A lot of people talk about the burden of proof for religion. The religious will say "the burden of proof is on the atheists, they can't prove that God doesn't exist". And of course, the atheists will make a counter-claim. So who really has the burden of proof? Well, the problem with a belief-based system is that it's not a factual foundation for argument. People need to realize that their beliefs are just that.. beliefs. Which would be fine, if those of faith were able to keep it to themselves. But sadly, for most of the world, that isn't the case. In any religion, there is a wealth of people who think that their religion should be the authority on judgment of issues in life.. not just for themselves, but for everyone else too. And it's fine to think you're right. It's fine to think other people are wrong. But if you have no way to prove that you're right, then you have no reason to tell other people that you're right.

Many atheists have come under fire for attempting to remove religious iconography from America's mandatory culture. Those who attempt to get under God out of the pledge, who attempt to take in god we trust off of money, etc.. Are constantly criticized by the faithful. But do the faithful really have any right to do so? Who ever was taken seriously in an argument when they said "You're wrong, I can't prove it.. I don't even have any evidence, it's my personal belief.. but you're wrong"? Nobody. Because when you want to convince someone of something you have to have something to make your point with. Some sort of evidence that your position on that issue is a good one, and faith does not have that.

So when it comes to just having your beliefs, there is no burden of proof. They're beliefs, you can have them. But if you want to tell someone your beliefs are correct? You bet the burden of proof is on you. Or, at least the burden of evidence. You have to present something that shows WHY your belief is reasonable. And if for you, the truth is a matter of belief (and all religions are), then you have absolutely no foundation to claim that someone is incorrect for differing from your belief.

So please, have your beliefs, but know that they are beliefs, not facts, no matter how much faith you have. Don't expect someone to have your beliefs unless you can prove them. Let people have their own beliefs, and if you want to criticize them, be ready to present some reasons why. Don't tell someone that they'll find out how wrong they are after they die. Don't tell someone that your God is angry with them. Don't act like someone is just denying a truth by not believing, unless you can prove it. If the world could do that, it would be a much better place.

I believe in God, but to be fair to Atheists, they can't prove a negative. So the burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists. I just wonder what it would take to convince the Atheists that God is real. I mean would proof of the supernatural be enough or would God himself have to appear to them? Maybe it's different for each one.



That's fine so long as Atheists do the same thing. I don't like it when they try to blame religion for all the evil in the world and say believers are being irrational for believing in God. Why can't they just accept that many people believe in God? Why do some of them try to eliminate religion? Why can't they just let people be?

You're completely right, any faith should be personal and not imposed on others. As a Deist I believe in a Creator, but I can't prove he exists and I don't want others to accept my word and believe as I do... in fact, it's part of my belief system that people shouldn't take my word for it, and if they did and constructed their belief from that then they wouldn't be Deists anyway. It doesn't make a difference to me who believes as I do and who doesn't. As long as I'm allowed to believe whatever I want I'm happy. I don't need someone telling me their god is better, or that I'm going to end up in a hell I don't even believe in. It's preposterous.

I would think that would be a valid question for the theistic philosophies, that believe they have a right to command the world in the name of faith. So, while Atheists have nothing to promote, the same can not be said for those that believe it is necessary to spread the good news that one needs to accept a prophet in faith, to save themselves from their miserable life as a sinner. Which many don't even know is their condition, until that good news arrives to make it perfectly clear. Which then precludes the news from ever being tolerant in it's zeal to convert all thought to accepting on faith that affirmation, over all others considered lies and false, by it. The question then might be posed, why can't religious people leave people be!? One would think the job of a believer was to live their faith to the best of their ability. In that way, speaking to the moral value of the philosophy they cleave to. Instead of seeing all the world as subject to conversion because no other insight is considered worthy of respect. It's an incredible ego that imagines god fits inside human understanding. But I think it's fascist ignorance that would say there's only one way to understand and live, the fit.

