Burden of Proof VS Presumption of Innocence

[joinfree]

There are the two reference systems: Reality and Nothingness. The source of Nothingness is satan, the source of Existence is the God. The Prince of this fallen world has invented the Burden of Proof:

Any human is wrong (sick, delusional, criminal, etc.) until he is proven right. In this case the Verity is absent, because any scientific proof is already wrong, for it can be disproved in a future time. The Burden of Proof makes the Religion be attacked by trolls. The burden of proof "a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right" is the more cruel "son" of the Presumption of Guilt.

But the God has given us the saving ring: Presumption of Innocence-
Any human is right (not sick, not delusional, not criminal, etc.) until he is proven wrong.
"Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."
Galatians 6:2 KJV.
Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

 

[Ken Rank]

What is interesting to me about this subject is that we know that when we are optimistic and positive and have good energy (and I don't mean that in a new age type way) then certain chemicals flow through us that add to the energy and positive feelings. But when we are negative the opposite happens, chemicals are released that zap energy and can even make us sick if we are in a weakened state. So, God's way seems to keep the mind sharper and clearer but the Adversary's way (one is wrong until proven right) steals from us in ways we don't readily see.

 

[Gene2memE]

A wise man apportions his beliefs to the evidence available to him.

Accepting a claim without any good evidence for it leads to a situation where all claims, even those that are incompatible with each other, are accepted.

So the presumption is not of "guilt" or of "innocence" - the presumption is "not guilty or innocent until proven one or the other".

So, I'll withhold accepting a claim until evidence that can overcome my skepticism is presented to me.

Whadda ya got for me?

 

[Ken Rank]

Accepting a claim without any good evidence for it leads to a situation where all claims, even those that are incompatible with each other, are accepted.

Whadda ya got for me?

Only that I don't accept the upper sentence as valid. Not that I disagree with the first half, we need evidence. But a wise man does (or should) apportion his beliefs to the evidence available to him, and if he does, then there won't ever be a case where one accepts pieces of evidence that stand in contrast to one another. The problem is, finding the rare individual that can look at two pieces of evidence that might not stand in harmony and try to reconcile them without injecting his personal bias into it. And sadly, there aren't many within our society who can do this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... So, God's way seems to keep the mind sharper and clearer but the Adversary's way (one is wrong until proven right) steals from us in ways we don't readily see.

Can't say I agree with the conclusion - requiring evidence of claims is not saying one the other is wrong until proven right; and personally, I find my mind is sharper and clearer for questioning claims and thinking critically about the evidence before accepting it - if anything, it steals gullibility from us, which is no bad thing. Uncritical acceptance is anathema to knowledge and understanding.

 

[Ken Rank]

Can't say I agree with the conclusion - requiring evidence of claims is not saying one the other is wrong until proven right; and personally, I find my mind is sharper and clearer for questioning claims and thinking critically about the evidence before accepting it - if anything, it steals gullibility from us, which is no bad thing. Uncritical acceptance is anathema to knowledge and understanding.

You kind of cherry picked my post and clipped only a small portion that I wouldn't agree with if seen alone, either. We don't disagree... one is innocent until proven otherwise. We don't assume guilt, we assume innocence but then verify with evidence. Sadly, I have to admit that our culture is going in the other direction, especially politically. In that, all one has to do is lay down a charge against another and that charge almost always has to be addressed even if it was baseless to begin with. On paper our law says innocent until proven otherwise, but in practice that mindset is changing.

 

[joinfree]

What is interesting to me about this subject is that we know that when we are optimistic and positive and have good energy (and I don't mean that in a new age type way) then certain chemicals flow through us that add to the energy and positive feelings. But when we are negative the opposite happens, chemicals are released that zap energy and can even make us sick if we are in a weakened state. So, God's way seems to keep the mind sharper and clearer but the Adversary's way (one is wrong until proven right) steals from us in ways we don't readily see.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Prince of this fallen world has invented the Burden of Proof:

Any human is wrong (sick, delusional, criminal, etc.) until he is proven right. In this case the Verity is absent, because any scientific proof is already wrong, for it can be disproved in a future time. The Burden of Proof makes the Religion be attacked by trolls.

