- Feb 28, 2017
- 2,690
- 2,104
- 36
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So I'm skimming this thread because there is a lot of text, and I was wondering, are there any academic articles which back up the belief that in a Christian vs. Atheist scenario, the Christian has the Burden of Proof?
Basically, you can be skeptical of me if you want to Nihilist Virus. I simply respect ALL good debaters. And you are a good debater.
The Wikipedia article of the OP gives the meaning and context of a burden of proof, and it is not simply "on a claim." Anyone who has sufficiently considered the problem understands this.
The only thing that can be proven is a claim. Thus the burden of proof must be on a claim. And atheists make no claim... or do you dispute that we are unconvinced of the existence of a deity?
Essentially, A and B are in an argument. The burden of proof must be on one of them. B makes no actual claim. Therefore the burden is on A.
And of course there is a claim entailed in atheism. Colloquially it is simply that God does not exist. The more technical or self-accepted claim would be that God is not worthy of belief.
This is still my burning question.
Does anyone mind if I inject my current worldview into this thread? It'll allow people who want to tackle my line of thinking about being an Agnostic to do so, like they seem to want to do in another board that doesn't permit arguing........
I played a video game called Final Fantasy XIII, and what I took from it was all the hero characters had the wrong ideas but were viewed as good because of Faith, to the point of bringing about the end of the world, but the villain characters did nothing bad really but had the right ideas and expressed them but were viewed as bad.
I feel the same about life and religion. I am a Final Fantasy villain. My God is now being right instead of having faith, and I am okay with it.
the central question is, "What is faith?" For the Christian, faith is believing something because God has testified to it, or revealed it. Thus for the Christian "rightness" and faith can never contradict one another, for God is Truth itself who can never lie. It is perfectly rational to believe what God says.
Right. To me, this just seems like a description of closed-mindedness. I hate to say it.
Why? Do you have any reasons? If God told you something would you believe him?
What has the believer closed his mind to? How is he closed-minded? I think the atheist's closed-mindedness is obvious.
And of course there is a claim entailed in atheism. Colloquially it is simply that God does not exist. The more technical or self-accepted claim would be that God is not worthy of belief.
Going back to the OP, we have a person giving a positive claim that there is an even number of gumballs in the machine, and another who says that the claim has not met its burden of proof. This second person rejects the claim that there is an even number of gumballs but is not actually claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs.
Now, which do you think is the theist and which is the atheist?
I think this is an accurate approach to the burden of proof: it falls on the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative. In the Western world the atheist is the challenger of the status quo, which is clearly Christianity. Thus the burden of proof lies on the atheist, which should be unsurprising given the way so many atheists fight tooth and nail to try to dethrone Christianity.If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.
This is actually very true and deliberate! Do you remember His statements:I still think the Bible is important, but that Jesus didn't tell us everything there is to know.
I think this is an accurate approach to the burden of proof: it falls on the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative. In the Western world the atheist is the challenger of the status quo, which is clearly Christianity. Thus the burden of proof lies on the atheist, which should be unsurprising given the way so many atheists fight tooth and nail to try to dethrone Christianity.
This is actually very true and deliberate! Do you remember His statements:
"Father, I thank you that you have revealed these things to babes and not to the wise, learned".
"I speak in parables so that you, having been blessed to see and hear may hear, but they who hear yet do not hear will not hear".
"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, look at all of the wonderful things we did in your name' will enter heaven.. to them I say plainly 'I never knew you, depart from me, you who work iniquity'".
"You search the scriptures diligently, thinking that you have life in them, but the scriptures testify of me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life".
St Paul said "We speak in mysteries, for if the princes of this age had known, they would not have crucified The Lord of Glory".
.. However, Jesus also said "Nothing hidden shall not be revealed, nothing concealed shall not be made known and brought into open view".
You're conflating the colloquial use of the term with the technical use of the term.
And of course there is a claim entailed in atheism. Colloquially it is simply that God does not exist. The more technical or self-accepted claim would be that God is not worthy of belief.
I noted them both, distinctly, before you even raised the objection. In fact the very language of "colloquial" and "technical" is no doubt coming from my post which you read:
You are noting the colloquial and technical definitions of the word "atheism." I'm talking about the colloquial and technical definitions of the term "burden of proof." You have not addressed this.
Well even if that is the case it doesn't change the fact I asked someone to show proof He doesn't exist. Non-believers ar VERY good with playing word games to try and always avoid questions they are asked. See here:Also, turning the tables and asking for an argument to show that God does not exist is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. But the atheist has no burden because we don't say there is no God; we merely remain unconvinced that he exists.
Well, you have already decided to be opposed to me without having entered a discussion first.I admire that people are so focused on Scriptures around here, but using the Bible to prove something has three things against it:
The discipline of pursuing truth does require effective communication, that one understands what is being said. The writers did not intend to make their writings impossible to interpret, rather they did intend (just as anybody does) for their audience to understand properly what they are communicating.1. Nobody knows the true interpretation of verses.
I think that I have not used the bible to achieve that result. Rather, scripture is best used for correction and teaching so that the man of God may be complete.2. The Bible sometimes contradicts itself, creating a paradox - a paradox is not a problem for me, but it is for others of certain belief sets.
Further, nobody has yet told me the origin of Genesis information, so it is inherently unreliable. I am mindful to always use it accordingly. I would prefer that you could view me as I am than as others are who wear the name of My Lord for vanity. I did not enter nor allude to any texts from Genesis, yet you have already dismissed me on that basis.3. Science has already proved the Bible pretty silly on the Genesis account of Creation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?