Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

evidence...that is impossible to bring forth

Yeah, I agree. BUT not to many people are going to worship a God and, more importantly, do as they are told - - unless they are offered life after death. I don't know anyone who would worship a God, with as little as this God gives the in this life, unless they think they'll get to live in a paradise after they die. I've even known some pretty confident atheists that started believing as they got up in their later years, say late 70s early 80s...

well im not so sure i have seen grubs or caterpillars
and they go into a caccoon they go through changes in that afterlife caccoon
then they emerge as butterflies
but i dont know if thats death or near death
and they say delai lama has proof but i didnt meet him before and if i did i didnt know or remember if i have or not
then theirs tales of people seeing ghots and experiences of dying and coming back to tell tales ....many say things that would blow the mind away
then theirs psychic that say they talk to the dead nd they have done police work andhelped solve murder investigations
so i really dont know about giving any proof of after life or none at all
guess its what u choose to beleive

If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise.


wrong. if the claim sufficiently piques my interest, i'll go look for myself.
what the claimant does is not my concern

If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume false until proved otherwise.

Fixed.

nah i just wouldnt even bother i read a few of those words
and the only thing that has ever interested me and others is

does after life really exist not santa
so i didnt even bother to even have a thougth bout santa if he exits or not
on the other hand after life has always interested many people and that caught my eye
and i interpreted that and made a say on here
i wasnt expecting an iq test
so dont worry bout if i say the wrong things i just see or percieve differently to prololy others and yourself

If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume false until proved otherwise.

Fixed.

true. i tweaked and generalized the proposition. this burden of proof is bit of a soundbite
i would do more than assume. i'd probably ridicule too. humiliate if resistant to revision, hang if the mood strikes me
ja
ridicule till the cows came home

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

True.

well sumthing happened in maryborough queensland australia few years back it made the news and streets were shut down till they found a cure

it goes like this
a man had an argument with his mate another guy bout money they guy owed the man
the guy wouldnt pay up and the man needed the cash for his kids
the man took of then came back with ground up chalk
he threw the chalk on the ground and said .......WELL COP THIS THEN.....
the guy got very extremely sick he called the ambulance and the cops came aswell they musta saw the chalk then they got very sick near death so to the ambulance crew
more ambulance were called to help the other ambulance crew and the cops more cops came by this time people were sprawled out all over the outside on stretchers and the ground near dying they near died
the man just crossed his arms and watched the display
one smart fellow did tests on the chalk after attempting to help everyone
he told them all .....that he didnt understand why everyone was sick cause there was no substance in the chalk and couldnt find nothing in tests he did on their blood
everyone even cops and the guy got up feeling better but they were all near death
the man never got arrested cause there was no substnce in the chalk

thats kinda a bit of proof what people can do with the mind
and is in the news papers local papers of maryborough australia
i was there when it happened and also read the papers all me mates talked bout it for ages after

well he nelly sent em to the after life

If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

Well, good for you. But does that also mean that you should ridicule, denigrate or otherwise harrass others who believe differently from you?

If you don't want to believe, then fine. But do you hold that same tolerance for those who might believe differently? Do you allow them to believe as they wish?

Baron Max

I has an afterlife plus a Canada up my mangina. Avatar warned me he doesn't believe me.

If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.


It is all based on faith and beliefs. If you are a true believer in whatever

your faith tells you then you won't need any evidence other than your own

belief.

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?
Well sure, I mean I dont see why you should have to prove that there is no afterlife.

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max

Only you with INDIGESTION!! :D

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

Strictly speaking you are correct. The onus is not on the listener to prove anything. The listener may be interested in attempting to verify a claim, but it isn't incumbent on him to do so.

The claimant must always provide evidence or even (as a start) a logical sequence of thought. Take legal cases for example. The defendant never proves the case against himself! It is up to the prosecuting attorney (the accuser or claimant's attorney) to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.

More fundamentally, it is not logically possible to prove the antithesis of a claim. That is attempting to prove a negative...which the listener cannot accomplish.

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max


The degree of collateral damage caused by your belief is irrelevant. The question asks who has to prove said belief, were it to come into question.

For example...I can tell you that all of your beliefs listed there are ridiculous. I however cannot prove that there is not an afterlife, or there is not coffee and whiskey in not-heaven. If you wish to defend or spread your beliefs (like theists tend to with their doctrines), you must provide the evidence.

Well, good for you. But does that also mean that you should ridicule, denigrate or otherwise harrass others who believe differently from you?

If you don't want to believe, then fine. But do you hold that same tolerance for those who might believe differently? Do you allow them to believe as they wish?

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

You're appealing to arguments the OP didn't make. He's not arguing that there is harm. Nor is he arguing that those with superstitious beliefs should be ridiculed, denigrated, or otherwise humiliated by publicly demonstrating their ignorance. His argument is that if one makes a bold claim, only the claimant is required to support the claim. Therefore, the audience to the claim isn't required to provide evidence contrary to the claim.

Where in the OP did you find his call for harm? Are you implying that the mere acts of questioning, inquiring and criticizing those that make wacky claims are proceeding with the intent to harm over the intent to demand truth and rational discourse?

While the OP doesn't call for ridicule or denigration, I do. Anyone that is willing to publicly favor superstition over science deserves it, particularly when this superstition impedes education, medicine, and progress in technology and government. Religious superstition is responsible for smart, educated people flying planes into skyscrapers. Its responsible for inspiring assholes to bomb clinics and assassinate doctors who provide medical services to pregnant women simply because their superstition tells them life begins with conception. A fly has far more cells than a blastocyst, yet the Pope calls for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for medicines like Plan-B. Religious superstition is responsible -directly- for many of the HIV/AIDS deaths in Africa, where religious nutbars who are bishops are telling their "flock" condoms are laced with AIDS virus.

Yeah. Denigration.

The burden of proof belongs on the plaintiff. The existence of God is not a lawsuit. The analogy fails. Besides, you could just as easily claim "there is no God". Now, it's up to you to prove it.

The burden of proof belongs on the plaintiff. The existence of God is not a lawsuit. The analogy fails. Besides, you could just as easily claim "there is no God". Now, it's up to you to prove it.