In that case, you should believe any claim presented to you by default. Including mutually exclusive ones.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is interesting to me about this subject is that we know that when we are optimistic and positive and have good energy (and I don't mean that in a new age type way) then certain chemicals flow through us that add to the energy and positive feelings. But when we are negative the opposite happens, chemicals are released that zap energy and can even make us sick if we are in a weakened state. So, God's way seems to keep the mind sharper and clearer but the Adversary's way (one is wrong until proven right) steals from us in ways we don't readily see.

I have an undetectable pet dragon.

You better believe my claim until it is proven wrong. After all, you don't wish to have any "energy zapped away" from you, right?

ps: the alternative to not accepting a claim isn't necessarily to accept the opposite claim.

Answering "no" to the question "do you believe X?" in no way implies that you'll answer "yes" to "do you believe not X?".

 

[Ken Rank]

I have an undetectable pet dragon.

You better believe my claim until it is proven wrong. After all, you don't wish to have any "energy zapped away" from you, right?

ps: the alternative to not accepting a claim isn't necessarily to accept the opposite claim.

Answering "no" to the question "do you believe X?" in no way implies that you'll answer "yes" to "do you believe not X?".

That is not what I said chief. And, we are talking about legal issues, not your imaginary friends. Go play with them... until your tone changes I am not going to waste any time talking to you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...We don't disagree... one is innocent until proven otherwise. We don't assume guilt, we assume innocence but then verify with evidence. Sadly, I have to admit that our culture is going in the other direction, especially politically. In that, all one has to do is lay down a charge against another and that charge almost always has to be addressed even if it was baseless to begin with. On paper our law says innocent until proven otherwise, but in practice that mindset is changing.

I didn't mean to misrepresent you, but I wanted to counter an apparent bias...

But I broadly agree with what you say - there seems to be a noticeable reduction in tolerance and an increasing inclination to take offence and play the victim. I think it may be a reaction to a sense of insecurity, estrangement, disaffection, and lack of control and influence that many people feel - also reflected in the contrarian political voting for, 'change, because anything's better than what we've got now'.

Plato's criticisms of democracy seem quite prophetic - he thought that:

Leaders would favour popularity over statesmanship, because that's what would get them elected and keep them in power; and the electorate would tend to vote for leaders more like them, who projected an attractive image, not necessarily the most competent.

To keep in office, they would tend to pander to the wishes of the electorate rather than do what they think is right. So they'd focus on short-term goals at the expense of long-term needs of society.

Because it's easier to give things to people rather than to ask for sacrifices, and they would lack the authority to force sacrifices on a reluctant public, they would tend to spend more than they recouped in revenues as a state (although leaders would tend to siphon off what they can, while they can, for personal gain).

Debate in democratic politics would become superficial and focus more on image and less on substantive issues, because the electorate are impatient with complex reasoning and prefer the sensational over the substantive. Appearance and presentation of candidates would be more important than substance, with more emphasis on emotion than reason.​

The eventual consequence (according to Plato) is a popular uprising, leading to tyranny, either through revolution or suppression.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is not what I said chief. And, we are talking about legal issues, not your imaginary friends. Go play with them... until your tone changes I am not going to waste any time talking to you.

These principles universally apply.

In a court case, a specific claim is discussed. Nobody is asked to prove his innocence (although that surely would move things along quickly if you could do so - yet, it is not a requirement). The subject of a court case is always one party accusing the other party of being guilty of something.

The party doing the accusing has to bring a solid case based on evidence to support the claim of guilt.

Now consider that at the end of a case, the ruling is either "guilty" or "not guilty". A judge/jury never rules "innocent".

