God & The Burden of Proof

Well, i can only speak for myself. I don't worry about Muslims or Hindus who show up here, because i don't live among Muslims or Hindus. As for Buddhists, they don't believe in gods per se (such beliefs are optional with them), and once again, they don't represent any significant proportion of the population here.

The most important consideration is, however, that there aren't Muslims and Hindus here trying to legislate their personal and indiosyncratic morality into the government of my homeland, but the United States is just lousy with christians making such an attempt.

Actually, christianity took most of its features from pagan mystery religions - vestments, pomp, ritual, mitre, communion, 12 disciples, et al... When christians try to argue that their religion took nothing from the mystery religions(primarily mithraism), they are not only arguing against atheists(and Satanists ), they are arguing also against the millions of protestant christians whose protest was precisely that the catholics had adopted pagan, largely mithraic, practices.

I mean, to this day the pope wears a mitre....

Chumly wrote:

I know it's a bit rambly but I was having fun, so you might indulge me and respond:

As far as the common position that the burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion, it is nowhere near that simple, nor should it always be the case. Let me give you an example based on the premise that the more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of requisite proof. In other words, the more extraordinary the claim, the more stringent the proof required.

If I make an assertion that tomorrow it will get light in the daytime, I expect that the burden of proof will be very moderate to nonexistent. If I make the claim that there is a Christian god, I expect the burden of prove to be very high indeed. If I make the assertion that there is no Christian god, I expect the burden of proof to be somewhat less than the assertion that there is a Christian God for four reasons:

The difficulty in wholly proving a negative (no Christian god) versus a positive (yes Christian god), levels the playing field somewhat, because as is well understood, certain negative proofs are virtually impossible to do (no Christian god) but by that token it does not make the opposite of said negative proof (yes Christian god) any more likely.

The fact that it is less of an extraordinary claim to say there is no Christian god versus saying that there is a Christian god.

Despite all the efforts by millions of people over thousands of years there is not one iota of solid evidence to support the extraordinary claims of the existence of a Christian god.

Because of the conflicting nature of not only the interpretation of what constitutes a Christian god within the Christian faith, but that competing religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism, which have equal or superior support and lineage, discount or contradict many consequential aspects of the premise of a Christian god.

Because the definition of a Christian god is ill-defined, there can be no clear defining of terms, and without defining one's terms, any assertion based on such vagueness cannot be substantiated.

I think you first need to understand the definition of God. God is universal and not Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Jain or Buddhist etc. And the burden of proof does not lie upon the claimant, it lies on the one who insists and in the process affects another's life. But if the claimant was not to affect another's life forcefully, then the claimant can claim anything and would have to prove nothing.

Alas, not all voting is fair voting, even if it is legal and constitutional, this is polarized in the bias against homosexuals in the US.

Blacks were also denied many rights
Native Indians were also denied many rights
Homosexuals are still denied rights

I stand against prejudice
I stand for equal rights

I believe in tolerance for all not for some
Homosexual rights are more important than religious prejudice

Thus the current wave of gay bashings and murders of gay people should come as no surprise. Christians can find justification for such violence in the Bible and also in the hate-filled sermons issuing from all too many pulpits in this country. If history is any indication, the homophobic messages in those sermons will continue to be issued for many years to come.

Chumly wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Although providing proof may not be that simple in certain circumstances, it makes complete sense to leave the burden of proof with the individual putting forth an assertion.

I did not say it did not make sense to place the burden of proof on the individual making the assertion. But the recipient of the assertion may suspend their requirements. The reasons for this might be: for the sake of argument, if it is understood to already be agreed, or if it is common knowledge.

Here is what you said:

Quote:

As far as the common position that the burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion, it is nowhere near that simple, nor should it always be the case.

You indicated that it should not "always be the case" that the "burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion." Yet in this post you claim you didn't say that at all. What am I missing here?

Chumly wrote:

Implicator wrote:

I challenge you right now to give me reason (without question begging) as to why it will get light in the *daytime tomorrow (*by "daytime" I assume those hours of the day that it typically gets light).

I accept the challenge, I up the ante & bet you 100 million dollars. I will prove it tomorrow morning.

The challenge was to prove that it will get light in the daytime (that was your wording), not that it did. To prove that something will happen in the not-yet-experienced future carries quite a burden, as you are basically claiming to know the future. Can you do it?

Chumly wrote:

Implicator wrote:

You realize this is an assertion you are making, right? Can you back it up?

As mentioned I cannot prove a negative but I can say I am not aware of any evidence or anyone putting forth verifiable evidence, plus I just asked god for some evidence and he did not comply.

Does the burden belong with the one making the assertion? If so, then have at it. And your "besides" is beside the point, entirely irrelevant as to whether there is such evidence out there.

Chumly wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Yet those who believe in the Christian god probably would not agree with you that he is ill-defined.

They may well not agree with me that the Christian god is ill-defined, but millions of people over thousands of years have murdered each other over the definition of a Christian god.

Indeed they have, yet that is not even anecdotal evidence of an "ill" definition.

I

Chumly wrote:

Alas, not all voting is fair voting, even if it is legal and constitutional, this is polarized in the bias against homosexuals in the US.