No one has implied that your god, whichever it may be, is some sort of "lawsuit." Nor is it true that "burden of proof" resides only in courts of law.

This is readily present in every day life and one can find this truth by simply shopping for a used car. If the salesman assures you that the car runs fine and expects you to take his word for it, will you not still demand a test-drive before forking over your money? This same analogy can be applied to countless examples of where ordinary people demand some sort of qualifying evidence before accepting a claim, particularly a far-fetched one, to be true. That isn't to say that there aren't many instances of people accepting wild-ass claims without evidence: religious superstitions, believers in tarot, astrology, fung shei, bottled water, alien abductions, and the effectiveness of garden gnomes as gardeners are but a very few examples.

Moderator's Note: About a page full of off-topic and nonsensical posts were deleted. Please don't clutter up threads in this forum that way. PMs were sent to two of the three members involved and yet they continued to post.

"Burden of proof" is a legal phrase. Get used to it, and stop using it in non-legal settings.

No one is disputing that the phrase is used in circumstances of law. There is a reason, which is because those that make claims have a burden to evidence their claims. This applies in aspects of life that extend beyond law, whether you choose to accept it or not.

well he nelly sent em to the after life :)
I get a big kick watching people who are hypnotized. Probably something like that occurred.


I once watched a guy who was hypothesized (on TV) who then thought he was a bee. He rubbed his butt against a person and then flew around and finally laid down and "died". But he obviously really wasn't dead. The hypnotist asked why he had laid down and one of the camera crew said he "died" and the hypnotist asked why - he hadn't told him he was dead so he should still be a bee and the crew said it's because he lost his stinger when he rubbed his butt against someone "stung it" - even the hypnotist got a huge laugh out of that!

I wouldn't call it the "power" of the mind but I'd say there is something funny about consciousness.

And that's the point. People believe things without needing any sort of proof. Type II errors have probably saved our ancestors since before we were even Hominidae and thus this line of reasoning was written into our DNA by mother nature long ago. For most people there is no amount of "reasoning" that is going to override this type of consciousness - for whatever reasons.

Yes the burden of proof belongs with the claimant but there's little point discussing it with someone who disagrees. They can not think logically about the topic.

Michael

yeah i guess so

commun mob discussion.....the mou(greek--means "my god")...why people stuck on the word (god, christianity, deth, afterlife etc.) everything is placed in the right way of nature. if someone find the proof of the existent of god ( whats kinda difficult), but than he has found the answer of "why me exist). but i think thats not the point. the whole point is to understand and o find an acceptable way to get the knowledge about things are really are. Ask u self whats menkinds way is: burn, growing up, get an adult and being in the position to make another men(kid), getting older and dieing. thats nature way. before and after is just a combination of all descrption of humans mind. just for this.....everything needs power to live and to exist. also human. sokrates said in the composium that god is energy (everywhere).....human exist just to product this energy. how and all the other question needs answers with a lot of time for explaining. ( im trully sorry for my english)

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

I would concur that the presence of an after life is a claim. But that depends on what you mean as an "afterlife". It is another term that is constantly abused by religion. But never mind that. From your perspective yes it does equate to a claim.

I would concur too that the evidence of proof lies on the individual to provided thus. Yet not all situations can be judged accordingly. It establishes an internal conviction for both parties. Which is a claim either way.

While the OP doesn't call for ridicule or denigration, I do. Anyone that is willing to publicly favor science over superstition deserves it, particularly when this superstition impedes education, medicine, and progress in technology and government. Religious superstition is responsible for smart, educated people flying planes into skyscrapers. Its responsible for inspiring assholes to bomb clinics and assassinate doctors who provide medical services to pregnant women simply because their superstition tells them life begins with conception. A fly has far more cells than a blastocyst, yet the Pope calls for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for medicines like Plan-B. Religious superstition is responsible -directly- for many of the HIV/AIDS deaths in Africa, where religious nutbars who are bishops are telling their "flock" condoms are laced with AIDS virus.

Yeah. Denigration.

In a scientific endeavor, one attempts to prove the null hypothesis, which is the opposite of what one is really trying to prove. In the case of the existence of God the null hypothesis is that God does not exist. One finds evidence to accept or reject that hypothesis.

In a western court of law with the presumption of innocence the same rules apply. In this case the null hypothesis is that the defendant is guilty. Evidence is provided to establish guilt only, accepting the null hypothesis. Rejecting the null hypotheses means finding a person not guilty. The defendant is never found innocent.

In a debate however, which some would like to optimistically think these forums are, both the affirmative and the negative positions must prove anything they assert. Of course there is no real debate here; instead it is mostly ridicule and denigration as our esteemed moderator points out, which is completely against forum rules but hey, he's the moderator. It's his little way of playing god so to speak.

His position is of course also completely false as it is trivial to point out the evils of atheism as well. Just pick up a grocery tabloid any day, or look at the great atheist regimes like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others. But hey, his biased position rules as he makes the rules. Fortunately there are much better rules to live by.

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof.
...

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

In short, you are entirely correct.

The burden of proof always lies with that view that runs contrary to convention.

Now, that being said, do not that this says absolutely nothing whatsoever as to the veracity of either claim, conventional or otherwise.

In a scientific endeavor, one attempts to prove the null hypothesis,

[...]

His position is of course also completely false as it is trivial to point out the evils of atheism as well. Just pick up a grocery tabloid any day, or look at the great atheist regimes like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others. But hey, his biased position rules as he makes the rules. Fortunately there are much better rules to live by.

In a completely fallacious and unsupported argument informed by bigotry, superstition and an apparent substandard education, one equates atheism with evil when there isn't a logical or reasoned argument to be made. The "stalin, mao, pol pot" argument has been destroyed so many times by so many people that it can only be a substandard education that allows such a fallacy to continue. Tsk.

How is an ideology responsible? How do we go about associating a direct cause and effect nature between bad decision making of an individual to his or her being misled by falsehoods? How then do we identify all under the same umbrella of accusation.

You really can't. What you are displaying is an emotional response to acts of violence and destruction. Politics call it the blame game whether it be video games, movies or religion and tabo's.

