Should theists have the burden of proof?

[zippy2006]

First of all, the variations are not slight. 2/3 of the population disagree with Christian theology and that Jesus was God.

2/3 of what population? And according to what study?

That is not a slight variation in belief, when you look at what the Christian theology claims about Jesus.

They don't vary an inch with respect to the claim I made: belief in God. I even provided a definition.

Also, belief in some sort of God, is entrenched in all societies, to some degree and when you have the power attched to a God and the fear that is generated by some in regards to the same, it is going to be carried on in belief, when it is presented to people at a young age. The other reality is, general belief in a God has been declining throughout the world for many decades and is more than likely to continue.

I disagree generally, and since you provide no evidence to support your claims there is nothing to refute. Beyond that, it is not clear how anything you say here relates to the burden of proof.

 

[bhsmte]

2/3 of what population? And according to what study?



They don't vary an inch with respect to the claim I made: belief in God. I even provided a definition.



I disagree generally, and since you provide no evidence to support your claims there is nothing to refute.

Do you really need evidence to show 2/3 of the world's population are not Christian, really? When I have time, I will find again and post studies on the above and also on the trends of less belief in God, which I have posted on these boards several times. before.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you really need evidence to show 2/3 of the world's population are not Christian, really? When I have time, I will find again and post studies on the above and also on the trends of less belief in God, which I have posted on these boards several times. before.

Ah, you were referring to the whole world. I agree that 2/3 of the worlds population is not Christian. But I never claimed that Christianity was a consensus view--especially on a world scale. I claimed that belief in God is, and it is.

 

[cloudyday2]

Ah, you were referring to the whole world. I agree that 2/3 of the worlds population is not Christian. But I never claimed that Christianity was a consensus view--especially on a world scale. I claimed that belief in God is, and it is.

According to this wikipedia article, there are between 500 million and 750 million people who do not believe in gods. That's the same order of magnitude as the population of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc. A consensus belief needs to be shared by these atheists/agnostics, and obviously there is no consensus that gods exist.
Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

 

[KCfromNC]

You mean, like those who adhere to Methodological Naturalism (like Eugene C. Scott [atheist]) rather than Philosophical Naturalism (Richard Dawkins [atheist])?

I don't believe I've said anything about these subjects. Why do you ask?

It's funny how philosophy just...gets in the way of proper scientific belief...isn't it, KC?

I don't believe I've said anything about this subject here. Why do you ask?

 

[KCfromNC]

Sure. I understand. I've read the history. And you do understand that his Razor emerged out of considerations about philosophical contrasts between 'Nominalism' and 'Universalism,' right?

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia ?

 

[xianghua]

Imagine for a moment that you are an atheist who believes in metaphysical naturalism. What is a human watch designer and a watch? At a certain level, the human watch designer is no more an "intelligent designer" than a rock rolling down a mountain side from erosion. The watch is no more a design than the shape of the mountainside formed by erosion.

My point is that calling something an "intelligent design" is similar to calling a bouquet of flowers "pretty".

ok. but for now im talking about nature systems. do you think that they was made by a design or by a natural process?

 

[KCfromNC]

This thread has recently covered this topic in some depth. As pointed out there, Wikipedia claims:

"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."​

Given than any particular religious belief is held by a minority of the worlds population, guess we know who the burden is on then.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, it's not apparent at all. Take the essential theist belief, "God exists." There is an enormous consensus regarding this belief.

Not on the definition of that God nor of the correct way to view it interacting with us.

 

[zippy2006]

According to this wikipedia article, there are between 500 million and 750 million people who do not believe in gods. That's the same order of magnitude as the population of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc.

That's manifestly false. Taken separately, there are over twice as many Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. If we add them together, as an analysis of belief in God requires, believers dwarf unbelievers.

A consensus belief needs to be shared by these atheists/agnostics, and obviously there is no consensus that gods exist.

Do you even understand what a consensus is? It seems that you do not. I'll give you a hint: a consensus is not, "A belief shared by atheists/agnostics."

Earlier your "argument" relied on a patently false definition of "consensus view," and now you've simply substituted one bad definition for another. A consensus belief does not need to be shared by atheists/agnostics. That's not what a consensus is.

 

[cloudyday2]

ok. but for now im talking about nature systems. do you think that they was made by a design or by a natural process?

