Butters 0 #1 April 27, 2012 Watch this if you're confused about who bears the burden of proof ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #2 April 27, 2012 Actually pretty interesting. I make the claim that there is a God because I am here. If you believe that you are here, you must follow the chain backwards. (I have no problem with eveloution) at some point it all "started" therefore I accept a "God" because I cannot logically understand something starting by itself. Weird works for me. So my burdon of proof that the non believer would have to disprove is: How did we get here?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #3 April 27, 2012 And this video is proof! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #4 April 27, 2012 Is this another anti-religion thread? One that STILL doesn't understand that asking for "proof" is moot? Not only moot, but just plain misunderstanding of it all?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #5 April 27, 2012 Quote. . . therefore I accept a "God" because I cannot logically understand something starting by itself. Weird works for me. So my burdon of proof that the non believer would have to disprove is: How did we get here? Don't know. How did "God" get here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #6 April 27, 2012 QuoteIs this another anti-religion thread? While the video was in regards to religion the thread is about burden of proof in general. QuoteOne that STILL doesn't understand that asking for "proof" is moot? Not only moot, but just plain misunderstanding of it all? I understand, you don't require proof to distinguish between reality and fantasy."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #7 April 27, 2012 QuoteSo my burdon of proof that the non believer would have to disprove is: How did we get here? Did you watch the video? I ask because this question shows that you do not understand who bears the burden of proof."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #8 April 27, 2012 Ahh, another inspired video come to bear the light of truth on to the poor masses in the dark. Plenty of people find proof and evidence for some sort of Divine at work (or had been at work). We can easily start turning the tables and ask why do some people always put blinders on no matter what is presented. The hardened atheist may very well be hardened not because he hasn't seen proof, but because he doesn't like the message or implications of what the evidence suggests. Thus, he declares proof and/or arguments invalid to suit his own agenda. There are testimonies of such things happening, and even if certain atheists don't admit to it directly, one can see it in their arguments and writings from time to time. On more than one occasion, personally, I've been involved in discussions with atheists and asked, "What would constitute proof that you would believe?" to which they have replied, "Nothing." If nothing will change your mind, then your position is not based on evidence, but sheer desire for it to be so. Are all atheists like this? No. But my point is, this vid goes a long, long way to assume that there are no valid arguments for any sort of divine, and thus the burden of proof as not nor ever will be met. Secondly, you will never have 100% concrete proof of something that exists outside this universe. In fact, if we really get down to it, you'll never have 100% concrete proof of anything other than your own existence. So, if we want to really take the videos line of insurmountable burden proof needed to truly say this or that exists, this or that has happened, we shouldn't believe anything at all.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 April 27, 2012 QuotePlenty of people find proof and evidence for some sort of Divine at work (or had been at work). that statement is completely contrary to the requirement for faith look - you either believe, or you don't believe - no other requirement or evidence is needed any claim to "proof" is just lame rationalization for those of weak faith IMO ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #10 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuotePlenty of people find proof and evidence for some sort of Divine at work (or had been at work). that statement is completely contrary to the requirement for faith look - you either believe, or you don't believe - no other requirement or evidence is needed any claim to "proof" is just lame rationalization for those of weak faith IMO This is a misunderstanding of faith and is the contemporary, bastardized version that's come about in the last, maybe century or so. Faith (OT/NT at least) is about trust. The original texts never say to believe God did this or that just because God or someone else said so. Proof was required and scrutinized all throughout the text for certain acts. In fact, if someone claimed to be a prophet and did not have the proof to back the claims, they could be stoned. Moreover, if you look at the texts as a whole, they never say, "Believe in God because I said so" because God was already a given. God and the prophets throughout the texts frequently point to and provide proofs that they are who they say they are. Thus, to say faith is the blind belief in God is incorrect as that never would have been a point of contention. An analogy would be to something like saying, "I have faith in my doctor." I'm not saying I blindly believe my doctor exists, or that he is in fact, a doctor (and not a quack). What I'm saying is, based on all I know and have seen about the doctor, I trust that they are looking out for my best interests, that they will take care of me, and that whatever they prescribe is what I need. Big difference.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #11 April 27, 2012 Do you understand the difference between subjective and objective? An individual should supply objective evidence to substantiate their claim. Do you have any objective evidence? Regarding religion, there are individuals on both sides who are steadfast in their beliefs regardless of proof. However, that does not change who bears the burden of proof."