If you choose to develop your ‘faith’ OP I think you would be best served to make up a completely new and exciting Religious theory. Why follow another persons made up flawed gibberish when you can make up your own.

But that goes for the claim that there is no god just as much as the claim there is one.

See now you are just trolling as you know full well that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Beyond tax exemption I really don’t want to post any links to killings,

Not sure you understood my post. I wasn’t asking why you don’t like religious nutters, I was asking why there’s a difference between having to prove the existence of God vs having to prove the non-existence.

See now you are just trolling as you know full well that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Yes, but so whPersonally I have found absolutely stacks of highly persuasive evidence for the non-existence of God.at? That is your problem, as a proofer. The fact that something cannot be conclusively proved doesn’t mean you cannot gather evidence. Consequently, both sides can be treated equally. Your statement, gonefishin, is perfectly correct, but not limited to either side.

Consequently, both sides can be treated equally. Your statement, gonefishin, is perfectly correct, but not limited to either side.

That’s a false dichotomy. There are literally *thousands* of gods. Not Yaweh/non-Yaweh.

There are not ‘two sides’. There are literally millions of sides. Now which ones do we choose, and why?

Not sure you understood my post. I wasn’t asking why you don’t like religious nutters, I was asking why there’s a difference between having to prove the existence of God vs having to prove the non-existence.

Maybe I didn’t understand. But please don’t dismiss my answer as simply ‘not liking religious nutters’. That not only puts words in my mind/mouth, but is possibly missing my point. My point is not that the wholly religiously convicted are ‘nutters’, my point is that they are claiming to have knowledge/evidence of a ruling ‘deity’ that is so strong that it becomes accepted as Law over the lives of others (and not only followers) whilst (at least to followers) there seems to be no real burden of proof required beyond a circular argument – ie the Book is true because it is the Word of God. It is the Word of God because it is true, etc… That’s without even approaching evidence of the ‘God’ existing in the first place! These same people have no problem disbelieving all manner of other claimed deities and so-called ‘supernatural’ entities – yet disbelief in their one ‘God’ is so often a punishable offence. It’s a weird kind of wilful myopia . Isn’t it?

Example: If I was to accidently throttle a young person whilst in the belief that I was driving out malevolent invisible Yumaloomas – or I presented a book that said I should throw asexual persons headfirst from a tower – or even simply claim tax relief, wouldn’t you require me to show evidence beyond reasonable doubt that my book had ultimate transcending authority? Would you be further or less convinced if said book was not only endlessly open to interpretation but had some whacking holes in its claims about the observable physical world and had the appearance of being fables for historical/political gain?

Surely the burden of proof is on me?

If my ‘deity’ made no such claims over people, and I wielded no such power or authority, then You I’m sure would be mostly unconcerned as to any burden of proof. I make no claim that no deities exist, and I still claim that the burden of proof (let’s say evidence) is on those that do. I am quite happy to challenge specific claimed ‘deities’ by offering all the evidence I have available to me regarding what convinces me of their wholly human invention.

It is mostly these specific ‘deities’ that hold sway in courts of law, in matters of personal freedom, of life and death and of extreme prejudice. That being so, how in the World is the burden of evidence considered to be also on the disbeliever? Serious question, I would love to know.

Ok fair enough. There are thousands of sides.

You choose the one you WANT to choose 🙂

Surely the burden of proof is on me?

In that case yes, of course – you are having to justify harm against another person. But we’re not talking about the criminality of any kind of violent action *in this thread*. We’re talking philosophy.

We’re talking philosophy.

Oh, in that case, let’s philosophically discuss whether there exists or not a burden of proof when claiming the existence of a ruling entity named a ‘deity’ which is intended to hold sway over moral, societal and legal matters?

No – why not?

Yes – Then how robust should the evidence be? More or less than, say, a settlement claim in a civil court?

What say you?

No – why not?

Cos it’s unproveable and therefore academic. In practical terms, you pick the idea you like. And don’t argue with anyone else about it.

