mine for which it is good to see. If I did not care for you as a Chrstian knowing what the scriptures teach and what God calls Christians to do in sharing his Word than I would not be following what I believe God wants me to do.
I do believe however and agree that unbelief in God is on the rise but according to the scriptures this is only a fulfullment of the prophecies of the end days before the end of mankind and the second coming.
There is no such thing as "christian culture without thiesm. That would be a contradiction of terms and simply not biblical for a christian. The rest of your post is simply your opinion here so no comment is required.
There it is. Thanks, but I'm not looking for help. Try skid row and death row. They're pretty needy and receptive. When people are safe and comfortable, they don't have much need for religion.
I think if you really felt safe and comfortable you would feel no need to respond to my posts. The fact that you do only shows me that your not comforatable with your own views. All I see from some people here is that in order to try and justify a view for no God that they cannot prove or have evidence for they simply make their religion (not literally) athiesm. This is the faith of many who do not believe in God or the existence of God IMO.
That's not my definition, since I don't believe in any gods. You're a Christian to me if you say are, which is the definitions that even Christians turn to when deciding how big their religion is. You've referred to billions of Christians, and 1/3 of the world. I can't imagine there being more than a percent of a percent of people who call themselves Christians but believe that they aren't.
Well that is what a "christian" is be definition. A "Christian" is a believer and follower of the teachings of Christ.
Even though I disagree with you it is nice to talk with you and thanks for sharing your view.
