|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 27, 2020 12:46:49 GMT
In the debate between religious believers and atheists, on what side does the 'burden of proof' lie? I'd say on neither. A burden of proof is established in disputes where some authority (like government) will enforce a decision. That's not the case here.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 13:01:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 13:01:02 GMT
You missed the real answer.
It’s THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.
When someone says God doesn’t exist as if it’s a fact, the burden of proof is on this person (if the other person isn’t asking the non-believer to believe).
When someone ASKS YOU TO BELIEVE IN GOD, the burden of proof is on the believer.
If they’re both making CLAIMS, they both have the burden of proof.
The burden of proof is on the person making a claim.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 13:05:13 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 13:05:13 GMT
You missed the real answer. It’s THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.When someone says God doesn’t exist as if it’s a fact, the burden of proof is on this person (if the other person isn’t asking the non-believer to believe). When someone ASKS YOU TO BELIEVE IN GOD, the burden of proof is on the believer. If they’re both making CLAIMS, they both have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. I don't make any assertions about a deliberate supernatural, although I lack belief in one. Do you believe God exists, SciFive? Evasion will be noted.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 13:12:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 13:12:54 GMT
When you attack believers for their beliefs, the burden of proof is on you.
FlimFlam tries to make arguments that “God” is inferior as a mind-fck attack on believers.
His obsession with attacking believers puts the burden of proof on him for deciding that believers deserve to be the targets of his attacks for their thoughts.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 13:24:40 GMT
goz likes this
Post by Rodney Farber on Dec 27, 2020 13:24:40 GMT
You missed the real answer. It’s THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.When someone says God doesn’t exist as if it’s a fact, the burden of proof is on this person (if the other person isn’t asking the non-believer to believe). When someone ASKS YOU TO BELIEVE IN GOD, the burden of proof is on the believer. If they’re both making CLAIMS, they both have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. If an atheist says, "There is no God", then they are making a claim. With the claim comes a burden of proof.
That's not what most atheists claim. They don't believe there is a God. Lack of belief is not the same as a claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 13:33:12 GMT
When you attack believers for their beliefs, the burden of proof is on you. FlimFlam tries to make arguments that “God” is inferior as a mind-fck attack on believers. His obsession with attacking believers puts the burden of proof on him for deciding that believers deserve to be the targets of his attacks for their thoughts. I agree I always try and make arguments but I rarely attack people in the way you mean - and as you do above - other than treating them with mild mockery and sarcasm when thought justified; I overwhelmingly focus on the weakness of their arguments (or absence of them), while any claims I make are normally substantiated, and trenchantly justified - which is all as it should be and why it is I demand it of others. So if I don't say that God does not exist, then what burden of proof should I attempt to discharge other than this? It is their problem, not mine, if anyone sees rough handling of their cherished beliefs as a 'personal attack'. Believe it or not, there is a common distinction between a person and that which they believe. In your own instance let us be reminded, you insist you are merely here "to pass on information about interesting religions" while apparently being unwilling to express what it is you actually believe in, (as we see currently). If no one knows that, and you don't acknowledge any personal beliefs, how can there be an attack on you through them? I don't know either. As one who so often refuses to answer direct questions or substantiation when asked (as in the other thread here where you have not produced any quotes of my alleged 'slander' against 'billions of innocents' lol), you criticising others for not providing proof of anything is particularly ironic.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 14:03:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 14:03:45 GMT
You missed the real answer. It’s THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.When someone says God doesn’t exist as if it’s a fact, the burden of proof is on this person (if the other person isn’t asking the non-believer to believe). When someone ASKS YOU TO BELIEVE IN GOD, the burden of proof is on the believer. If they’re both making CLAIMS, they both have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. If an atheist says, "There is no God", then they are making a claim. With the claim comes a burden of proof.
That's not what most atheists claim. They don't believe there is a God. Lack of belief is not the same as a claim. The anti-religion religion says flat out that God doesn’t exist. It is truly a religion to them and quite a hostile one. They cannot cope with other people having beliefs they don’t share. It drives them like a fire under their feet. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 14:14:10 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 14:14:10 GMT
If an atheist says, "There is no God", then they are making a claim. With the claim comes a burden of proof. That's not what most atheists claim. They don't believe there is a God. Lack of belief is not the same as a claim. The anti-religion religion says flat out that God doesn’t exist. Not all atheists assert that God does not exist, as has been patiently been explained to you before. In fact the definition of atheism these days is more the mere lack of belief in God. And atheism is not a religion. Look it up. It is only you here who apparently thinks 'religion' is an insult Ironic this, given the history of religious inquisition and torture remembered from history!