Just dumb luck and natural selection would be my guess.

 

[cloudyday2]

That's manifestly false. Taken separately, there are over twice as many Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. If we add them together, as an analysis of belief in God requires, believers dwarf unbelievers.



Do you even understand what a consensus is? It seems that you do not. I'll give you a hint: a consensus is not, "A belief shared by atheists/agnostics."

Earlier your "argument" relied on a patently false definition of "consensus view," and now you've simply substituted one bad definition for another. A consensus belief does not need to be shared by atheists/agnostics. That's not what a consensus is.

500 million people is a substantial percentage of the world's population. A consensus might exclude a small percentage of the population, but it can't exclude 500 million. Consensus suggests near unanimity. It takes considerably more than 51% to form a consensus.

I don't know how to respond further to your post, because I don't understand what you are arguing.

 

[variant]

If we add them together, as an analysis of belief in God requires, believers dwarf unbelievers.

Who cares? This says a lot more about people than it does about whether God exists.

 

[zippy2006]

500 million people is a substantial percentage of the world's population. A consensus might exclude a small percentage of the population, but it can't exclude 500 million. Consensus suggests near unanimity. It takes considerably more than 51% to form a consensus.

Taking the world population to be 7.5 billion, the percentage of atheists/agnostics according to your number is 6.6%. It goes without saying that a consensus can exist while ignoring 6.6% of the population.

 

[Moral Orel]

Taking the world population to be 7.5 billion, the percentage of atheists/agnostics according to your number is 6.6%. It goes without saying that a consensus can exist while ignoring 6.6% of the population.

It doesn't "go without saying" because the line at which a consensus exists is arbitrary as long as it's over 51%, that Cloudy pointed out. Terms like "vast majority" are all subjective. Maybe one person thinks 90% is enough for consensus, maybe another person thinks 98% is required for consensus. Still others might think 75% is enough for consensus.

 

[cloudyday2]

Taking the world population to be 7.5 billion, the percentage of atheists/agnostics according to your number is 6.6%. It goes without saying that a consensus can exist while ignoring 6.6% of the population.

Here is good wikipedia link that lists the world populations and percentages for the major religions. I would say that the Abrahamic religions have a similar understanding of their God. That is 55% of the world. There are 16% non-religious. In addition many Buddhists and Hindus do not believe in gods analogous to the Abrahamic God. In fact many Buddhists are atheists. The Buddhists are 7% and Hindus are 15%.

So only 55% of the world has an understanding of a monotheistic God remotely similar to Christianity's.

List of religious populations - Wikipedia

 

[zippy2006]

Here is good wikipedia link that lists the world populations and percentages for the major religions. I would say that the Abrahamic religions have a similar understanding of their God. That is 55% of the world. There are 16% non-religious.

According to your source, half of the non-religious are theistic.

In addition many Buddhists and Hindus do not believe in gods analogous to the Abrahamic God. In fact many Buddhists are atheists. The Buddhists are 7% and Hindus are 15%.

Buddhists don't necessarily believe in God, but Hindus do.

So only 55% of the world has an understanding of a monotheistic God remotely similar to Christianity's.

So at least 85% of the world population believes in God.

But it is artificial to look at world percentages of religions. The burden of proof "falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative." A society is local, generally covering only a single country. The whole world is not a society in any real sense of the word.

 

[bhsmte]

According to your source, half of the non-religious are theistic.



Buddhists don't necessarily believe in God, but Hindus do.



So at least 85% of the world population believes in God.

But it is artificial to look at world percentages of religions. The burden of proof "falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative." A society is local, generally covering only a single large country. The whole world is not a society in any real sense of the word.

Does this then mean, if someone is indicted for a crime, because there is enough evidence to charge them, the defense has the burden of proof in court and not the prosecution, making the claim of guilt?

 

[zippy2006]

Does this then mean, if someone is indicted for a crime, because there is enough evidence to charge them, the defense has the burden of proof in court and not the prosecution, making the claim of guilt?

Legal procedures are stipulated by the legislative bodies of each country, and it is needless to say that such procedures have very little in common with the organic notion of burden of proof.

 

[bhsmte]

Legal procedures are stipulated by the legislative bodies of each country, and it is needless to say that such procedures have very little in common with the organic notion of burden of proof.

Do you think legal procedures are a good way to get at the truth?