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.
Do you think legal procedures are a good way to get at the truth?
A system where evidence has to be presented to support claims and the evidence can be cross examined.
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 country. The whole world is not a society in any real sense of the word.
You're full of assertions and mighty short on arguments.
LOL. Presenting evidence to support a positive claim, is all about examining the arguments, for the positive claim. Prosecutors, make a positive claim against a defendant and they have the burden of proof.
Suppose we just ignore for the moment the fact that the prosecution and the defense are involved in positive claims. What effect do you think your statement has on the burden of proof? Do you think that because U.S. courts stipulate that citizens are innocent until proven guilty, it therefore follows that the universal burden of proof works on the same principle of "innocent until proven guilty"? What is your argument? How to you think law courts relate to the organic burden of proof?
The prosecution brought the charges and the case to court, by making the positive claim of guilt.
In burden of proof, you can't simply assume something is true, simply because a lot of people make this assumption, without evidence to establish the assumption is correct. People assume all sorts of things are true. If they state something is true and they can not support this claim with evidence, what does that tell you about the assumption?
And the defense brings a case of defense to court, by making the positive claim of innocence.
I'll just quote the atheist with a doctorate in philosophy:
To some extent, what’s rational to believe depends upon what everyone around you believes. A great many of the things that we think are true, we learn from our environment. Our parents, teachers, friends, and people around us give it to us. And we’d be positively irrational if we were to ignore or reject all those sources. They have served us well for lots of things. They’ve been reliable. And we trust them. If you’re going to go against the tide on something that all of those sources believe, then you had better have some really good, compelling reasons. If you are going to conclude that the earth is flat and contradict what everyone around you has so much justification for, then your justification needs to be so good, then the likelihood that it is right needs to be greater than the likelihood that all of them are wrong.
What is rational to believe, based on the people around you and the environment you grew up in, does indeed provide social pressure to believe certain things, no question. IMO, I believe there is a lot of social pressure in the United States, to claim a belief in God, because there is a stigma being labeled a non believer and many studies have been done on this very topic, with non believers being viewed by believers, with the same trust level as rapists and criminals.
So yes, there is some rational thought that goes into fitting into the social norms, to be accepted, as no one wants to be viewed in a negative light.
With all this being said, any positive claim of the existence of anything, whether it be aliens or Gods, that can not be supported with credible evidence, is believed for some other reason than evidence. The reasons those people have, may be strong ones for them personally and may be the right reasons to believe for them, but they would have no bearing on actually supporting the claim, as it relates to reality beyond their own personal desires and perceptions.
I don't think you should include Hinduism in your consensus, because the Hindu concept of a god is so different from Abrahamic God. Many Hindus believe in a cyclical cosmology with no beginning, and they consider their gods to be creatures like everything else in the universe. Of course Hinduism includes a huge variety of beliefs. It isn't a single religion at all.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.
That's manifestly false. Taken separately, there are over twice as many Muslims, Christians, and Hindus.
First of all, we need a definition of "intelligence" that is actually useful. Here is my attempt. Something is "intelligent" if its behavior adapts to a variety of circumstances, and the behavior tends to create results with a common trait (we infer this trait to be the "goal"). The results exhibiting this common trait might be considered "designed" as opposed to "natural". However, everything is relative. The mechanical robot is not that different from a human except for the material of construction. In a way the mechanical robot is a product of natural processes such as evolution, because it was created by humans that were produced by nature.ok. what if you will find a robot that can replicate itself? do you think that such a robot is best explain by a natural process or a d esign? remember that its have a living traits.
Science attempts to find objective evidence.
If you think the idea of "evidence" is at the complete mercy of interpretation, then you are more of a skeptic than I.
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?