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #12 April 27, 2012 QuoteGod and the prophets throughout the texts frequently point to and provide proofs that they are who they say they are. Do you understand why this is an invalid argument? QuoteAn analogy would be to something like saying, "I have faith in my doctor." I'm not saying I blindly believe my doctor exists, or that he is in fact, a doctor (and not a quack). What I'm saying is, based on all I know and have seen about the doctor, I trust that they are looking out for my best interests, that they will take care of me, and that whatever they prescribe is what I need. Big difference. This shows that you have faith (or believe) that your doctor is looking out for you best interests but it does nothing to prove it."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,260 #13 April 27, 2012 Quote So my burdon of proof that the non believer would have to disprove is: How did we get here? That's not right, it's not even wrong. How does one disprove "How did we get here?"?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #14 April 27, 2012 QuoteDo you understand the difference between subjective and objective? An individual should supply objective evidence to substantiate their claim. Do you have any objective evidence? Plenty of people say they do. You should reread what I wrote.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #15 April 27, 2012 QuoteHowever, that does not change who bears the burden of proof. nonsense, in matters of faith, neither "side" has a burden of proof at all. they just have their positions there isn't even a constructive purpose for the debate ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,260 #16 April 27, 2012 QuotePlenty of people find proof and evidence for some sort of Divine at work (or had been at work). No they don't. QuoteWe can easily start turning the tables and ask why do some people always put blinders on no matter what is presented. No you can't. QuoteThe hardened atheist may very well be hardened not because he hasn't seen proof, but because he doesn't like the message or implications of what the evidence suggests. Some atheists may be so for reasons other than evidence, but seeing as there is no evidence to support religious claims it's a moot point. QuoteSecondly, you will never have 100% concrete proof of something that exists outside this universe. But religion (almost always) claims it acts inside the universe.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #17 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteGod and the prophets throughout the texts frequently point to and provide proofs that they are who they say they are. Do you understand why this is an invalid argument? QuoteAn analogy would be to something like saying, "I have faith in my doctor." I'm not saying I blindly believe my doctor exists, or that he is in fact, a doctor (and not a quack). What I'm saying is, based on all I know and have seen about the doctor, I trust that they are looking out for my best interests, that they will take care of me, and that whatever they prescribe is what I need. Big difference. This shows that you have faith (or believe) that your doctor is looking out for you best interests but it does nothing to prove it. As before, you should reread what I wrote and what I was responding to. You've missed the point entirely. I'll break it down so you don't have to guess and make assumptions. It was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. I then went to explain that the real usage was more synonymous with what we consider "trust". Big, big difference.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #18 April 27, 2012 Quote Faith (OT/NT at least) is about trust. The original texts never say to believe God did this or that just because God or someone else said so. Proof was required and scrutinized all throughout the text for certain acts. In fact, if someone claimed to be a prophet and did not have the proof to back the claims, they could be stoned. Moreover, if you look at the texts as a whole, they never say, "Believe in God because I said so" because God was already a given. God and the prophets throughout the texts frequently point to and provide proofs that they are who they say they are. Thus, to say faith is the blind belief in God is incorrect as that never would have been a point of contention. the statement about trust is the true one. The point about "God being a given" is the absolute statement of blind faith. all the research and proof and studies is twofold - rationalization by those of weak faith for something that doesn't require (true, objective) proof. In fact, ANY indication of that type of proof is anathema to the whole concept. And, consolidation of the organized power structure to maintain it's position in the world over its membership and the grow that membership by any means. (that's the personal AND the organizational justifications by those of 'supposed' faith to rationalize their beliefs.) none of the 'observations' can be given as any kind of true proof - that's silly. It's like the simpleton pointing to the birth of a child and claiming it's proof and a miracle - even though it's happened to billions of people - perhaps all of them..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #19 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteHowever, that does not change who bears the burden of proof. nonsense, in matters of faith, neither "side" has a burden of proof at all. they just have their positions there isn't even a constructive purpose for the debate They can have their position (faith). However, when a claim is made then the individual making the claim bears the burden of proof which must be satisfied before using the claim to make other claims."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #20 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuotePlenty of people find proof and evidence for some sort of Divine at work (or had been at work). No they don't. Yes they do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so. Quote QuoteWe can easily start turning the tables and ask why do some people always put blinders on no matter what is presented. No you can't.Quote Yes we can Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so. Quote QuoteThe hardened atheist may very well be hardened not because he hasn't seen proof, but because he doesn't like the message or implications of what the evidence suggests. Some atheists may be so for reasons other than evidence, but seeing as there is no evidence to support religious claims it's a moot point. Only for you. For others, there is plenty of evidence. Quote QuoteSecondly, you will never have 100% concrete proof of something that exists outside this universe. But religion (almost always) claims it acts inside the universe. And your point is? I really have no idea where you are going with this. Religion and existence of divine beings while related, do not necessitate each other whatsoever.