jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (129 posts)

burden of proof

  1. 0
    christiananrkistposted 2 years ago

    its said that the person who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. I believe this to be true, however doesnt the person objecting to the claim also share some burden? afterall, can a profitable and fruitful conversation actually take place if only 1 person shares why they believe what they do? when both parties share the burden, then the real conversation can begin and progress can be made. How do you see it?

    1. JMcFarland profile image92
      JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In the world of religious debates, it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist.  You can't go looking in every crevice of the known universe looking for Santa Claus before you can say with some confidence that you don't find a reason to believe that Santa is real.  I don't have to definitively prove that bigfoot doesn't exist before saying I don't believe in him.

      I lack a belief in a god.  If I were to make the claim "no god exists" I would assume the burden of proof for that claim.  It's a positive claim, even with the word "no" in it, and it should be verifiable with evidence.  What kind of evidence would you expect from someone who lacks a belief in something that would contribute to the conversation?  Do you have an assumed burden of proof if you lack a belief in leprechauns or unicorns?  What kind of evidence would you present?  What would your burden of proof be in those circumstances?  Asking an atheist to assume some of the burden of proof for a claim that they're not making seems a bit intellectually dishonest (not you, personally, but the debate in general).

      I like this article on the burden of proof, personally:  http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … n_of_proof

      as an example (from the article)     
      In the United States legal system, the burden of proof in most criminal trials is on the prosecution (claimant) to prove to a judge or jury that the defendant is guilty (the claim) beyond a reasonable doubt, because there is a presumption of innocence (thus presuming the claim to be false) going into the proceedings.
          Again in the United States, in most civil trials the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (claimant) merely to "tip the scales" in their favor, so that their claim is "more likely true than not" (also known as preponderance of the evidence or balance of probabilities). In this case, there is much more "symmetry" between the two sides of the case, and yet in the unlikely case of a "tie" — complete parity between the two cases presented — judgment must be in favor of the defendant.

      And I also like the quote by Hitchens "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

      As always, I enjoy our discussions, and look forward to more of them.  You are always respectful, you don't resort to name-calling or insults, and you have reasonable, intelligent things to say.  these are all qualities that I appreciate.

      1. 0
        christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        i agree you cant prove something doesnt exist. so, maybe burden of proof is the wrong term here. I feel most people have reasons for why they do or dont believe something. For the person who does not, I feel like could really add to the conversation if they give their reasons for why not. Then both people know where each other stands and for what reasons. I also feel like both should give their reasons because sometimes it seems as if someone is only stating what they believe or dont, and never gives reasons for the belief. this leads me to believe they havent thought much about their belief and have only been pre-conditioned to say certain things or have never been willing to listen to another view point.

        1. JMcFarland profile image92
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe the burden of proof is the wrong term.   Let me phrase it in a different way.

          If I accuse you of being a murderer,  is it up to you to prove that you're not,  or is it up to me to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are?  How would you go about proving that you've never killed anyone?

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Those things don't really correlate do they?

            You accuse me of murder...
            I assert that God is real and that He loves us.

            Obviously the examples are different, yes, but I'm wondering how the action of you accusing and me asserting are even similar.

            1. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I made no effort to correlate the two.   The op said that the burden of proof may be the wrong term when I responded to him,  and I'm attempting to clarify his original position.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I think this is where I most disagree with the Atheists on the forum, and it was my first point on this thread.

                If I am accused of murder, you look at me and tell me to prove that I did not. Why? Because it is an illegal act and if there is any doubt of my innocence, I must defend myself or I might be imprisoned.

                I believe in God, I believe the Bible is true, I believe He sent His son to give life and give it more abundantly to those who would place their faith on Him... if you do not believe, will I be imprisoned? No, I'm far more likely to be imprisoned for speaking those words, if not in this country, in others. I know why I feel a personal burden... b/c of love for those who do not believe... however, how do you see this as a burden? If you are open to the idea, you might say "prove it". If you are closed to the idea, you might say, "____ off." Where do you see the burden? Does this mean you're open to the idea?

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                  DoubleScorpionposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Umm.. She is saying that if you are accused of Murder...It is on the Accuser to prove that you did it...Not that you have to prove you didn't...

                  So to claim there is a God...The claimee must provide the proof...Not the listener...