What would take for Atheists to believe in God? Well, that's different for everyone. For me, it would have to be direct contact with humanity from a god, no "prophets" involved. Why? Because I know if a god existed that would be a very simple request. There's no reason why a god would not reveal himself to the world if he were all powerful.

I do think there are civilizations out there with beings whom would seem almost like gods to us. But they would not be the creators of all things, just highly advanced and evolved beings.

I agree with you to a point about the atheist thing. No atheist should force their opinions on theists. Although, there is factual evidence that contradicts the existence of religious gods. Biblical texts have inaccuracies.. I think there is some argument to be made there. If theists had actual proof of god, which is not some sort of interpreted proof or potential proof in a certain mindset, I think it would be fair for them to speak of their faith as if it were the truth. But they don't, so it's still a belief.

Now, I don't believe atheists have any right to criticize "personal god" theories, as deists have or agnostics may have. Those have no religious texts or anything attached to them, they are simply neutrals in that department because they make no claims which can be disproven.

Honestly, I would settle for a handshake or a cup of coffee with god to make me believe. Surely an all mighty and all powerful being has some time to shake my hand or drink some joe? I mean... He does want to save my soul... Right?



Nah, it's not all the evil. Just a good share of it. Many religions in theirselves are unethical and immoral.

Don't worry, I don't just argue against religion... I also argue against other immoral people like neo-nazis, racists, sexists and other items in this world.



I like this quote:

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

-Douglas Adams

Why must burden of proof lie with either side? It seems that both sides want to say the other guy needs to prove their stance, because by putting the "burden of proof" on the other side, it automatically sets up their own position as superior because by implication, they don't need to prove their side. There's just one problem with this: it's complete nonsense. Neither side can rightly be said to be a more superior position, and the burden of proof rightly goes to nobody, or perhaps everybody - it's not clear which.

My proof of Christianity is Jesus. I learnt about this Jesus through a collection of works that are today called "the Bible", which I have found to be trustworthy in everything I have read so far. I can show my proof to others, but that does not mean others are likely to accept or even believe this proof. That doesn't make one side "better" than the other, it's just a fact of life.

Regards, PA

That's just not true. The burden of proof always goes to the one who is making the claim(s).

I mean, if I say there is a tea pot between Mars and Earth that is in an orbit... There is no way to prove me wrong but are you going to believe me? Of course not. No reasonable person with a brain in their head would believe me without evidence.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

-Bertrand Russell

And are you not claiming that God does not exist? Thus the burden of proof lies on you. Except that you will say that it should go on me to prove that God does exist. Rightly, the burden of proof lies on no one, and to claim otherwise is just a poor attempt at instilling ones own view as the better view. And that goes for both Christians and non-Christians

But the concept of god first comes from believers who claim firstly he is real. Therefore the burden of proof lies on them.

The burden of proof still and always lies with the claimers. It's just not a religious arguement either but any arguement in the world the burden will always land on the person claiming there is such a thing or they can do such a thing.

You still can't prove god exists because you have zero evidence. I'm just saying you're wrong and I want evidence from you if you're right. Why should I have a burden for something you haven't shown any evidence for or even shown to be right? Makes no sense.


A legal burden or a burden of persuasion is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim.

--

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it.

Source

Well, as I said before, if it's a personal belief that does not affect other people and you do not tote it as "the" truth around people, and an atheist is trying to disprove it, it's fair for you to require disproof or evidence against it (Although absence of evidence IS at least partial evidence of absence), since you aren't making any sort of claim or challenging anyone.

And if you're just holding a belief and keeping it to yourself, like you said, the burden of proof is on nobody as the belief is not being disputed and has no reason to be disputed.

However, if someone is making decisions (which affect other people) based on their belief, or imposing their belief on others as the truth, if they're even publicly claiming that it's the truth.. that is when the burden of proof lies completely with the believer. That's what this topic was directed towards, anyone who attempts to "spread the word" or who talks to people as if their belief is the true correct belief. You have to be a fool to attempt to convince people to join you if you can offer no evidence that it would be a good idea to join you.