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 27, 2020 14:27:56 GMT
When you attack believers for their beliefs, the burden of proof is on you. FlimFlam tries to make arguments that “God” is inferior as a mind-fck attack on believers. His obsession with attacking believers puts the burden of proof on him for deciding that believers deserve to be the targets of his attacks for their thoughts. Please don`t spam this thread with that BS like you have done in the other thread.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 15:05:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 15:05:23 GMT
When you attack believers for their beliefs, the burden of proof is on you. FlimFlam tries to make arguments that “God” is inferior as a mind-fck attack on believers. His obsession with attacking believers puts the burden of proof on him for deciding that believers deserve to be the targets of his attacks for their thoughts. Please don`t spam this thread with that BS like you have done in the other thread. This is part of the issue. Religion vs the anti-religion religion. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 27, 2020 15:15:19 GMT
You missed the real answer. It’s THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.When someone says God doesn’t exist as if it’s a fact, the burden of proof is on this person (if the other person isn’t asking the non-believer to believe). When someone ASKS YOU TO BELIEVE IN GOD, the burden of proof is on the believer. If they’re both making CLAIMS, they both have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. Yeah kinda in the same way if someone is claiming the universe was created by outerspace leprechauns and someone rejects that claim, the burden on proof is on them to prove outerspace leprechauns don't exist. Flawless reasoning. What part of "atheism isn't a claim" do you not understand? "When someone says God doesn’t exist as if it’s a fact" Most atheists typically don't do that (most are agnostic atheists). Sounds like another one of your strawmans. "When someone ASKS YOU TO BELIEVE IN GOD, the burden of proof is on the believer." Of course you're not going to ask anyone on here to believe in God, most people on here are probably well past their teens, it's very difficult, almost impossible to get someone to change their religious views (or lack of them) at that point. That's why religious indocrination mostly works on children, they're less skeptical and far less likely to ask for proof of religious/theistic claims. Could you imagine if parents didn't indocrinate their children? Religiousity would probably drop like crazy.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 15:37:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 15:37:25 GMT
Religion has been a mainstream human race attribute going all the way back to the origins of recorded human history.
Deciding to wipe out an integral part of the himan race is cancel culturing our species.
This isn’t some made-up thing that started yesterday.
Attacking the human race is an attack on an important species.
If you don’t believe in a higher power, goody for you.
If it is your religion to attack religion, then expect the human race to fight back.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 27, 2020 15:44:47 GMT
Religion has been a mainstream human race attribute going all the way back to the origins of recorded human history. Deciding to wipe out an integral part of the himan race is cancel culturing our species. This isn’t some made-up thing that started yesterday. Attacking the human race is an attack on an important species. If you don’t believe in a higher power, goody for you. If it is your religion to attack religion, then expect the human race to fight back. "Religion has been a mainstream human race attribute going all the way back to the origins of recorded human history. " Argument from tradition fallacy. Just because a belief is old and practiced by many people doesn't give it validity. For the longest time foot binding in Chin was considered a traditional mark of beauty until society decided it was cruel and outdated. This really isn't a good argument to make. "Deciding to wipe out an integral part of the himan race is cancel culturing our species." How is religion "integral"? What can it provide that secular thinking can't? You realize there are plenty of irreligious nations (particularly the Nordic region) that are functioning just fine without it, right? "This isn’t some made-up thing that started yesterday." Yeah again, argument from tradition fallacy. "Attacking the human race is an attack on an important species." Another pathetic strawman
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 15:56:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 15:56:44 GMT
Do you read what you write?
Religion is a normal part of the human race.
Slinging a dozen “talking point arrows” is not a conversation, by the way.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 16:07:12 GMT
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 27, 2020 16:07:12 GMT
Do you read what you write? Religion is a normal part of the human race. Slinging a dozen “talking point arrows” is not a conversation, by the way. I'm assuming you're responding to my post ( I dunno why you didn't tag/quote me) "Religion is a normal part of the human race." This is just an appeal to popularity fallacy. "Normal" is just a social construct created by what society and evironemntal factors deems to be "normal" not necessarily based on empirical/objective truth. You realize it used to be "normal" to worship the sun and uses leeches to cure disease, right? "Slinging a dozen “talking point arrows” is not a conversation, by the way." I'm not sure what this means. If you're accusing me of shoveling out a bunch of recycled atheist talking points, I would argue all arguments are essntially "talking points" anyways (no one typically get their arguments/idea out of a vaccum, they're typically derived from other arguments/ideas). Also notice how you haven't provided any actual counterarguments that I haven't addressed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 16:11:05 GMT
Do you read what you write? Religion is a normal part of the human race. Slinging a dozen “talking point arrows” is not a conversation, by the way. You really like spamming the board with your nonsense don't you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 16:12:02 GMT
This thread has been ruined by a user, so i just removed the question and poll. She sounds like a real loser...
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 16:17:16 GMT
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 27, 2020 16:17:16 GMT
This thread has been ruined by a user, so i just removed the question and poll. He sounds like a real loser... She
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 16:34:28 GMT
Post by mikef6 on Dec 27, 2020 16:34:28 GMT
When you attack believers for their beliefs, the burden of proof is on you. FlimFlam tries to make arguments that “God” is inferior as a mind-fck attack on believers. His obsession with attacking believers puts the burden of proof on him for deciding that believers deserve to be the targets of his attacks for their thoughts. As I said on the other thread where we talked, religion is not "attacked" because of thought but because of actions. Religious beliefs are a danger to ones self and to others.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 27, 2020 17:10:26 GMT
Post by MCDemuth on Dec 27, 2020 17:10:26 GMT
Discussions here are ruined all the time. Get used to it.
|
|