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So her point is only that she disagrees with the Op who thinks if it is more of a mutual discussion, a better conversation will be had? Ok, I see.

                  2. 61
                    squeeknomoreposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    - what if God was invisible
                    and only  y o u  can sense him…
                    God is not provable to others. End of story.
                    However, it is perfectly fine to discuss the matter, as God is real to those who have felt his presence and have been guided by his invisible hand.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No. The burden of proof is always on the one making a positive claim ("Something is"), in most cases. The only time a negative claim ("Something isn't") must be given the same treatment is when the negative claim conflicts with concrete facts (e.g. "Gravity doesn't exist").

      If your claim is "God exists," then it's all on you to provide proof that God does, indeed, exist. You're going to need some pretty strong tangible evidence to prove that a massive all-powerful deity resides within the clouds of our troposphere (which, need I remind you, is where the Bible says God dwells), or anywhere at all.

      1. 0
        christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Im not against the one making the claim to provide proof or reasons. I just think the conversation goes nowhere when the person objecting the claim does not give reasons for their disbelief. for example. i say i believe in God because...then i give 1 or 2 reasons. then the other person says i dont believe because... and give 1 or 2 reasons. now we both know where each other stands and some type of respectful conversation can progress. so many times however i see or hear "thats not evidence" or something of that nature that takes the conversation nowhere. im not just talking with me either. i notice this on tv and radio with so called professionals. also lets not get carried away with a religious discussion. i know its difficult to not think thats what im referring to directly with my name. im just talkin with debates and discussion in general.

    3. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The burden of proof goes to a person making an assertion (i.e. that something is true, is linked, is important etc).  The burden does not go on the negative claim (i.e. that it is not).

    4. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A person making a claim can tell us why they believe what they believe, but that doesn't substantiate the claim in any way. The person making the claim needs to provide hard evidence to substantiate the claim before a discussion can take place. No progress can be made until the evidence is produced.

    5. WiccanSage profile image95
      WiccanSageposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The proof that is the burden is in evidence-- convincing evidence, preferably that can be observed, tested, etc.

      Things that don't exist don't leave evidence behind of their non-existence.

    6. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "its said that the person who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. I believe this to be true"

      The burden is only placed on someone by their desire to convince others of the truth of their claim. "Proof" is a necessary aspect of that interaction because of the nature of human beings (human minds cannot directly experience other minds, as far as we know). If convincing others is irrelevant to someone, then proof is not a burden they have to carry. They are literally free of the burden of proof.

      Moreover, assuming someone does want to convince others of the truth of their claim, available evidence (or lack thereof) only has a bearing on how well someone is able to convince others of the truth of their claim, not the actual truth of the claim.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        True, although you need to add the concept of proof to ones self as well.  Some of us care that what we believe has a high probability of being true; that is has been "proven" and proven with evidence generally acceptable to others rather than with an opinion or "feeling" that it is right.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not so sure. If we genuinely think we have experienced something and there is no categorical evidence to the contrary then, even if it's extraordinary, belief can form based on that experience (or apparent experience).  I think that's because the assumption our senses are working correctly increases our chances of survival. So we are effectively genetically programmed to give a high value to experience, even over reason. A lack of evidence may make some people reluctant to share beliefs based on experiences they cannot prove, but I'm not sure it would cause them to disbelieve it themselves.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Absolutely experience will produce a belief that it was true.  You just don't know if the belief is correct or not until you prove it - a simple experience is seldom proof of any kind.

            Example - you see a UFO and declare it is an alien craft.  You know this because you see it floating in the sky and it is round.  True?  Unlikely in the extreme.

            Or you see your lamp go off and back on, deciding a ghost did it.  You saw it, after all!  True?  Unlikely in the extreme; before you can actually decide it was a ghost you really should prove it to yourself.

            Because even if you actually try to disprove our beliefs (and few people will), ignorance (lack of knowledge of anything that might disprove it) is not proof it is true.  The constant refrain from theists everywhere is a wonderful example of this: "If you can't prove my god does not exist then it is there!".  It doesn't work, of course.