There is a measure of blame. Don't get me wrong but the Blame Game doesn't seek the complete cause it seeks only a scape goat. It suggest in error by rooming this one single aspect the problem will be cured. It's as though saying man is pure if not for the bad influence of religion. Man is pure if not for the bad inflence of ignorance.

Perhaps it will be a slow realization for those as religion continues to decline but man is not pure.

The Vatican lied through their teeth telling Africans that condoms were porous and of no value in contraception. In their usual style, the did not explain why condoms are banned by them.

Religion plays a similar "blame game" way of thinking with God. In the face of desasterous events pastors will claim God is responsible. When a person dies, whether by violence or natural causes, God is responsible. Yet theire own teachings show he is not.

It's the same emotional reaction Dawkins and other scientist have inversely to religion. It's the tactic of emotional generalization. Let's Identify reasonable responsibility.

Reason means to yield and responsibility is an obligation. So we're looking for a ideology to yield and take an obligation. But of those are actions. Do we expect the Constitution of the United States to yield or take up an obligation? Do we expect Socialism to yeild or take up an obligation? Do we expect Math and Science to yield to and take up an obligation?

Absolutely not. Why? Because these are the things we are supposed to yield to. Only a living thing can yield and take up an obligation. Our boundaries are set by science, religion, math, the Constitution, socialism and etc. Everything can be interpretted to mislead but the obligation not to belongs to man and man alone.

How is an ideology responsible? How do we go about associating a direct cause and effect nature between bad decision making of an individual to his or her being misled by falsehoods? How then do we identify all under the same umbrella of accusation.

You really can't. What you are displaying is an emotional response to acts of violence and destruction. Politics call it the blame game whether it be video games, movies or religion and tabo's.

There is a measure of blame. Don't get me wrong but the Blame Game doesn't seek the complete cause it seeks only a scape goat. It suggest in error by rooming this one single aspect the problem will be cured. It's as though saying man is pure if not for the bad influence of religion. Man is pure if not for the bad inflence of ignorance.

Perhaps it will be a slow realization for those as religion continues to decline but man is not pure.



How is an ideology responsible, you ask. Simple answer. An ideology is a set of beliefs and beliefs inform our actions.

What do you mean by "man is not pure " ? With what are you comparing us ?

It shares a responsibility but it does not take responsibility. Just as a soldier holds his orders as his ideology the burdeon or responsibility is not on the order but the soldier and the commanding officer. Thus...the ideology...the order or that which informs our actions is not a propper excuse for retaining responsibility.

All of the Civilized world shares that perspective to war crimes why should the expectation change with any other ideology? The truth is it doesn't. A court of law of these societies do not excuse soilders for folllowing orders.

Yet you would excuse the people of religion for following orders. That's not a logical application of the burdeon of responsibility.
This is an understood social fallacy and a reprehensible use of logic on a scientific forum.
-----
I mean pure as to say no one of us is fautless. There is no apparent direct comparison.

It shares a responsibility but it does not take responsibility. Just as a soldier holds his orders as his ideology the burdeon or responsibility is not on the order but the soldier and the commanding officer. Thus...the ideology...the order or that which informs our actions is not a propper excuse for retaining responsibility.

All of the Civilized world shares that perspective to war crimes why should the expectation change with any other ideology? The truth is it doesn't. A court of law of these societies do not excuse soilders for folllowing orders.

Yet you would excuse the people of religion for following orders. That's not a logical application of the burdeon of responsibility.
This is an understood social fallacy and a reprehensible use of logic on a scientific forum.
-----
I mean pure as to say no one of us is fautless. There is no apparent direct comparison.

No, religion claims responsibility for what is good ,which it attributes to its god. Evil is ascribed to the Devil. That's truly logical, given that the claim is that god created everything, including Satan.

I am sure you are truly offended by the reprehensible use of logic. When it suits you, that is. Would you care to tell me what is logical about Noah. As a logician, you should have no trouble explaining a few problems I have with the Bible.

Your insight into human nature is truly astounding. You have logically deduced that mankind is fallible. As you have no "apparent direct comparison " can you please stae your premises

You're talking about a singular ideology to which you apply generally. That's another social Fallacy. All religions even of the same root do not share the same ideology. Therefore it's illogical to present one ideology to respresent them all.

I'm sure it is your intention to draw out a debate but would be the logical purpose behind such an endeavor?

You're talking about a singular ideology to which you apply generally. That's another social Fallacy. All religions even of the same root do not share the same ideology. Therefore illogical to present on ideology to respresent them all.

I'm sure it is your intention to draw out a debate but would be the logical purpose behind such an endeavor?

Thank you for pointing out the obvious about different religions. I am not generalizing; I am asking you to explain things from your Christian perspective.

If you are reluctant to debate what you believe in, I think I undetrstand why. Are you frightened by an inability to support your views with reason as opposed to quoting the Bible ?

To what end?

To what end?

You are right. It would be a totally pointless exercise.

why?
faith?

Naming the evils done by both atheists and theists has no bearing on the existence of God or an afterlife. These are ad hominem attacks not welcome here(though the "theist" list is much longer ;). Also, I made this post like six months ago.

why?
faith?

belief v. knowledge.

no common ground

Naming the evils done by both atheists and theists has no bearing on the existence of God or an afterlife. These are ad hominem attacks not welcome here(though the "theist" list is much longer ;). Also, I made this post like six months ago.

Try again in another six months. I wish you luck.

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

i would say that experience is the only way to true knowledge, but also that deductions could be proposed based upon evidence, and that deductions can be incorrect regardless of evidence, because they're based on interpretation.

i wonder though, why is this important to you? what difference does it make to you what happens when you die? why don't you wait until the experience and see for yourself? then you'll know for sure because you'll have the proof.

The real question is not who has the burden, but who gets to set the standards of proof.
Those who have no belief in god, or even a belief in no-god, often seem to think the proof has to be scientific in nature.
I do not see how this is a given.
The god believer can offer much evidence, even proof, but it is not acceptable to the unbeliever.
Who has the burden is immaterial when the methods of acceptable proof differ.
To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.
To merely show ones own claims have merit, they get to use their own standards. The opponent will, expectedly, remain unconvinced.