Yes, a defendant is either guilty or innocent. However ONLY the question/claim of guilt is addressed. That's because a claim of innocense is a seperate claim.

It's entirely possible that a defendant IS guilty, but that the accuser has failed to support the claim sufficiently. So "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent".

This is why I said that answering "no" to "do you believe X" is NOT the same as answer "yes" to the question "do you believe NOT X" (which symbolises the opposite claim).

Claiming innocence and claiming guilt are 2 different claims.
In court, only the claim of guilt is addressed.

The claim of guilt has the burden of proof. The accuser needs to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim.


Translated into an analogy concerning the claim of the existance of god, my stance as an atheist is that "I rule God not guilty of existing". Because I consider that theists who make this claim, fail to bring sufficient evidence to the table to rule otherwise.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Any human is wrong (sick, delusional, criminal, etc.) until he is proven right. In this case the Verity is absent, because any scientific proof is already wrong, for it can be disproved in a future time. The Burden of Proof makes the Religion be attacked by trolls.

That's a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. It's not that a claim is wrong unless proved right, it's that a claim need not be accepted until the claimant can substantiate it.

 

[Gene2memE]

These principles universally apply.

In a court case, a specific claim is discussed. Nobody is asked to prove his innocence (although that surely would move things along quickly if you could do so - yet, it is not a requirement). The subject of a court case is always one party accusing the other party of being guilty of something.

The party doing the accusing has to bring a solid case based on evidence to support the claim of guilt.

Now consider that at the end of a case, the ruling is either "guilty" or "not guilty". A judge/jury never rules "innocent".

Yes, a defendant is either guilty or innocent. However ONLY the question/claim of guilt is addressed. That's because a claim of innocense is a seperate claim.

It's entirely possible that a defendant IS guilty, but that the accuser has failed to support the claim sufficiently. So "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent".

This is why I said that answering "no" to "do you believe X" is NOT the same as answer "yes" to the question "do you believe NOT X" (which symbolises the opposite claim).

Claiming innocence and claiming guilt are 2 different claims.
In court, only the claim of guilt is addressed.

The claim of guilt has the burden of proof. The accuser needs to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim.


Translated into an analogy concerning the claim of the existance of god, my stance as an atheist is that "I rule God not guilty of existing". Because I consider that theists who make this claim, fail to bring sufficient evidence to the table to rule otherwise.

I came here to write this, found someone had already expressed it better than I could have, and now just want to applaud.

 

[HitchSlap]

And sadly, there aren't many within our society who can do this.

Au contraire, every person of faith does this.

 

[variant]

I don't know what religion you have been reading up on but Christianity doesn't have a "presumption of innocence", it declares us all sinners needing to be redeemed.

 

[variant]

That's a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. It's not that a claim is wrong unless proved right, it's that a claim need not be accepted until the claimant can substantiate it.

Also this.

 

[variant]

We don't assume guilt, we assume innocence but then verify with evidence.

We assume innocence in the criminal justice system because proving negatives is often impossible.

If we assumed your guilt and you could not prove you were innocent we would, of course, convict many innocent people who could not produce evidence of innocence.

This would of course be a travesty of justice.

The public in front of the court accusing of a crime assumes the burden of proof to assert the wrongdoing.

This is not how making claims work.

When you make them you assume a burden of proof because it is not up to others to demonstrate why you are wrong, it is up to you to demonstrate why you are correct. If there isn't evidence then we are making the anti-claimant demonstrate a negative, which is again difficult to impossible.

If there is no demonstration, there is no reason to believe a claim. It is not innocent until proven guilty. It is unsupported until supported.

 

[joinfree]

....
Accepting a claim without any good evidence for it leads to a situation where all claims, even those that are incompatible with each other, are accepted.
.....

You can choose what statements to trust. But you can not say in public forums: "No God" without the disproof of the actual One. Otherwise it is just the trolling.

 

[Gene2memE]

You can choose what statements to trust.

How do you evaluate whether to trust them or not?