I've socialized and made friends with people of all religions (and non-religious) for the past decade and never once have I ever heard anyone ask for proof of anything. I've heard plenty of attempted "conversions" gone not as good as planned by the initiator, other than that I think the world has come to an understanding (middle east excluded of course) that others religious beliefs are based on that persons "feelings" and if they believe it, thats all the proof they will ever need.

i believe this, that absolute proof of gods existence would influence the choices that people make too much. if you knew that there was a god and you knew that there were consequences to you actions, your choices would differ. god is not a cosmic puppet master. and he is not a cosmic rapist that forces his will on people. he allows us to make our decisions.

So, even though God is all powerful, he's unable to make beings who will make the same decisions when they learn of his existence?

And don't you think it's just a bit convenient that in your theory God just happens to make choices that just happen to make him as unprovable as fairies?

That would be like me saying that every time you close your cupboard, the box of cereal on the bottom shelf comes to life. When you open the cupboard, it instantly becomes an inanimate object again. It doesn't come to life while the cupboard is open because then you'd sell your story to the media and get greedy.

Does that sound like a reasonable assertion?

And again, you can hold that as your personal belief, but you shouldn't tell other people that it's the absolute truth or a fact. If you say that it is the truth, you're expected to give a reason (actual evidence) as to why it is the truth.

Christians and Muslims believe that. Taoists don't believe that. Wiccans don't believe that either.



Atheists do have something to promote. They promote philosophy. They got the idea that religion is the cause of the evil in the world from a 19th century philosopher. Much of what they say comes from philosophers.

I don't believe we need anybody to save us from going to hell or having our souls destroyed. That's a Christian belief. Not all religions teach that. I don't like it either when Christians tell people they're going to hell because they don't believe Christianity is the truth. I agree with everything said in the first post. I just think it ought to apply to Atheists too.



Why can't everybody leave people be, both believers and nonbelievers? The world would be a much better place if people just accepted that people believe differently than they do. Why do so many people think everybody has to believe the same way they do?



Christians and Muslims try to convert people because their religions tell them to do it. They have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so they have every right to try and convert people. You have a right to ignore them if you don't like what they're saying. You can tell them where to go if you want to. You don't have to listen to them.

Seems to me that the only real problem with belief is the intolerance of other people's beliefs.

As for who is *right* in all this...I have yet to see "the burden of proof" fulfilled by any one position.

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion." ~Thomas Huxley 1908~

okay first thing that i said was "i believe", so i never said it was absoloute truth.

how could he give people free will but still make beings who will make the same decisions when they learn of his existence? god is not a puppet master.

gods desire is for people to develop a personal relationship with him through choice. what would be the point of a world full of robots?

exactly. its our purpose to put the message out there. no one makes you believe anything. you have the right to excercise your god given right to free will. the message comes from a place of genuine concern and a yearning to share what has made so many peoples lives better. if it offendes you so much, your anger probably hides something else deeper inside you. i can at least respect someone who considers both sides and chooses not to believe. but if anger is your first response, somethings wrong.

I have to disagree.
One thing I wish Christians would do is stop and think: "Hey, my religion has been around for 2000 years, it permeates western society, perhaps the person I am harassing the bejeebers out of has heard this sales pitch before. Maybe just this once I should just keep my mouth shut."
Unfortunately, most of the Christians I run across -- the ones that aren't related to me and thus don't know that trying to convert me is liable to get an ashtray or any other blunt object I can reach lobbed at their head -- keep preaching (and by the way, it nothing but a list of claims that cannot be proven). That's where my anger comes from, as well as the anger of more than a few other good heathen people that I know: the seemingly constant harassment. Doesn't really hide any deeper issues, just massive annoyance.

no need to take it so personally, perhaps people genuinely care about you. harrasment is the breach of a persons desire to be left alone. if you ask somenoe not to talk about it to you, and they continue then yes, thats rude. your violence is disturbing.