Blacks were also denied many rights
Native Indians were also denied many rights
Homosexuals are still denied rights

I stand against prejudice
I stand for equal rights

I believe in tolerance for all not for some
Homosexual rights are more important than religious prejudice

Chumly you have a right to what you believe, however what you fail to see is your own prejudice against christian views. It appears to me that you believe the US is the only place that holds any sort of bias against homosexuals? Am I correct in perceiving it this way?

Quote:

Thus the current wave of gay bashings and murders of gay people should come as no surprise. Christians can find justification for such violence in the Bible and also in the hate-filled sermons issuing from all too many pulpits in this country. If history is any indication, the homophobic messages in those sermons will continue to be issued for many years to come.

I understand your frustration here. I'm not into gay bashing and murdering those who's lifestyle opposes the lifestyle I believe is right either. However you are throwing the baby out with the bath water here. If I'm understanding you correctly you have come to the conclusion that ALL christians are predjudice against homosexuals. That ALL christians are out there gay bashing and murdering gays. If this is what you really believe it is a gross misinterpretation of christianity on your part as well as a prejudice of your own.

Exactly how many of these "homophobic messages" have you heard chumly? Have you been in all the churches in the US? Where is your burden of proof on this one? I have been in a lot of churches, however not close to all... I can honestly say that preaching of any sort against homosexuality is something I have never heard from a pulpit.

Setanta wrote:

Well, i can only speak for myself. I don't worry about Muslims or Hindus who show up here, because i don't live among Muslims or Hindus. As for Buddhists, they don't believe in gods per se (such beliefs are optional with them), and once again, they don't represent any significant proportion of the population here.

The most important consideration is, however, that there aren't Muslims and Hindus here trying to legislate their personal and indiosyncratic morality into the government of my homeland, but the United States is just lousy with christians making such an attempt.

I dont know about legislation..but there;s one major difference between Hinduism and Christianity/Islam. (let me clarify here that I believe in neither of them).. Hinduism does not claim to be the ONLY way to God and does not term others as infidels. Hinduism issues no final and binding statements. There are no "conversions" to Hinduism and no baptism...

You may accuse the religion of being pretty vague and open to too many interpretations but Voltaire said "Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous".

the most objectionable person i ever came across on these forums was a Hindutva nationalist.

It really does seem the very worst people to be in positions of power are those who think God put them there.

Let's define our terms,

prejudice:

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

I have to go but I'll check in tomorrow

Chumly wrote:

Let's define our terms,

prejudice:

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

I have to go but I'll check in tomorrow

Chumly no offence here, but I'd rather beat my head against a brick wall than run around in circles with someone who is so blinded by their own prejudice. Happy posting.

hephzibah wrote:

Setanta, I respect your point of view, even if we may not always agree. So, can you please help me understand what you mean by this?

And . . .

hephzibah wrote:

Actually let me clarify that...

It is not so much that I don't understand what you mean as I would like to understand where you are coming from on this. However, if this is a topic that needs to be dropped I am also willing to do that. I must head out to work now. I will catch up with you all later.

First, thank you for your kind remark.

I have no reason to believe that the putative Jesus ever existed--nor any to deny that he ever existed. I do think it improbable, as for someone so controversial, and arousing such emotion a century after he allegedly lived and died, it is a bit much to think that he aroused insufficient remark in his own lifetime not to have had at least a mention in someone else's contemporary account. I think, rather, that the putative Jesus is an avatar, an embodiment of the mystico-spiritualistic Jewish cult known to history as the Essenes. It is, of course, possible that this alleged Jesus is a badly corrupted account of the life of a single Essene, who was not, in fact, politically controversial, and was not crucified by the Romans.

Because, in fact, very specific tenets of the most popular cult in Rome in the era of Saul of Tarsus--that cult was the cult of Mithras--entail an allegation of a virgin birth, from a mother impregnated by god, and a painful death followed by a resurrection, and celebrated by adherents in a "cannibalistic" ritual in which the symbolic body and blood of "the son of god" were consumed. These are tenets without precedent or referrent in Jewish scripture and mysticism. Therefore, whenever one looks at any account other than the four orthodox gospels of the new scriptural canon, one cannot with any certainty assert what may have been an original teaching of this individual (if such individual ever existed), and what is a subsequent interpolation, Pauline or otherwise. One can only refer to the four gospel scrpitural canon for what is only a vague idea of what the teaching of this individual may have been. Given contradictions between these accounts, they are themselves of dubious value. Finally, individuals such as Origen and Eusebius winnowed the existing accounts or gospels to these four gospels, and edited and "corrected" them--this we know because they recorded as much in their own writings.

Therefore, if one suggests, as others have done here, that the nasty old god of the old testament and his laws no longer apply because of the "new covenant," one is restricted to that scriptural canon to know what the will of the putative god would be. Therefore, one is left with no objection to homosexuality, because there is no mention of it in that particular scriptural canon.

Chumly, I honestly don't want to discuss this with you anymore. I'm tired of butting heads. It's giving me a headache. While I understand your frustrations here I see no willingness on your part to really even hear anyone elses argument but your own. Don't misunderstand me though. I am not saying that I feel I am somehow better than you. I am certain I am not. I don't hold your views against you. Nor will I let it effect how I respond to you in the future on other threads. But with this fruitless argument I am done.