It’s a bit like choosing a football team 🙂

So just help me out. I don’t believe in God. How should I describe myself?

It’s a bit like choosing a football team

It is? You can talk to football teams and they speak back, and you don’t even have to say it was the confirming feelings inspired by the sunset that day that made you ‘just know’ that it was David Beckham’s voice answering your important innermost hair-styling questions! It was caught on tape! It was real! Football players exist. You can shake their hands. You can video them. You can take swabs of their DNA, marry them, have children with them. You can become a football player and join a team.

There seems to be no doubt as to football teams existence. How is deciding whether there exists a (or which one is ‘real’?) ‘deity’ even remotely (philosophically speaking) similar?

There seems to be no doubt as to football teams existence.

I didn’t say ‘it’s like believing in football teams’. It’s like choosing one to support.

As in, you choose a team either because you’re from that town, someone close to you also when you were young supports that team, or just because you like the sound of it.

Likewise choosing a religion. Some people just like the idea. Some people have been brought up that way.

slowoldman – Member
So just help me out. I don’t believe in God. How should I describe myself?

It depends, if you just up and choose not to believe in God for no other reason than simply choice, based on whatever.. then you’re an Atheist.

If on the other hand you find yourself not accepting there is or isn’t a God simply because of the logical argument that we as humans cannot possibly know one way or the other anyway.

Then you are Agnostic.

Is my opinion formed now largely from the discussions and back up links on this thread.

I could be wrong of course as I’m sure someone will come along in a moment and reason.

For atheist we also include no evidence, proof or anything useful to back up nay of the claims that there is a god. It’s not just choice it’s taking the evidence and looking at it objectively. Bring some evidence for the floating sky man and people will consider it. Same as when Jive kicks off the Lizard men conspiracy if there was actual evidence people might believe him.

Anyway derek no relation of the other derek are you?

It’s not just choice it’s taking the evidence and looking at it objectively

Yes but you choose to do that – look at evidence objectively.

Religion is for idiots

Ha, just found some documentary entitled ‘the Unbelievers’ on Netflx, gahhh … now I have to watch it. Thnks STW, I think…

Molgrips – I didn’t say ‘it’s like believing in football teams’. It’s like choosing one to support.

But you skipped a step. Can you guess which one?

No?

Yes but you choose to do that – look at evidence objectively.

honestly we are waiting for some….

Ok – we’ve established that there is no evidence that satisfies YOU.

You’re failing to understand why other people might rationally think differently whilst not being stupid.

I am impressed by the choosing a football team argument belief in religion is basicaly a random fashion choice . the religious command no more power or respect for their belief than a Chelsea supporter for his choice of team and no more right to be represented in parliament than any one else so boot the bishops out of the house of lords . religion certainly gets no say in law making or education .

or me and all the other people looking for objective evidence that proves the existence of a higher being. It could be said that those with faith have a much lower threshold for credible evidence – see all the JHJ threads and replace Lizard Men and the rest with God, Allah and Jesus.

I am impressed by the choosing a football team argument belief in religion is basicaly a random fashion choice

Hmm.. I said ‘a bit like’ not ‘exactly the same as’.

Must admit I’m not impressed by the twisting of what you’ve read to back up your own pre-existing point of view. Reminds me of something else.. 🙂

religion certainly gets no say in law making or education

Let me remind you I was making a philosophical point, not a British Constitutoinal one.

It could be said that those with faith have a much lower threshold for credible evidence

Or.. a different assessment of evidence.. Or a different reason for having a different assessment…

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZfJywXiRyw[/video]
I guess it just needs to go to court…

Not too long ago a couple of stw’ers mentioned how much they got from their faith. This warmed me. Religion isn’t for everyone and a lot of wrong is done in its name. I take solace in someone’s choice to believe and be at peace with their choice. Live and let live.

Or.. a different assessment of evidence

What evidence?

Live and let live.

Absolutely and on an individual level I quite agree.

However on a societal level religions don’t seem to agree on this principle as many seem happy to exert their influence over the lives of non-believers too.