Burden Of Proof

and you imply I'm Right.., When I didn't claim to be Right.., But explained sincerely why the Proof we have is Proof enough..

and You wished to See, that Braz if always Right, because he take every position... I took every position in Two POsts.. That is what you Saw..

Told you it's always what You Wish to acknowledge, I can NOt make you see That.. You Do!!

Time, Effort, Sincerity... Wasted!!

CrackerJax said:

Braz can't be wrong... because he takes every position.

Click to expand...

hahaha, If I could rep you this soon again I would.

I had to simply stop responding. Went out for a smoke, made some phone calls I had to, came back pretty baked and laughed at the responses.

Thread /closed]

Seriously though Braz, third person? every position? you have the opinion of everybody in this thread without retaining any understanding of anything said.

I think sunshine has it more correct then you do. Quite the shame, I thought from our previous discussions that you got things.

Brazko said:

Ha, the only last Words, I have for you is Peace until You have time to Educate me Some More.. Hollar

Click to expand...

https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/259125-philosophy-life.html
I see now, that through all that you either saw nothing, or refuse to admit you understand what you seemingly did.

I laminate the message to you that I presented before to all those previous holding the same vains.

But doesn't everyone know that the Bible is the ultimate proof of GOD?? How can that evidence be refuted? It is the word of God, therefore it must be true, right?

Also, think about all the martyrs who have died for the God, such as Jesus and his disciples. Clearly so many people wouldn't have chosen to die to "trick" the rest of us, would they?

The Bible has also been carefully translated from many different languages into what we have today, so its pretty safe to say that its pretty accurate right? (aside from the revisions in the 10 commandments the Catholic Church made)

About the Sabbath... Why would an all powerful, omniscient deity need to "rest" after only 6? And why would something/someone who is omniscient have any concept of time whatsoever?

Why didn't the Native Americans have prophets sent from the Christian God describing the Ten Commandments to them? Why is the Christian God the "real" god, whereas the many other "gods" aren't real?

WHY THE FUCK DID MY PARENTS PRETEND SANTA WAS REAL AND CAME FOR JESUS' BIRTHDAY AND ONCE I FOUND OUT HE WASN'T TRY TO CONTINUE THE JOKE THAT CHRISTIAN' BELIEFS ARE TRUE?

Just some questions.... But for some actual thoughts...

On the "love" thing stated by Brazko...
Even the feeling of love can be scientifically proven to exist, in a way. It activates parts of the brain (which can be seen in various scans of the brain) when a person is feeling different emotions, such as love or anger. Prayer or faith DO NOT show up in any way that is comparable to feeling love IN ANY SCAN WHATSOEVER. Furthermore, many studies have been done to show that praying DOES NOT increase the rate of recovery in any person that has undergone surgery. It betters the mental state of patients, but there is no divine intervention, which goes against the very well known statement from the Bible, "Ask and you shall receive", which, IMO, discredits the Bible, as does the fact that people supposedly lived to be 900 years old, the earth was flooded for 40 days and a man on a wooden ship got a vast majority of all the animals on board so he could repopulate the earth, and after the earth was flooded, Noah magically was able to change the color of skin of some of his children and spread them to the Americas (Native/South/Central Americans), Asia (Russians, Asians), and Africa (obviously Africans)

This may be an insane, nonsensical rant, but I just spent a number of days "evaluating" religious seminars where I had to hold back these thoughts on the matter. Feel free to bash what I had to say.
*Edit: ...so long as you have a way to make me sound wrong, unless your proof is something stupid, such as you feel God exists so he does.

I dunno if it's intentional trolling, or he really doesn't get it, but you'll find that Braz likes to support himself with points he doesn't understand.

It was pretty funny when he said that science can not prove god.
Well, duh. Obviously there's no proof without evidence.

He keeps arguing against science, but then has used science in his arguments, misunderstood what was being said, or phrased it so badly that it might as well have been gibberish.

It's like arguing with a parrot. Sure, the words are there, but the parrot doesn't understand the crap it's repeating.

Gee you picked up on that...... he holds every position but understands none of them!

This is gonna turn into another thread just like the others, everyone will repeat their opinion over and over with the same people arguing the same old shit on multiple threads, lets hope not anyway.

But never the less I will give my opinion on the subject at hand, The burden of proof has to lay with the one making the statement. As in a court of law the burden of proof is to prove someones guilt not for someone to prove their innocents, I know its not like this but its supposed to be as which is why some is Innocent until proven guilty. I feel it is the same for anything, for example if CJ says there is no god I expect him to back up his statement with some evidence, the same if someone else say Babs claims there is a god, back it up with something credible (Not quoting you guys here just using your names for the hell of it)

I can gather that this thread is rearly asking where does the burden of proof lay with the claim of is there or isn't there a god. I would have to say the burden lays with the people who claim there to be a god. Most atheists do not claim there is no god, most will claim they do not believe in the man made religions god's but when it comes down to 'is there a god' (leaving the religions out of it) most would say they simply don't know, even Dawkins as you all know is probably the most famous Atheist there is has said "I can only rearly claim to be 9/10 Atheist, as It can not be proven there is no god but I lean to the inclination there is none." (Not correct word for word but that was his general jist) which I'm sure would fit in more with the Agnostic views, not much between the two as far as I can see, both sets tend to get put in the same basket. So as Atheists/Agnostics claim they simply don't know then surely it is down to the people of 'faith' to prove their claims of 'there is a god and its my god' (according to their faith/religion)

One caveat..... stating no belief in an invisible guiding hand G*D is not an outrageous claim. It's a bit more self evident than the alternative.