            Belief is not knowledge, no matter how much we would like it to be.  Without knowledge we cannot tell truth from lie.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              If a belief is true, it is correct and vice versa, as true and correct are synonymous. What we don't know is whether the experience that belief is based on was genuine rather than an illusion, hallucination etc. In the absence of anything suggesting otherwise, people default to assuming an experience (however extraordinary or unlikely) is genuine, because of the high value we assign to experience. That's one of the reasons there are people who genuinely believe they have been abducted by aliens. The likelihood of that experience being genuine may be low, but their apparent experience is enough for them to form the belief. They maintain that belief even though they are unable to prove it satisfactorily to anyone else.

              They don't have a burden of proof to others (unless they want to convince others of their belief) and they don't have a burden of proof to themselves, as they assume the experience that lead to the belief was genuine.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't make myself clear.

                While it is true the experience can be false to fact, we do indeed trust our senses there and rightfully so.  It's all we have, after all.

                I was referring more to the conclusions we tack onto our experiences.  Seeing a UFO should not give rise to a belief in aliens, but it does - the conclusion is drawn from the experience of seeing an unidentified flying object and deciding to believe it is of alien manufacture rather than natural causes or man made.

                It is those conclusions, then, that need corroboration by other proof before being accepted as truth.  Not so much the observation/experience itself (although that can sometimes be recognized as needing more, too) but the conclusion drawn.

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I see. Thanks for the clarification. Yes there is a difference between seeing a UFO and jumping to the conclusion it was an alien, and believing you have genuinely experienced an alien first hand. The former is a reasoning fault. The latter results from trusting our senses. Going back to the subject of burden of proof, I think those people in the latter case would only have the burden of proof if they wanted to convince someone else. They may be reluctant to share their belief because they can't prove it to anyone else, but they wouldn't need to prove it to themselves. Their apparent genuine experience serves as the only proof they need, such is the power of experience.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    With few exceptions I would agree. 

                    Seeing an alien while drunk on your a$$ should probably not be taken at face value, nor an out-of-body experience while oxygen starved to the point of death.  Our senses thus provide the proof we need, even though perhaps not enough for someone else.

                    But normally we trust our sense and for good reason.  We simply cannot require that everything we see, hear, touch, etc. be independently verified somehow.

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 2 years ago

    I agree, but you have to accept that some aren't looking for discussion. They want debate. If you expect to engage in reasonable dialogue they will disappoint.

    1. 0
      christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      good point.

  3. 0
    Beth37posted 2 years ago

    It occurs to me that no one needs to validate a claim in order for it to be made. You can speak about your faith freely and if no one agrees, that changes nothing. Either what you share is true or it's not. They want to prove that it's not, but they can't, they can only argue. So these are the choices as I see them.

    Do you want to share your faith? Yes or no?
    Do you want to defend it? Yes or no?

    You can do the first alone or you can do both. The choice is up to you.

    1. 0
      christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      i would disagree that it changes nothing. what could change is someones view in a certain area. sure anyone can claim anything they want. without proper validation though, why should anyone take it seriously?

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You could change someone's viewpoint with anything you say... so should we never say anything? I don't mean believers, I mean mankind. We do not control others, and if we do, something's wrong... both with the speaker and the listener.

        Who says you have to take it seriously? View points are to be heard, considered and then they either teach you something you didn't know or you dismiss them.

        1. JMcFarland profile image92
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So how would anyone ever change their minds?  There are dozens of examples of people either coverting to a different faith,  or moving from theism to atheism.   Did they just wake up one morning and  spontaneously change their minds?  Of course not.   They talked to people.  They researched and investigated.  If it wasn't possible to reach anyone regardless of what you say, what is the point of having conversations at all?   I'm here because I enjoy the conversation.   You have repeatedly stated that you're here to tell people about jesus (regardless of the fact that everyone knows).  If you don't think anything you say can have an effect,  what's the point of saying anything?   Isn't it worthless,  in which case everyone should go elsewhere?

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I don't believe you read my post at all... not sure what happened there. I said in the very first sentence that we could change someone's mind with literally anything we say, from a new favorite restaurant to encouraging them to break up with a spouse.

            Where's the break down of communication here?

            1. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I could have sworn that you said "you could never change someone's mind with anything you say".

              I must be imagining things.  My bad.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I haven't edited that post. It's remained the same since I first placed it there.
                Don't worry about it. smile

  4. MelissaBarrett profile image59
    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago

    Burden of proof is so subjective when dealing with things that have no established rules for what constitutes proof.