The evidence the believer has must be the sort that can withstand scrutiny, verification, testing, replication, or some other quality that provides demonstration of existence in reality.

That's why the "proof" has to be scientific in nature, since no other method has ever been shown to demonstrate existence in reality. All other "ways of knowing" are nonsense.

Further, it must be evidence that, after testing / scrutiny etc, can only be found to support the claim in question (in this case of God existence) rationally above all other claims.

The evidence the believer has must be the sort that can withstand scrutiny, verification, testing, replication, or some other quality that provides demonstration of existence in reality.

That's why the "proof" has to be scientific in nature, since no other method has ever been shown to demonstrate existence in reality. All other "ways of knowing" are nonsense.

So, to you, God MUST be a physical being, in order for such scrutiny and testing to take place. No one believes in a physical person/being known as God (not through scriptures anyways), so your request falls by the weyside.
The person/being known as God in every scripture is described as the source of everything, so how do you think it could be possible to conclude existence using science (the source of which is....)

Jan.

So, to you, God MUST be a physical being, in order for such scrutiny and testing to take place. No one believes in a physical person/being known as God (not through scriptures anyways), so your request falls by the weyside.
The person/being known as God in every scripture is described as the source of everything, so how do you think it could be possible to conclude existence using science (the source of which is....)

Jan.Then the question becomes how you rationally claim to know he exists? - given that everything we currently know to exist is physical, whether it be as a solid object or as images within our brain caused by some neurological process etc.

Sarkus,

Then the question becomes how you rationally claim to know he exists? -

The question is only relevant to the claimant.

....given that everything we currently know to exist is physical, whether it be as a solid object or as images within our brain caused by some neurological process etc.

And we 'know' this only in relation to others who have the same or similar knowledge, and even then we don't really know that. I know that orange juice is nice, my neighbour knows that it is foul, who is right?

The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that he/she believes God exists, and knows why he/she believes, and the opposite can be defined as atheist.

Jan.

If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume false until proved otherwise.

Fixed.

Why? There might very well be some sentient being living clear across the universe with the unlikely name of Santa Claus. Hell, i know severla Santa Clauses that are living in the US.

You have to be more careful how you put things.

The question is only relevant to the claimant.No - it is relevant to those wishing to understand the position of the claimant. To accept the claimant on his word is to commit a logical fallacy.

And we 'know' this only in relation to others who have the same or similar knowledge, and even then we don't really know that. I know that orange juice is nice, my neighbour knows that it is foul, who is right?Both are right as like/dislike is purely subjective.
Existence is not.

The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that he/she believes God exists, and knows why he/she believes, and the opposite can be defined as atheist.The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that they claim God exists - but can not provide the evidence to support this claim. Theists know why they believe, but "knowing why they think something exists" is not evidence for that thing existing.
I know why I thought England would beat Wales in the 6-nations the other week. But they didn't.

Sarkus,

No - it is relevant to those wishing to understand the position of the claimant. To accept the claimant on his word is to commit a logical fallacy.

If the claimant claims he/she knows that God exists, then your question is relevant, otherwise, in the case of theism it has no bearing.
Also, to claim to know that God exists, doesn't mean one believes in God.

Both are right as like/dislike is purely subjective.
Existence is not.


All conclusions are subjective, some more than others.

The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that they claim God exists - but can not provide the evidence to support this claim.

To my knowledge there is not one definition of theism which asserts a claim to know that God exists. Theism is a position of belief in God.

Theists know why they believe, but "knowing why they think something exists" is not evidence for that thing existing.

I don't recall saying it was, and in the same breath knowing why one doesn't believe is not evidence for that thing not existing.

I know why I thought England would beat Wales in the 6-nations the other week. But they didn't.

Hardly the same thing.

Jan.

Jan Ardena To my knowledge there is not one definition of theism which asserts a claim to know that God exists. Theism is a position of belief in God.Some Deists claim to know there is a god.
Whether Deism is form of Theism, I will let ou decide.
Deists are not an organized group so certainly there are a great variety of beliefs within the group.
Some would claim to use reason to know there is a god.
Some would use personnel experience as a means to know there is a god.
Some would intuit a god.

Many (most) Deists reject the supernatural. God the creator is just part of the system, a primal cause.
Deists are all products of the Enlightenment (historically), and have a fondness for reason.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist based on his beliefs, although he made no public pronouncements that he was Deist.

He rejected all supernatural events, did not believe Jesus ever meant to declare himself a god, that all religions are of equal value, and he had little good to say for the clergy of most churches. He favored the Unitarians as an organized religion.
To my knowledge he never made a rational argument for the existence of god, he just assumed, whether a priori or intuitively.

I see some who favor the scientific type of evidence. This is one viewpoint, but a choice among many. I believe god is knowable by scientific methods, although I doubt that we are close to having that skill in the near future. I expect science to break a lot of new ground in the next few hundred years.

Scientifically based knowledge has the advantage of being easy to transfer, from one person to another.

Other types of knowing are more personal, not as easily transferred.

I would say that knowledge is based on what actually exists. Others would insist that we add, “yes, but it must not only exist, we must have convincing scientific evidence that it exists.”
This position is based on the assumption that science today is mature, and has all of the tools and knowledge it needs to detect or make contact with god. This is a very large assumption.

I would say a more reasonable assumption is that science is in its infancy, and there will be many new discoveries in the coming centuries, discoveries that are not even speculations at this point. This is certainly not an argument for god, merely an argument for agnosticism.

Using the standards of science for convincing evidence, there is no convincing evidence that there is no god. Most atheists would say there is no evidence for god, so they have no belief in god. This is an easy position to defend.

Less easy to defend is the position that science demonstrates that there is no god. I have never seen this position successfully defended, from a scientific, rational or empirical position.

If one argues from a scientific position, I think it is easy to argue against any one particular religion, except Deism. Actually, calling Deism a religion is using the term freely. Under stricter definitions, Deism does not meet key elements of a religion.
Buddhism is also not a religion under traditional usage of the word. Many Buddhists are atheists, so unless we consider atheism a religion, Buddhism is not a religion.