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,260 #21 April 27, 2012 QuoteIt was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. I then went to explain that the real usage was more synonymous with what we consider "trust". You must have some epic arguments with other Jesusites who say the exact opposite.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #22 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteGod and the prophets throughout the texts frequently point to and provide proofs that they are who they say they are. Do you understand why this is an invalid argument? QuoteAn analogy would be to something like saying, "I have faith in my doctor." I'm not saying I blindly believe my doctor exists, or that he is in fact, a doctor (and not a quack). What I'm saying is, based on all I know and have seen about the doctor, I trust that they are looking out for my best interests, that they will take care of me, and that whatever they prescribe is what I need. Big difference. This shows that you have faith (or believe) that your doctor is looking out for you best interests but it does nothing to prove it. As before, you should reread what I wrote and what I was responding to. You've missed the point entirely. I'll break it down so you don't have to guess and make assumptions. It was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. I then went to explain that the real usage was more synonymous with what we consider "trust". Big, big difference. I didn't miss the point. Faith (or trust) can be devoid of proof. Good, great, grand. The thread is about making a claim and bearing the burden of proof ... you missed the thread."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #23 April 27, 2012 QuoteIt was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. but, in actuality, just because the organization wanted to make the term "faith" more substantial by cooking up loose observations and calling it rational underpinning doesn't change the true meaning and intent of the term I'm not interested in this type of semantics discussion. I understand your point and expect you to acknowledge mine....so we don't waste any more time. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #24 April 27, 2012 QuoteI didn't miss the point. Faith (or trust) can be devoid of proof. Good, great, grand. The thread is about making a claim and bearing the burden of proof ... you missed the thread. that's the point - the truly faithful should not feel compelled to make these claims - if they had strong enough convictions. It's all about recruitment (or ego) - or it wouldn't be necessary ditto for the anti-religious ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #25 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotePlenty of people find proof and evidence for some sort of Divine at work (or had been at work). No they don't. Yes they do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so. You're correct, it doesn't matter if someone likes the evidence but it does matter whether the evidence is subjective or objective. Do you have any objective evidence?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jakee 1,260 #21 April 27, 2012 QuoteIt was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. I then went to explain that the real usage was more synonymous with what we consider "trust". You must have some epic arguments with other Jesusites who say the exact opposite.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #22 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteGod and the prophets throughout the texts frequently point to and provide proofs that they are who they say they are. Do you understand why this is an invalid argument? QuoteAn analogy would be to something like saying, "I have faith in my doctor." I'm not saying I blindly believe my doctor exists, or that he is in fact, a doctor (and not a quack). What I'm saying is, based on all I know and have seen about the doctor, I trust that they are looking out for my best interests, that they will take care of me, and that whatever they prescribe is what I need. Big difference. This shows that you have faith (or believe) that your doctor is looking out for you best interests but it does nothing to prove it. As before, you should reread what I wrote and what I was responding to. You've missed the point entirely. I'll break it down so you don't have to guess and make assumptions. It was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. I then went to explain that the real usage was more synonymous with what we consider "trust". Big, big difference. I didn't miss the point. Faith (or trust) can be devoid of proof. Good, great, grand. The thread is about making a claim and bearing the burden of proof ... you missed the thread."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #23 April 27, 2012 QuoteIt was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. but, in actuality, just because the organization wanted to make the term "faith" more substantial by cooking up loose observations and calling it rational underpinning doesn't change the true meaning and intent of the term I'm not interested in this type of semantics discussion. I understand your point and expect you to acknowledge mine....so we don't waste any more time. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #24 April 27, 2012 QuoteI didn't miss the point. Faith (or trust) can be devoid of proof. Good, great, grand. The thread is about making a claim and bearing the burden of proof ... you missed the thread. that's the point - the truly faithful should not feel compelled to make these claims - if they had strong enough convictions. It's all about recruitment (or ego) - or it wouldn't be necessary ditto for the anti-religious ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #25 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotePlenty of people find proof and evidence for some sort of Divine at work (or had been at work). No they don't. Yes they do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so. You're correct, it doesn't matter if someone likes the evidence but it does matter whether the evidence is subjective or objective. Do you have any objective evidence?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