" debating the existence or non-existence of God is a fools game, because neither side agrees on what constitutes the burden of proof. Read any Christian apologetics and the argument goes: It is reasonable to assume God exists. From this assumption we can show that God must exist. The burden of proof that God doesn’t exist therefore falls upon the atheists. Read any atheist apologetics and you find the same argument: it is reasonable to assume God does not exist. From this assumption we can show that God doesn’t exist. The burden of proof that God exists therefore falls upon the believers. In the course of debates both sides present themselves as being reasonable and open to persuasion. In truth, however, the constraints each side places on what constitutes proof makes such persuasion impossible."

After all, for that which is true no proof is required. For that which is false no proof exists.

there are plenty of things all around you that are there, but you cant see it

I've been told that it is just caring that motivates evangelicals, but the cynic in me knows better. They are just preaching to make themselves feel better. It is like Super Mario Bros. Gotta collect those coins (souls saved) so you can get that extra life.

i agree every random person that comes to your door doesnt have a personal care of your soul.but if someone truly loves you and tries to share the message with you, you should listen.

Ah, that's just my Mom going at it again. LOL.
Actually got a thread sort of on that topic. LOL.

maybe if she really loves you that much, she wants you to experience the joy her relationship with god has given her.

Thanks for that quote, fullywired. That's what I was trying to say in my earlier posts, but this said it much better If you don't mind my asking, where did you get it? Aside from the requirement of this forumthat all quoted material be acknowledged, I'm interested in the source quote myself. Thanks,

Maybe. But I also think she knows me well enough I will never be happy living the quiet restrained life Christianity demands. She knows she raised a good man, she's told me that, but at the same time she also raised me to seek my own answers and to be my own person. Kind of a strange situation. She taught me to think for myself, then keeps trying to get me to think like her. LOL.

okay, what about christianity would restrain your life so much?

I feel like I would have to give up my sense of individuality and live the life someone else described for me instead of the one I describe for myself.

it doesnt take away your individuality. you dont "live the life someone else described", you just use god as a way to help you from steering of course. nothing the bible teaches says to lack being individual.

Why should one listen to someone tell them something that makes no logical sense, is intolerant of any contradictory ideology which is why the presumption to approach perfect strangers and inquire as to their beliefs, so as to tell them the good news that their faith is in error and not the one true faith, so that after the conversion attempt fails, the proselytizer is left believing the one they just approached is doomed for not accepting there is only one way back to the god that made the journey necessary, because omniscience curses it's creation

Why should anyone listen to such presumption, that has effectively contributed to the dumbing down of intellect and the destruction of civilizations, since the inception of it's intolerance, arrogance and prideful egotistical presumption it has a right to rule the world and the minds of everyone in it!? One does not slaughter people, to deliver the good news there is salvation after life, but not for those it killed to deliver the message because they were heretics that deserved the dying. One does not deliver good news outlawing other indigenous religious practices, and then claim it is tolerant. One does not declare there is only one way to find god while smug arrogance and bloated ego believes that in heaven the only one's in residence are their own kind. Pride and vanity are sins?! Then it would stand to reason christianity is sinful, because it is all about pride and vanity. Pride of having an exclusive right to believe there is only one understanding of good news. And the vanity that compells that delusion to go forth and attempt to conquer the world, by any means necessary, to prove it.

Maybe not, but that is still my sense of it. I would be using someone else's rules to govern my actions, instead of my own.

god is inside of you. you make your decisions, but god is that little voice of reason that causes you to wonder, "maybe this is wrong" rules are something you cant break, and if you get caught there will be consequences. god doesnt expect you to ALWAYS do the right thing, only that you honestly try, and if you fail you genuinely seek his forgiveness.