Some would say if it cannot be substantiated by scientific evidence, there is no way to know if it is true.
Certainly this is a rational approach, and appeals to many.

Others would say they can know by personal experience. That which we experience, is certainly real to ourselves. Convincing others of what we experienced is a different matter. Others can always deny the authenticity of our experiences. This does not make it any less real, only lacking evidence that convinces some others.

Some people believe if they cannot convince like-minded people something is truthful, then it must be mistaken.
They are not comfortable accepting as true, something which does not have convincing evidence, according to their belief system. This group would include the vast majority of persons, including myself.



If we experience Truth, this is not changed by the beliefs of others. The Truth, or actual existence, of something is not dependent on the belief of individuals.

The others can of course, claim it is not Truth, rather some subjective perception, perceived to be Truthful, when it is not. Their evidence will be that it cannot be substantiated by scientific means. From their position, they are of course correct. For them, something is not true, unless it can be shown to be true, using scientific verification.

This can lead to not believing true things, not due to reality, not because they are false, but due to the limited available knowledge or verification process.

If the claimant claims he/she knows that God exists, then your question is relevant, otherwise, in the case of theism it has no bearing.So theists generally don't claim to know God exists? Are you therefore claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

Also, to claim to know that God exists, doesn't mean one believes in God.If by "believe in" you mean "accept the word of" etc then sure - I can believe that the King of Denmark exists, but I don't "believe in" him.
But the question here is that theists "believe God to exist", not whether they merely "believe in" God.

All conclusions are subjective, some more than others.Conclusions are, objective truth is not.

To my knowledge there is not one definition of theism which asserts a claim to know that God exists. Theism is a position of belief in God.How can one "believe in" God without claiming "belief in the existence" of God. It's like saying that you believe in the television programme Eastenders, but you're not claiming that television exists.
One implies the other.

I don't recall saying it was,I apologis if the implication I read in your statement was not intended.
and in the same breath knowing why one doesn't believe is not evidence for that thing not existing.Of course it isn't - and I have not said it is. I am an atheist, and like many others I do not believe God to either exist or not-exist.

Hardly the same thing.Is this the extent of your rebuttal of the analogy? You'll have to do better.

Sarkus
(and others)


Can you point out disagreement with any of these statements below?
I consider them to be characteristics of belief, and am looking for additions or corrections.

I realize there are many words which might have several meanings, so just apply your own meanings as you see fit.

Belief:
Something the mind accepts as true.
It may exist only in the mind.
It may be representative of reality.
It may be consistent with existence, actual things or events.
If enough other people share the same belief, it might be considered, by the group, to be knowledge.
If the belief has a lot of scientific supporting evidence, it might be considered by some groups, to be knowledge.
If the belief has enough supporting evidence, as accepted by a particular group, that group will consider it to be knowledge.

The difference between belief and knowledge, is the amount of acceptable supporting evidence that can be provided

Can you point out disagreement with any of these statements below?
I consider them to be characteristics of belief, and am looking for additions or corrections.

I realize there are many words which might have several meanings, so just apply your own meanings as you see fit.

Belief:
Something the mind accepts as true.
It may exist only in the mind.
It may be representative of reality.
It may be consistent with existence, actual things or events.
If enough other people share the same belief, it might be considered, by the group, to be knowledge.
If the belief has a lot of scientific supporting evidence, it might be considered by some groups, to be knowledge.
If the belief has enough supporting evidence, as accepted by a particular group, that group will consider it to be knowledge.Not all these can be characteristic of the same understanding of "belief" or "knowledge".

If it exists only in the mind, there is no scientific supporting evidence, etc.

Furthermore - why is "knowledge" only a group based attribute?
If an individual doesn't have knowledge but has a belief, but a group of people with the same lack of knowledge (on an individual level) but the same belief come together - why does it suddenly become "knowledge"?

And if they are not claiming to know, then their statement of "belief" must be one of probability based on the evidence.
And, as far as I am aware, there is no rationally-attributal evidence for God - hence "blind faith".

Which is why we ask the question: please provide the evidence.


The difference between belief and knowledge, is the amount of acceptable supporting evidence that can be providedAlmost. Knowledge is more commonly understood to be a "justified true belief" (although even this has its critics - such as Gettier) - i.e. a belief that is not only true but able to be justified. The level of acceptable supporting evidence certainly helps with this, but it is not the only thing.

My contention is that most religious adherents don't merely have a belief that God exists, but claim a knowledge of God - sufficient for them to know that God exists.
i.e. most theists will not be agnostic on the matter.

And those that claim knowledge - my challenge to them is show how their belief is (a) true, and (b) justified - to thus qualify as knowledge. And the easiest way to do this is to put forward the evidence so that we may justify the belief.

It also begs the question of what one means as "true".
But that's another matter. ;)

I don't think you can actually prove it wrong. The only way to prove that there is an afterlife, is to prove Islam, Christianity, or another religion that believes in them.

Sarkus Not all these can be characteristic of the same understanding of "belief" or "knowledge".

If it exists only in the mind, there is no scientific supporting evidence, etc. I believe the confusion is because I am giving characteristics of both our own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, all beliefs, not just mine or yours.

Some beliefs (that others have,) are only in the mind. There are people who believe in leprechauns (or other gremlin type beings). You and I would probably agree these beings have no existence in reality, therefore they only exist in the mind (from our perspective).

Furthermore - why is "knowledge" only a group based attribute?
If an individual doesn't have knowledge but has a belief, but a group of people with the same lack of knowledge (on an individual level) but the same belief come together - why does it suddenly become "knowledge"?Certainly this is only one meaning, and other meanings are possible.
I believe you put your meaing to the word below.

And if they are not claiming to know, then their statement of "belief" must be one of probability based on the evidence.But they are claiming to know. In their mind, their belief is based on reality.

And, as far as I am aware, there is no rationally-attributal evidence for God - hence "blind faith".Not all evidence is rationally based. You have a belief that only rationally based information is valuable.
This is a value judgment. It may be true, it may be false.
By use of circular reasoning, you can show it to be true. This will convince yourself and others who share your belief system.


