• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

Select the ones that agree with you [Q/A for RF, so RF Rules apply]:

  • 01: IMO one should not make a spiritual claim refusing to provide evidence

  • 02: IMO one should be free to make a spiritual claim refusing to provide evidence

  • 03: IMO demanding evidence for (unfounded) claims is my right and/or my duty

  • 04: Refusing to provide evidence enhances the chance to make it to my ignore list

  • 05: I made claims to see reactions

  • 06: I made claims having no evidence

  • 07: I never felt irritated when people made claims

  • 08: Occasionally I felt some irritation when certain claims were made

  • 09: Being on RF helped me to reduce irritation caused by replies of others

  • 10: It did happen that I thought "oops, I can't prove this one"...I wish I had not written it


Results are only viewable after voting.

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

On RF when I make a claim "I can hold my breath" till someone imposes "you should provide evidence"
Is this correct? Are there examples of claims which can be made without having to provide evidence?

I could think of a few claims, where the smart ones will think twice before asking evidence
So, what determines if imposing "you should provide evidence" is correct
Where lies the line between "to prove or not to prove"?
Please create examples (with/without evidence)

Notes [also apply to the poll]:
1) This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF
2) This thread is not about whether it's called evidence or proof or other semantics
3) To keep it simple let's start with "Spiritual claims" (pros/cons) (*)
4) To keep it simple let's stick to claims made on RF
*) Any info giving better understanding is welcome
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
None of the above. For most, if not all, religious belief, there is no evidence. It's belief, like "What's your favorite colour?" or in other terms that lend to thinking that everyone should believe it: "What is the best colour?" There is no evidence for presenting that blue is the best colour, and if the person says their favourite colour is blue, who can argue with it?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

On RF when I make a claim "I can hold my breath" till someone imposes "you should provide evidence"
Is this correct? Are there examples of claims which can be made without having to provide evidence?

I could think of a few claims, where the smart ones will think twice before asking evidence
So, what determines if imposing "you should provide evidence" is correct
Where lies the line between "to prove or not to prove"?
Please create examples (with/without evidence)

Notes [also apply to the poll]:
1) This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF
2) This thread is not about whether it's called evidence or proof or other semantics
3) To keep it simple let's start with "Spiritual claims" (pros/cons) (*)
4) To keep it simple let's stick to claims made on RF
*) Any info giving better understanding is welcome

Everybody is free to do what they want.
Nobody is "obligated" to provide evidence for anything.

You are free to not care about the burden of proof.
You are free to not care about being rationally justified in your claims / beliefs.

However, if the goal is to try and convince others of your beliefs, and those others happen to DO care about being rationally justified in their beliefs, then you will fail miserably if you refuse (or are unable) to meet your burden of proof.
And we get to point it out.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You can either provide your evidence with your claim. Or provide it if asked. In either case you show you can back up your claim with evidence. These i consider to be honest speeches

Then there are those who make claims without evidence and either ignore request for it to be presented or come out with the clincher "prove me wrong". These just make me think, "yeah right. another one, time to move on"

Which you use us up to you but i consider a reputation for honesty to be more important than being known as a failure
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
You seem to be trying to make a set of rules on this topic. I don't think that's possible but here are some general thoughts:

Facts are always true. But claimed facts might be true or false.

Arguments involve claimed facts. If the claimed fact is common knowledge, it doesn't need to be supported. If it isn't common knowledge, it can be supported by reasons, evidence or both.

Demands for evidence depend on the arena in which the claim has been made, and should be reasonable. Internet forums can't be too demanding.

Statements of opinion don't need to be supported but they aren't worth anything in debate either.

A statement that begins "I believe.." might be a simple statement of fact, one not requiring support unless the poster is trying to convince others to also believe.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

On RF when I make a claim "I can hold my breath" till someone imposes "you should provide evidence"
Is this correct? Are there examples of claims which can be made without having to provide evidence?

I could think of a few claims, where the smart ones will think twice before asking evidence
So, what determines if imposing "you should provide evidence" is correct
Where lies the line between "to prove or not to prove"?
Please create examples (with/without evidence)

Notes [also apply to the poll]:
1) This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF
2) This thread is not about whether it's called evidence or proof or other semantics
3) To keep it simple let's start with "Spiritual claims" (pros/cons) (*)
4) To keep it simple let's stick to claims made on RF
*) Any info giving better understanding is welcome
If one makes a strong claim, that such and such is a fact, or that such and such theory is widely accepted, one should be prepared to back up the claim with evidence, in case it is challenged.