    In the case of most religions/philosophies, it boils down to each person's personal requirements of "proof" .  To someone like Julie, for example, proof of God might be him showing up and personally bending the scientific laws with no other explainable cause but his presence.

    To another poster, proof may be that rainbows are pretty.

    So any conversation where one must "prove" the presence of God basically means the speaker must prove it to the level of burden of proof of the listener. Since the speaker doesn't know what that level is, good luck with that.

    That's why these conversations go so far adrift and end up in so much irritation. Person A is trying to convince Person B with evidence that doesn't meet Person B's personal burden of proof.

    But no, person B has no requirements to prove that they don't believe. It would help the conversation along if they said "Show me this. This is what I need to have presented before I believe."

    But what fun would that be?

    1. JMcFarland profile image92
      JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But honestly,  I don't KNOW what kind of proof it would take.   Nothing I have ever seen up until now has been new or convincing,  obviously.

      I don't require God's drivers license,  but if God does exist,  he knows what I would need to believe in him.

      I have no problems explaining why I stopped believing or why I'm an atheist.   It does improve conversation,  I agree.

      If God is real and he interacts with the physical world,  there should be something demonstrable to use as evidence.   I haven't seen any.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        See I have seen evidence that meets my burden of proof.

        The specifics of which I'll not be sharing.

        I am aware that it wouldn't meet your personal burden of proof, because I know you smile

        But you want something demonstrable. That's awesome. It's likely not going to happen, but you DO know what it would take. You want something that physically happens and is reproducible with no other explanation than a deity. Yes?

        Mine burden of proof is more internal. Which is fine, I think.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It is absolutely fine, IMO.  UNTIL you expect someone else to accept it as proof - at that point the normal requirements of science should be used.  Not those of the religious community (I assume you aren't trying to convince a believer that god exists), the scientific community.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's another issue I have a problem with, the thought that it's religion vs. science.

            There are, I'm sure, atheists that have the scientific knowledge of a beaver. Their standard of proof would be based on something completely different.

            Not all atheists are scientists, not all Christians are not.

        2. JMcFarland profile image92
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Not necessarily.   Something happening that seemingly cannot be explained without a deity is like the argument from ignorance.   Just because I may not know how to explain it now does not mean it cannot be explained.   For example,   lightning and Thunder were thought to be a god because no one at the time could explain it.   We can explain it now.

          People claim to have divine experiences all the time.   It should be easy to give those experiences to every one in the world at the same time.   That's just an example,  and I'm not even sure that would work.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Please don't feel Im condescending, cause I know you and I do not seem to connect, I just wanted to say, I enjoyed reading everything you just wrote so much.

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            OK, I get that.

            So each person having their own version of a divine experience (since all of these experiences are somewhat different) at the same time may or may not convince you but might.

            Cool enough. But that's not likely to happen while having a conversation on theology. So is basically what you are saying is that nothing that any person could say could convince you?

            1. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Again,  I don't know.   They haven't said it yet,  or i'd be convinced.   I'm sorry I can't give you a cut and dry answer,  but I can't imagine what evidence would wien for me.   I can't even imagine it.   But an all knowing god would know.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You have put the burden of proof on God... someone who says we will be saved by faith. Quite a quandary.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The only claims that can attributed to a god are those written by men in any given set of scriptures. So far, no gods have made any claims, no burden of proof from them is required.

                2. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If God wants me to love and believe in him (as the Bible says he does) and he created me to think and question,  he would know what I would need in order to believe.   Paul was blinded on the road.   The disciples walked and talked with Jesus.  Thomas touched his wounds - did none of them have faith?

              2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not sure that an all-knowing God is trying to convince you. Within the limits of this thread, it is what evidence another person could provide to convince you. To meet your burden of proof. It seems like the answer is none, which is completely fine.

                But it would make conversation go a little easier if you stated that to the person who is trying to convince you.

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I am willing to examine evidence open mindedly each time it is presented,  biblically or otherwise.  If I wasnt willing to be convinced,  I wouldn't ask for evidence.

                  Until I hear it and consider it, how would I know if it was convincing or not?  I've changed my mind on things before (clearly,  since I went from a theology student and missionary to atheist)  I'm not so arrogant to think that I can't possibly change my mind again if I'm convinced.   Should I just shut someone down before they say anything because I think they're unlikely to succeed?   What if,  by miracle or by other means,  that person I ignore could have opened my eyes and shown me the truth.