Which is why we ask the question: please provide the evidence.As I explained in a previous post: “ To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.”
I am obligated to use your standards if I expect to convince you. Using your standards, I cannot convince you.
I understand what you value as evidence.
Surely you realize your standards are not shared by everyone.


Knowledge is more commonly understood to be a "justified true belief" (although even this has its critics - such as Gettier) - i.e. a belief that is not only true but able to be justified. The level of acceptable supporting evidence certainly helps with this, but it is not the only thing.These types of meaning just push the question one step further. Now we have to put meaning to justified. All who have a belief, believe they are justified in their belief.

My contention is that most religious adherents don't merely have a belief that God exists, but claim a knowledge of God - sufficient for them to know that God exists.
i.e. most theists will not be agnostic on the matter.You and I agree.

And those that claim knowledge - my challenge to them is show how their belief is (a) true, and (b) justified - to thus qualify as knowledge. And the easiest way to do this is to put forward the evidence so that we may justify the belief.You left out the most important part, they must do it by your standards. This is only fair and reasonable for you to require, but please be honest and mention it. If you are to be convinced, it is your standards which must be used.
Those who arrived at the decision there is a god, did not use your belief system.
Your belief system limits what can be known (that is, a justified true belief, according to science) , to the capabilities of the current level of knowledge and tools of science. Many things which correspond with reality and are therefore true, may be a justified true belief for you in a hundred years, but not today.

It also begs the question of what one means as "true". True in this usage always means 'corresponds with reality'. Do you know another meaning that fits here?

I believe the confusion is because I am giving characteristics of both our own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, all beliefs, not just mine or yours.Understood.

But they are claiming to know. In their mind, their belief is based on reality.No - their belief is based on an interpretation of reality. There is no actual knowledge here - just belief.

For example, if two people see a strange light, one might interpret it as a reflection, another as a ghost. Both might "believe" they know what it is, as it fits their interpretation of reality.

Not all evidence is rationally based.Are you sure you know what I'm referring to here?
You have a belief that only rationally based information is valuable.It's not a belief... I just have not encountered evidence to the contrary. :)

As I explained in a previous post: “ To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.”
I am obligated to use your standards if I expect to convince you. Using your standards, I cannot convince you.
I understand what you value as evidence.
Surely you realize your standards are not shared by everyone.No, they're not - but then not everyone is as logical and rational in such matters. To not follow the evidence rationally is surely to conclude an irrational position.
These types of meaning just push the question one step further. Now we have to put meaning to justified. All who have a belief, believe they are justified in their belief.Justified = rationally concluded. One can always claim to be justified when one is irrational in where the evidence leads...
A can put the kettle on to boil.
A therefore believes in God, as a result of their ability to put the kettle on.

Is A's belief justified?
They might consider it so.

You and I agree.:D

You left out the most important part, they must do it by your standards. This is only fair and reasonable for you to require, but please be honest and mention it. If you are to be convinced, it is your standards which must be used.It is not MY standard - it is rational thought. Why are others allowed to use different thought processes and claim their conclusions as rational?
Believers of God claim their position to be rational... yet they do not follow rational thought from the evidence to the conclusion.

Those who arrived at the decision there is a god, did not use your belief system.No - they didn't use rational thought.

Your belief system limits what can be known (that is, a justified true belief, according to science) , to the capabilities of the current level of knowledge and tools of science. Many things which correspond with reality and are therefore true, may be a justified true belief for you in a hundred years, but not today.Knowledge IS limited to what can be achieved at present (or induced thereof), but I never shut the door on what might become known in the future.
How can one have KNOWLEDGE (i.e. a justified true belief) if there is no current means of verifying it, evidencing it, justifying it?

I won't have a belief in some possible future knowledge due to the lack of current evidence.
This is the rational position.
Yes, it remains a possibility (until proven not) - nothing more.
So I will also not have a belief that the future-knowledge is impossible / unobtainable - unless proven to be so.
I.e. I do not have the belief that God exists, but I do not have the belief that God does not exist.

Anyone who "believes" based on knowledge-not-yet-achieved MIGHT be proved right in the future - but their current belief is irrational.

True in this usage always means 'corresponds with reality'. Do you know another meaning that fits here?Sorry - was being flippant with this comment.

“Rational evidence” can mean two things.

It can mean evidence arrived by a rational (reasoning) process, or it can mean evidence that it would be rational (reasonable) to accept.

Empirical evidence is not rational evidence, but it is reasonable and rational to accept empirical evidence. Empiricasl evidence is non-rational.

Evidence that it would not be rational to accept, is irrational evidence.

Our belief systems determine what evidence is acceptable.

There are many types of rational-empiricists. Their variations will be in the relative strength they put on one compared to the other.
Evidence that is not rational in nature or origin, would be non-rational evidence, but not necessarily irrational.

If I observe you are standing in front of me, I have empirical evidence you are standing in front of me, which is not rational in nature, but it would be rational to use this evidence to determine if you are standing in front of me.


Sarkus No - their belief is based on an interpretation of reality. There is no actual knowledge here - just belief.All beliefs are based on an interpretation of reality. Some conform to reality, some do not.
You have the belief that reality can only be realized by rational or empirical evidence. This may be true, or it may be false. You believe it conforms to reality, because of your belief system.
I believe it does not conform to reality, because of my belief system.


BHN: You have a belief that only rationally based information is valuable.
Sarkus It's not a belief... I just have not encountered evidence to the contrary.
I should also add that you probably accept empirical evidence, but seem to be weighted heavily on the rational side of being a rational-empiricist.
You only accept rational/empirical evidence. This is your belief system.
You believe this because of your rational/empirical evidence. Like all belief systems, yours is self supporting.

If you accept that only rational or empirical if valid, then naturally all is rational or empirical.
Some people accept empirical evidence as being stronger than rational evidence. If they see it, they believe it, even if does not fit what they know to be rationally true.
It is easy to reason that ghosts do not exist. If someone believes they saw a ghost, they have to weight this empirical evidence against the rational/reasoned evidence. Someone who has a strong belief in no-ghosts, will probably determine their rational evidence is stronger than their empirical evidence. Someone who has a close friend that had a firm belief in ghosts, and is deceased, and the ghost has the appearance of their friend, might think about accepting the empirical evidence.