If one makes only a tentative claim, or expresses a view, making clear it is a personal opinion, then that is different. No evidence is needed in that case, though supporting evidence will make it more persuasive.

In some cases, one comes across a claim that the person making it thinks is "spiritual", but actually it makes a verifiable claim about the physical world. Such a claim may be challenged and so evidence may be needed.

In other cases a "spiritual" claim actually makes a verifiable claims about scripture or relgious tradition. That too can be open to challenge and may require support.

As a rule I think it is best always to have some evidence in reserve, unless you are making a free speculation, in which case it is not really a claim.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

On RF when I make a claim "I can hold my breath" till someone imposes "you should provide evidence"
Is this correct? Are there examples of claims which can be made without having to provide evidence?

I could think of a few claims, where the smart ones will think twice before asking evidence
So, what determines if imposing "you should provide evidence" is correct
Where lies the line between "to prove or not to prove"?
Please create examples (with/without evidence)

Notes [also apply to the poll]:
1) This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF
2) This thread is not about whether it's called evidence or proof or other semantics
3) To keep it simple let's start with "Spiritual claims" (pros/cons) (*)
4) To keep it simple let's stick to claims made on RF
*) Any info giving better understanding is welcome

In all cases I believe if you say,

I believe X in a debate, one should support their belief. Mostly by testimony, ones own criteria for their belief, conclusions they may observe that they base their conclusions on. To me, asking for evidence for spirituality does not need to be scientific facts. Even just "I believe 'because'" can help.

If someone makes a claim their belief is fact, it will be treated as fact by asking factual evidence to support a factual claim.

I believe, in my opinion, etc to me is a deeper conversation but people fall back to using their criteria is facts but refuse to give any personal context to the "facts" they present.

Don't present beliefs as facts. Ideally both parties wouldn't expect objective support unless they are chatting about their experiences. But if you do present it as facts, it will be challenged for better understanding. It leaves the believer in a catch twenty two he could have avoided if he didn't impose his belief on those who don't agree with him.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
When to "provide evidence" making claims? !
When it's necessary to achieve the aims of the claim. Nobody (sane) makes claims for no reason.

We generally do it to try to influence other people's thoughts and behaviour in some fashion and the nature and extent on the intended changes will be a key factor. If you're just trying to get them to consider some minor additional information, you probably don't need much evidence to support it. If you're telling them they need to make massive changes to their entire lifestyle, they'll probably want a deeper understanding of your reasoning.

Another major factor will be the nature of the claim. If it's logical consistent with what we already know, we'd probably accept it with less specific evidence than if it is unusual or apparently contradictory. If I tell you I have a pet dog, you'd probably accept that as read. If I said I have a pet elephant, you might ask questions. If I said I have a pet T-Rex, you'd probably start out assuming I'm not telling the truth.

Generally, when someone says "You should provide evidence" in the context of this forum, they're essentially saying that your claim is too significant and/or unusual for them to accept at face value. It isn't really a definitive "should" but more a "need to if you expect me to believe you".
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
pet T-Rex

A show me evidence
B the evidence is all around

B here's a photo of him
A but that isn't evidence he's a god

B he keeps away burglars so I worship him - he is a god
A what is a god then?

B you do not have the intellect to comprehend the logic of pet T-rex

...and so on.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

On RF when I make a claim "I can hold my breath" till someone imposes "you should provide evidence"
Is this correct? Are there examples of claims which can be made without having to provide evidence?

I could think of a few claims, where the smart ones will think twice before asking evidence
So, what determines if imposing "you should provide evidence" is correct
Where lies the line between "to prove or not to prove"?
Please create examples (with/without evidence)

Notes [also apply to the poll]:
1) This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF
2) This thread is not about whether it's called evidence or proof or other semantics
3) To keep it simple let's start with "Spiritual claims" (pros/cons) (*)
4) To keep it simple let's stick to claims made on RF
*) Any info giving better understanding is welcome

If I make a claim about my life or my experience, it generally is what it is. It is up to others to accept at face value or not. Generally is someone else is making a similar personal claim I usually give them the benefit of the doubt. I feel there is no benefit to lying about these things on a forum.

If however, I make a claim of some fact, I do my best to provide a reference to support it. Otherwise, if I can't I will usually admit so.