Sorry about my omission PA, here is the link http://www.bravehumans.com/2007/05/25/burden-of-proof/

Reason? What's that?
My problem is with the seeking forgiveness part. I don't have to beg forgiveness of anyone but my own conscience and those I injure.

god gave you life, a gift you dont deserve and can never repay him for. its not unreasonable to expect people to attempt to refrain from impurities (those are a debate unto itself),

I repay God for my life, but doing the best I can with it, living it as fully and completely as I can. And yeah, impurities, that would be a Pandora's Box. LOL.

it seems like all you need to do is explore your relationship with god, forget everything that you are, and figure out what your PERSONAL relationship with him is. life is as varied as the animals on the earth

I've already figured that out. Whatever runs this universe is cool with me and I with them, since I wouldn't be wired the way I was if it wasn't intended.

dude youve just convinced yourself that the wrongs in your life are okay. you've dulled yourself to them over time.

sorry dude, but your mom won

Hunh?
I never said I don't make mistakes. I do. But I live with them and learn from them. And whatever runs the universe doesn't expect me to beg forgiveness from He/She/It every time I screw up, as I am only human and it is expected. It simply just expects me to be.

by acknowledge that they are mistakes, you acknowledge that they are wrong. is it so hard to say that you're sorry that you did them?

I do apologize to the people I injure. And I have to live with my conscience. That's punishment enough, don't need to bring God into it at all.

so him allowing you to live your life doesnt earn him the right for you to occasionally say "i know i shouldnt have done that. i wish i hadnt. im sorry."

Don't have to do that since my God is active within me at all times in the guise of my conscience. When I screw up He smacks me in the head and says "Knock it off, dumba**!" Then proceeds to not let me forget about it.

no you dont have to do anything.

what makes your god so different from mine, i wonder?

How is it that you can determine god gave life which isn't deserved? Apparently your god thought he was worthy of life...or he wouldn't be here, according to your belief that god gives life.
Too - does god give life then smack that life down because that life isn't being used to praise/serve god? That's a huge ego at work, don't you think?

Most people ask for scientific evidence. We have scientific evidence that we exist... Lots of it.

Even after all that it's the person(s) who make the claim are the ones required for the burden of proof.


Think of this as a rape trial... Would you ask the rape victim to prove she wasn't raped?

Who said he'd be removing free will? He would just make more resolute beings. The free-will argument is nothing more than an excuse. God cannot be anything more than a puppet master should he exist. Because he always knows everything that will happen to whatever he creates. So in a sense, God would have to be a puppet master in creating them.

And I'd like to know just HOW you're supposed to have a personal relationship who DOESN'T want to reveal himself to you? I've believed in God before, and you can't tell me that God gives you signs or things like that, because those things simply don't happen. If you want something to happen bad enough you'll begin to tell yourself it did, even if it didn't. Look at what you're doing.. you've just told me God does not want to reveal himself to humans, then in the same breath wants humans to turn to him for a relationship, but how can they do that if he doesn't want humans to know he exists?



Atheists in general are not angry at the BELIEF in God. We are angry at all the problems that belief and the religion behind it has caused in our world.



What if someone was trying to share the message with you about the terrible lord Xenu and his thetans? Would you be ready and waiting to learn of how you can better yourself by removing thetans in the church of Scientology? Would you really?



Actually, it has a large grip on who you are as a person. Right after I became an atheist, I went from being a far-right conservative in my outlook to being a moderate/independent. I changed my views on relationships and sexuality, and on censorship, basically just on freedom in general. Religion over time takes away a large amount of freedom from your life.


Did you not understand the point of this thread? Again, when you are going to say something absurd like this and tote your belief as the truth and that other people are wrong about it, you'd better be able to prove it. So, can you prove it? We're talking jury-quality proof here. If not, then you should understand that all the evidence points to that little voice of reason being inside your brain, developed there because it was useful in a world of survival of the fittest. You are ignoring all the evidence to insert a baseless argument, so you shouldn't expect anyone to come over to your side.