You have parameters on what you accept as valid evidence. These parameters predetermine what you find acceptable.

You have a belief that your standards conform to reality. Like everyone, you believe your beliefs are true, and you use your own standards to make this determination.
When you say
“I just have not encountered evidence to the contrary”, you have no convincing evidence of this, except you own belief system.
You say first ‘Only rational or empirical evidence is acceptable’, then conclude that there is no evidence except rational or empirical. Circular reasoning.
Of course you have good, rational, reasons for believing this.

You can easily convince someone with a similar belief system, that yours is acceptable.

You cannot convince me that your belief system is true, because you would have to use my standards to convince me, and using my standards, there are other ways of attaining knowledge besides rationalizing or believing empirical evidence.

I happen to not accept sacred texts as a means of acquiring special knowledge (they may have good moral lessons, but this is not special knowledge). But I have friends who do.

Let us say I accept sacred texts as a means of knowing god.
Using my standards, you cannot convince me your beliefs are true. From your perspective, you have knowledge, from my perspective, you have false beliefs.
This is the way it always is.
Our own beliefs are true, those who disagree are mistaken.


It is not MY standard - it is rational thought. Why are others allowed to use different thought processes and claim their conclusions as rational?
Believers of God claim their position to be rational... yet they do not follow rational thought from the evidence to the conclusion.”Rational thought” is a standard. Non-rational thoughts is a different standard.
Your belief system demands that non-rational processes such as faith in sacred texts are not acceptable.

Your belief system demands that only what has convincing scientific evidence is true, and rational/empirical evidence is the only means for acquiring convincing scientific evidence.

Conclusions flow from the pillars of our belief systems.
Belief systems have certain pillars that are not provable. We accept certain things as true.
You cannot convince me your belief system is true. We have different pillars. Any attempt you make will be circular reason.

You only accept what you can arrive at rationally or empirically, because you only accept what is rational or empirical.


Anyone who "believes" based on knowledge-not-yet-achieved MIGHT be proved right in the future - but their current belief is irrational.Those who believe do have knowledge right now, and these beliefs might be non-rational, but not irrational.
Faith is non-rational, but it is not irrational to accept faith, when faith is a pillar of a belief system.

BeHereNow,

An Oasis fan eh!
Good band.

Some Deists claim to know there is a god.
Whether Deism is form of Theism, I will let ou decide.
Deists are not an organized group so certainly there are a great variety of beliefs within the group.
Some would claim to use reason to know there is a god.
Some would use personnel experience as a means to know there is a god.
Some would intuit a god.

Many (most) Deists reject the supernatural. God the creator is just part of the system, a primal cause.
Deists are all products of the Enlightenment (historically), and have a fondness for reason.

From a point of view of scriptoral religion, Deism is atheism.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist based on his beliefs, although he made no public pronouncements that he was Deist.

He rejected all supernatural events, did not believe Jesus ever meant to declare himself a god, that all religions are of equal value, and he had little good to say for the clergy of most churches. He favored the Unitarians as an organized religion.
To my knowledge he never made a rational argument for the existence of god, he just assumed, whether a priori or intuitively.

Based on your brief description it would be difficult to determine his world view.

I believe god is knowable by scientific methods,...

I don't see how, unless God is a natural being, and if that were the case he wouldn't be God, as nature would eventually consume him.

Scientifically based knowledge has the advantage of being easy to transfer, from one person to another.

It all depends on what is being transferred and by whom.

Other types of knowing are more personal, not as easily transferred.

Knowledge has to be understood regardless of whether it is personal or scientific, so i can't see how it matters as to what format it comes in.

I would say a more reasonable assumption is that science is in its infancy, and there will be many new discoveries in the coming centuries, discoveries that are not even speculations at this point. This is certainly not an argument for god, merely an argument for agnosticism.

I agree that there may well be some great discoveries to come, but based on the current scientific trend, I see a 'going away from God', and a steady, gradual shift (gathering momentum) toward full blown materialism.

Using the standards of science for convincing evidence, there is no convincing evidence that there is no god. Most atheists would say there is no evidence for god, so they have no belief in god. This is an easy position to defend.

How would they identify the evidence if it was (for the sake of argument) presented?
It would seem they would have to have a pre-concieved idea of God. Don't you think?

Less easy to defend is the position that science demonstrates that there is no god. I have never seen this position successfully defended, from a scientific, rational or empirical position.

Such a position can never exist, because God is not a material being, by any description, and as such falls outside of the science radar as a direct perception.

Some would say if it cannot be substantiated by scientific evidence, there is no way to know if it is true.


I think that is correct, if you decide that science is the be all end all, in knowledge regarding God.

Some people believe if they cannot convince like-minded people something is truthful, then it must be mistaken.
They are not comfortable accepting as true, something which does not have convincing evidence, according to their belief system. This group would include the vast majority of persons, including myself.

I'm not comfortable accepting something as true without convincing evidence, in fact I don't know anyone who is, although I suspect there are people who are. The fact is, either I believe in God, or I don't. Either way we still live out our existence. According to ANY scripture, God is the sourse of everything and to try and understand that from the point of view of material science must be like trying to find a particular needle in a universe.

If we experience Truth, this is not changed by the beliefs of others. The Truth, or actual existence, of something is not dependent on the belief of individuals.

I think I agree with that.

The others can of course, claim it is not Truth, rather some subjective perception, perceived to be Truthful, when it is not. Their evidence will be that it cannot be substantiated by scientific means. From their position, they are of course correct. For them, something is not true, unless it can be shown to be true, using scientific verification.

And this is what it boils down to. If God is, as described, the ultimate, absolute truth, then it is ultimately an individual quest not a concerted one.

This can lead to not believing true things, not due to reality, not because they are false, but due to the limited available knowledge or verification process.