      2. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I don't remember if you answered this before or not when I asked, but if you don't know what you're looking for as evidence, then how can you know for sure If you've seen it, especially considering that you don't want to use the argument from ignorance?

        1. JMcFarland profile image92
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Because if I had seen or heard something that was convincing,  I would be convinced.   I'm not going to see convincing evidence and ignore it because I'm a closed minded atheist.   Every time I ask for proof,  I have to make sure that I have an open mind, otherwise there's no point in asking.

          Even if I had proof, I wouldn't automatically worship the deity that was proven.  I can think of a lot of horrible deities in the past several thousand years that I would refuse to worship at all costs.  Having proof that a god exists does not automatically mean that God is one that I would choose to worship.   And that's what I don't understand about the free will argument.   Knowing that a god exists does not remove my free will.   I would still have to decide if I would follow it.  You can know for certain that a god exists and refuse to obey (like Satan. Traditionally)  or you can be given an undeniable experience and choose to obey - unless you say that Paul did not have free will after damascus

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So... you just said even if you had the proof, you would still have to decide if you wanted to follow or not. You have shared often about your extensive knowledge about God... so what would there be left to decide? Does this mean... if any one of us could actually come up with the proof you need, that God is an absolute and everything we say about Him is 100% true, you still might not put your faith in Him? Do you understand that this attitude comes across when you speak? This means that our conversations are totally fruitless. This is why I have asked so many times why you come. Again, please don't be insulted, certain things just don't make sense to me, and I am just trying to make sense of them.

            1. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Because if I'm wrong,  I want to know.   I want to believe as many true things as possible,  so if it's true that a god exists,  I could no longer honestly say that I'm an atheist.

              But no,  I don't think I could worship or love the biblical god as he is portrayed, if my knowledge of his claims and scripture is correct.   I could be wrong about him, but again,  I have seen no evidence that I am.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Then do you feel that your presence here is simply to harass those who believe? Again, I'm not attacking, this just makes sense to me.

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Having conversations,  sharing information and debating on a subject that I enjoy equates to harassment to you?

                  Christiananrkist - do you think that I harass you?

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I mean... asking ppl to produce evidence to convince you that even if they were able... you might still deny God. You sound to me like a woman with her mind made up. That makes me think that from your perspective, there is very little from the Christian side that matters to you. More like this is an open opportunity to chip away at someone else's faith. I may be wrong, that's just what I'm hearing. Anyway, it was a good conversation. I felt heard this time and I really appreciated the tone you took. Gotta go to the store, take care. smile

                  2. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I will admit that when I first started in the forums, you did come across in a manner that rubbed me the wrong way. I felt that you weren't listening to what I was trying to say regarding my beliefs. I'm not sure why though. But after a while, I started understanding you and atheism more, which gave me the chance to adjust my approach in dealing with you

                  3. 0
                    christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    lol. harass? i look forward to our discussions. we dont always agree, and almost never on religious discussions, but i always come away learning something, or at least pondering something for the next week.

          2. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Okay so there's the question of if God exists as well as if he is how the bible portrays. The first will take care of the atheism, but the second determines whether you return to Christianity. Do I have it right?

            1. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              absolutely.  I think that the idea of only deeming it worthy to converse with those that either agree with you or those whose minds you have a possibility to change is abhorrent.  Nothing can be learned if you enter into a conversation with those qualifications.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Nor can anything good come out of a conversation where one is trying to convert you.

                I think most of the conversations on these forums are basically:

                I'm trying to convert you. vs. I won't ever believe in your God, no matter what you say.

                If both parties would be honest about it, then we could actually have meaningful conversation. 

                It's not close-minded to say that you've heard all the arguments and your mind is set. Nor is it chipping away at anyone else's beliefs to question their ideas.  If that chips away at their beliefs, then they didn't really believe it in the first place.

                I just wish we could move past the failed conversion attempts and actually have a conversation of some worth on these boards. It happens sometimes, but not frequently enough...

                (and only about 5 words of that reply were actually directed at you JM, I was blathering)

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I completely agree with you.