What others do is up to them. If they don't provide evidence I reserve judgement on my acceptance of the claim. Though if it sounds reasonable according to something that can be verified or according to my own experiences, I'm likely to give it any benefit of the doubt.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Everybody is free to do what they want.
Nobody is "obligated" to provide evidence for anything.

You are free to not care about the burden of proof.
You are free to not care about being rationally justified in your claims / beliefs.

However, if the goal is to try and convince others of your beliefs, and those others happen to DO care about being rationally justified in their beliefs, then you will fail miserably if you refuse (or are unable) to meet your burden of proof.
And we get to point it out.
I like those; lots of freedom. Thank you, you put it very simple and clear. I agree.

I have 1 question now:
I have heard the term "burden of proof" (I think I heard it first time on RF:D). Could it also be called "burden of evidence"?
I ask, because giving proof is kind of a definite thing, like 100% sure (not 99.99999%), right? As below, scientists add and refine, hence no solid proof. Or does it mean that a scientist will never make a claim, unless it's 100% proven, hence no need for the scientist of "burden of proof"?
"Proof" suggests that a matter is completely settled, that we have had the last word on something. In science, we are constantly adding to and refining our knowledge. When we have a sufficiently large body of evidence supporting an idea, we accept that idea.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Facts are always true. But claimed facts might be true or false.
Thank you for your clear description. I did not try to make rules, but trying to understand how people think about this. Your answer is helpful.

Arguments involve claimed facts. If the claimed fact is common knowledge, it doesn't need to be supported.
Interesting.
For a Science Teacher "1+1=2 is true" and common knowledge
For a Spiritual Teacher "God exists is true" and common knowledge

If it isn't common knowledge, it can be supported by reasons, evidence or both.
That sounds easier and friendlier than "burden of proof is on you":D

Demands for evidence depend on the arena in which the claim has been made, and should be reasonable. Internet forums can't be too demanding.
I agree. IF one wants to debate the other, he should just ask if the other is into it. Can't expect others to be in the mood to go for a debate, can you?

Statements of opinion don't need to be supported but they aren't worth anything in debate either.
I understand. It could be though, that "Such an opinion could coincidentally be the truth the debaters tried to find, but are unable to proof", right?

A statement that begins "I believe.." might be a simple statement of fact, one not requiring support unless the poster is trying to convince others to also believe.
Right. That is the whole point of my OP.
IMO: I believe that as long as you don't try to impose on other, there is no obligation to give evidence. I believe it is better to never impose, but when people insist to impose, then at least provide good evidence, preferably proof. Otherwise just say IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
None of the above. For most, if not all, religious belief, there is no evidence. It's belief, like "What's your favorite colour?" or in other terms that lend to thinking that everyone should believe it: "What is the best colour?" There is no evidence for presenting that blue is the best colour, and if the person says their favourite colour is blue, who can argue with it?

Have you evidence for that?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
If one makes a strong claim, that such and such is a fact, or that such and such theory is widely accepted, one should be prepared to back up the claim with evidence, in case it is challenged.

If one makes only a tentative claim, or expresses a view, making clear it is a personal opinion, then that is different. No evidence is needed in that case, though supporting evidence will make it more persuasive.
Thank you for your clear explanation. I appreciate this

In some cases, one comes across a claim that the person making it thinks is "spiritual", but actually it makes a verifiable claim about the physical world. Such a claim may be challenged and so evidence may be needed.

In other cases a "spiritual" claim actually makes a verifiable claims about scripture or relgious tradition. That too can be open to challenge and may require support.

As a rule I think it is best always to have some evidence in reserve, unless you are making a free speculation, in which case it is not really a claim.
Nice addition these 2 extra cases you give. Thank you. And being prepared is always good, unless you like to be pinned down on the spot.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Wow, I am amazed. Then you are almost like a Saint IMO. I still get irritated once in a while, though, while being on RF helped to reduce it.
You have been on RF since 2011, that is more than 3 times as long as I have, so I better stick to RF, because I would love to get rid of irritation

02: IMO one should be free to make a spiritual claim refusing to provide evidence
I think one should be free to make a spiritual claim (as in Freedom of Speech; I don't say it is smart, wise or friendly, but I like the freedom)
And one should be free to refuse to provide evidence (as in Freedom of Speech, or impossible to provide evidence, or not the right time, etc.)
So, you disagree with these? Or did I phrase it wrongly?
 
Top