Outrageous claims truly demands a higher level of proof.

Again, I think the word atheist is a loaded term. You would find that most atheists won't simply decide that there can be NO G*D.... (I.E. creation point originator).
Like in my case, it's much more likely the response would be ... I don't believe in the g*D of organized religion.. the personal G*D.

Atheists believe in true free will. Thumpers do not.

The bible's story and all religious text portray a cognitive Meaning of truth from human observation and experience...You didn't need a microscope to see an atom, when you saw a body decompose ashes to ashes and dust to dust...we just evolved enough to produce equipment to watch the atom decompose into quantum physics and then into nothing... Santa Claus isn't real, but prove to me how lil boys and girls get gifts all around the world if he doesn't exist, this is the idiocracy of your approach to understanding the meaning of God.., and Science is proof of your still inherent incompetence...

My statement for the week, I really saw no reason to even make this one..Its not like any of you are competent to overstand it anyway...Silly Monkeys

don't worry.... that didn't even resemble a statement.

Act 1

Three men are standing near you on a street corner. One calls you over.

The first one says, "My name is Religion, and I have a god in my pocket."

The second one says "My name is Philosophy, and I don't have a god in my pocket, but it's something to think about."

The third one says "My name is Athiesm and there are no gods in my pocket."

On who does the burden of proof lie the heaviest? It seems fairly obvious doesn't it?

-------

Act 2

You ask all three for proof.

Atheism turns out his pocket and shrugs. "See?"

Philosophy turns out his pocket, and says "It's entirely possible that I was incorrect about which pocket the god may or may not be in. Let's consider that some more, shall we?"

Religion says "I will not turn out my pocket. It's enough that we simply believe in and worship the god in my pocket. Here, take this book. It will tell you all about the god in my pocket and how real it is. It's also hungry and needs money. Just put it right into my pocket. A little to the left. More. Oh yes. You're under 16, right?"

----

Act 3

Religion enacts anti-blasphemy laws so that you can never question the existence of the god in his pocket again.

Philosophy and Atheism die in prison after refusing to fellate Religion for a pardon.

The End. ("No Rapture" Version)

That's the modern version. It used to end with being burnt alive. For soul purification.... uh huh.

Iono, I wanted to discuss the concept, then everybody has there pieces and say on the things it implies about there beliefs.

You're all hot and ready pizza's.

Okay, to answer the original question.

Theists don't understand 'burden of proof' because indoctrination instills them with the idea that no proof but the bible is needed, and looking for other proof is questioning God, which is a huge no-no.

What's to prove? G*D is not in evidence? well , that's easy enough!

Atheism represents what's already quite obvious.

CrackerJax said:

Braz can't be wrong... because he takes every position.

Click to expand...

You said something similar to me on another thread. When someone starts explaining things that goes outside your little box of understanding, you try to mock them back into it..... so you can understand? I don't think so. "Hey! Who do you think you are, changing the rules I have for you!"

Brazko said:

SusnShine is My Proof, babs Is My Proof, Maui is My Proof, Doc is My Proof, Rose is My proof, CBo is my Proof, BigNut is My proof (that still makes me laugh), We Love is My proof, ad infintium.. You get it, We do not know each other.., nor did the Men back Then..., WE witness and Acknowledge for ourselves.. Then we Ourselves Acknowledge each Other.. One Thought.. reached independently through the Manipulated trials of Life

Click to expand...

Preach it, brother! Whoop! Whoop!

"What's the highest point on Earth?"
"Aunt Delores."
"What?
"Aunt Delores. Weren't you listening?"
"Uh, yeah. Okay, prove it."
"Sure, Mr. Ed is a horse."
"What does that have to do with Aunt Delores being the highest point on Earth."
"You can't comprehend it because you don't have a personal relationship with the truth, or the same degree of faith. I win."


Religious Proof. Causing rational thinkers everywhere pain.

In the end, they all abandon the Bible and lock arms..... one problem tho..... it doesn't help the recruiting rates for the myth.

It shows ur position cannot stand on its own merits....

Burden of proof failure.

Now that would be the smartest thing they could ever do, abandon the bible, but that's like only 1 small step in like the last 3,000yrs. Might as well order pizza, it's going to be a long ride.

The concept of Gods was manifested long ago to explain what science could not.

I believe I stand on a large ball, yet much of humanity believes I'm crazy because its collective intelligence informs me that in reality, the world must be flat.

I'm certain many people were tortured to death for believing in large balls.

When asked for proof, the answer provided by humanities collective intelligence is merely a reflection of its own mind.

I, for reasons others do not believe, say the world is round.

Things must first be thoughts.

You made me believe you had a ball your pocket because you first put the image in my mind.

Now I must either believe you have at least one ball, or put my hand in your pocket and see if it is in there or not.