                  If I'm honest about it, I'm completely repelled from the idea of the Christian god by the behavior that I see constantly exhibited by a lot of his followers - on HP and elsewhere. 

                  I have heard the same arguments over and over and over and over again.  It gets tiring, but that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen to them.  There have been several instances where I learned something new that I hadn't heard before - even though it was couched in a repetitive argument.  That's the whole point of these discussions for me.  Sometimes there are little nuggets of intelligence and information buried beneath the repetitive rubble.  That's what I enjoy.  If that means I have to slog through pages and pages of crap to find it, it's worth it to me.

                  I wish more people could move away from the "I must convert you" which is completely off-putting and focus on discussing ideas with people of different beliefs.  That's where the growth and the knowledge is.  Challenging someone's ideas and beliefs is not an attack, and it's not personal.  When someone challenges my ideas, I'm able to grow and further understand them.  In my opinion, it's only those whose "faith" is shaky to begin with who are threatened by the exchange of different ideas or the challenge of their core beliefs.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I can see that. If someone goes into a conversation with the goal of conversion and they meet a lot of questions they can't/won't answer to the convertee's (yes I know it's not a word) satisfaction, they are going to become frustrated because of their epic failure.  Yet they keep trying.

                    Conversations about different beliefs are interesting as hell, and they really do help with tolerance and understanding... however it has to be acknowledged that they are stating their own personal beliefs. This "I have the truth" crap is a conversation stopper.

                    However, saying I have MY truth, should be acceptable. It's not all the time but that's another conversation.

                  2. 0
                    christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    very well said. its funny i can almost copy and paste what you just said as to why i like discussing thing with atheist and why i listen to atheist radio shows and podcast. i pretty much hear the same things for the most part, but that doesnt mean i havent learned and even had my faith strengths in the process. however it also doesnt mean i have an answer to everything....yet. lol

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I just like the debate. Is there a God, isn't there a God? I know no one will listen, but it rather fun to attempt to present logic and watch people twist out of it. Would they do that for any other reason?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    LMAO, they haven't figured out the power of the all-great word "So?" I agree my beliefs are illogical. Now, that being said... lots of things everybody does, thinks and/or believes are logical. Once you make peace with that the attacks on logic are actually humorous. smile

      3. 0
        christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        This senctence here is what im talking about. "I have no problems explaining why I stopped believing or why I'm an atheist. ". this is why i think you and I have had good productive conversations. although your technically not obligated to give reasons according the the burden of proof rule, you do obviously have your reasons and are willing to present them.

  5. 61
    squeeknomoreposted 2 years ago

    - the responsibility of proof is to be assumed by anyone who wants to be taken seriously. To flat out state that another's supposition is "silly" is rude, disrespectful and unfriendly.

  6. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    IMHO if two parties are not both willing to learn from each other, the conversation is completely pointless.  That doesn't mean you need to be willing to change you mind, just that you are genuinely interested in what other people think and want to understand it better.

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I believe there is a difference in being interested in what someone says and being willing to learn something from them. When it comes to matters of faith, I don't want to open myself up to their teaching... in any other matter, I'm happy to open myself up.

    2. 0
      christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      thats why i asked the question thank you. how are we to gain an understanding if it basically ends up being a 1 sided discussion

  7. JMcFarland profile image92
    JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago

    You're right.   The forums are discussions not debates.   In formal debates,  I don't often see it as winning or losing,  and its completely ambiguous depending on the audience perception. 

    To clarify, let me correct my statement.   I don't intentionally pick fights or argue for the sake of arguing.   I like to discuss things in depth,  and in order to do that,  you have to be able to crack the surface layer and get to the meat.   A lot of people take issue with that and choose to get offended by it,  rather than going with the flow in order to get to the point of meaningful conversation.  It's just easy to cry foul as soon as you feel uncomfortable,  throw accusations at the other person and run away.   You never get to the meat or deeper  understanding when you play that way,  and it makes people look insecure.

    1. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.

      Yes.

      Yes.

  8. 60
    griffinbposted 2 years ago

    YES, I DO BELIEVED THE BURDEN ARE LEFT BEHIND OF THEIR NON-EXIXTENCE AND TESTED TO A DEGREE; THAT'S LIFE FOR YOU.  OBSERVED AND WATCH YOUR SURROUNDING.

 
working