This is why it is good to acquire intelligence for good discrimination, and is the point of science, philosophy, and even art. :)

Jan

Sarkus,

So theists generally don't claim to know God exists? Are you therefore claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

Theism is, a belief in God, do you agree?
If a theist claims to know God exists, I strongly suspect it would be based on the grounds of their particular reasoning.
If one has faith in science, one could pre-empt an act based on the weather forecast, so in a sense they would "know" what the weather will be like tommorow. But it wouldn't mean they actually "know".

If by "believe in" you mean "accept the word of" etc then sure - I can believe that the King of Denmark exists, but I don't "believe in" him.
But the question here is that theists "believe God to exist", not whether they merely "believe in" God.

"Belief" being the operative word, not "know".

Is this the extent of your rebuttal of the analogy? You'll have to do better.

Why? The analogy fell outside the context.
To think God exists, is not the same as to believe God exists.
You came to the conclusion that England would win, your conclusion was mistaken, that is the accepted nature of things, most of us understand that.
God's nature is also accepted by some, which forms the basis of theism.

Jan

If one has faith in science, one could pre-empt an act based on the weather forecast, so in a sense they would "know" what the weather will be like tommorow. But it wouldn't mean they actually "know".So they can use the word "know" - but mean it to be "not actually know"??
How confusing your use of language seems to be.

"Belief" being the operative word, not "know".So again - are you claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

Why? The analogy fell outside the context.
To think God exists, is not the same as to believe God exists.
You came to the conclusion that England would win, your conclusion was mistaken, that is the accepted nature of things, most of us understand that.
God's nature is also accepted by some, which forms the basis of theism.This, at least, is a better explanation of your thoughts rather than "Hardly the same thing".
If you're going to rebut a comment - please have the decency to explain your thinking at the same time rather than have them ask you to explain afterward.

How can one think something to be the case and yet not believe it to be the case, or know it to be the case?
Or can you believe something without thinking it???
Or believe it without knowing it?
Or know it without thinking it?

To "think God exists" is not the same as "to think God might exist".

There is an abundance of confusion in the language being used here... and I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the words used.

Sarkus,

So they can use the word "know" - but mean it to be "not actually know"??
How confusing your use of language seems to be.

To actually 'know' that God existed beyond a shadow of doubt, would mean that one has personally interacted with 'actual' God. This would mean that God does exist. Do you think Jesus believed God existed, or knew God existed, by scriptoral account?
One can know God through such a person, but not directly, like the person.

So again - are you claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

I am claiming that a theist is a person who believes in God, if an individual moves from that position to actually knowing God exists, then IMO, it falls outside of the definition, and quite rightly so. Unless of course there is such a thing as a strong theist.

This, at least, is a better explanation of your thoughts rather than "Hardly the same thing".
If you're going to rebut a comment - please have the decency to explain your thinking at the same time rather than have them ask you to explain afterward.

I would have thought the thinking was obvioius.

How can one think something to be the case and yet not believe it to be the case, or know it to be the case?

Very easily.
Actors do it all the time.

Or can you believe something without thinking it???

Can you perform any physical activety without using a muscle?

Or believe it without knowing it?

I think, we have to "believe" something because we are not in full knowledge of that thing, as the weather forecast analogy implies.

Or know it without thinking it?

Is it possible not to think?

To "think God exists" is not the same as "to think God might exist".

Anyone can think anything.

There is an abundance of confusion in the language being used here... and I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the words used.

I'm quite sure the confusion is coming from you, as it seems, you are not prepared to use standard definitions.

Jan.

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

That is the only basis on which a rational debate can take place. It is not known to most of the religious and pseudo-scientists you will meet on here

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max

It doesn't until you start banging on about ID, stem cell research and anything else that would improve our knowledge.

You are wrong about the moon; it is made of GREEN cheese

To actually 'know' that God existed beyond a shadow of doubt, would mean that one has personally interacted with 'actual' God. This would mean that God does exist. Do you think Jesus believed God existed, or knew God existed, by scriptoral account?
One can know God through such a person, but not directly, like the person. So really you are relying on heresay and anecdotal evidence (i.e. of Jesus - the one who it is claimed DID have direct contact), having no other evidence what so ever to support the belief??

I am claiming that a theist is a person who believes in God, if an individual moves from that position to actually knowing God exists, then IMO, it falls outside of the definition, and quite rightly so. Unless of course there is such a thing as a strong theist.So you ARE claiming that the majority of theists are agnostic.
Thanks. That's cleared it up.
Have you asked many theists whether they know God exists or not?

I would have thought the thinking was obvioius.If it was obvious, do you think I would have made the original analogy - the one you so deftly rebutted with "it's hardly the same thing" (or words to that effect)?

I think, we have to "believe" something because we are not in full knowledge of that thing, as the weather forecast analogy implies.But you do have SOME knowledge? So you do know SOME things about God?
And how is it possible to know SOME things, and yet not KNOW whether he exists or not... or is it a case of "IF God exists, we know this about him/it/her/whatever"?

Is it possible not to think?You tell me.

Anyone can think anything.No they can't. Or please think of the precise chemical details for a verified cure for cancer. You can't?? Gosh.

I'm quite sure the confusion is coming from you, as it seems, you are not prepared to use standard definitions.SO, given that philosophers have been arguing about it for centuries, what is your understanding of "knowledge", and of "belief".
Answer those and then maybe we can see if our understanding is the same.

Sarkus,

So really you are relying on heresay and anecdotal evidence (i.e. of Jesus - the one who it is claimed DID have direct contact), having no other evidence what so ever to support the belief??

What my position is, is not the point. The point is that a theist is a person who believes in God, and that he exists. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you take it up with every credible dictionary.

So you ARE claiming that the majority of theists are agnostic.
Thanks. That's cleared it up.
Have you asked many theists whether they know God exists or not?

I'm claiming that the definition of theism is belief in God, not knowing God exists, especially in a way that they could show physical evidence that could satisfy your question.

If it was obvious, do you think I would have made the original analogy - the one you so deftly rebutted with "it's hardly the same thing" (or words to that effect)?

Well I am curious why you did.

But you do have SOME knowledge? So you do know SOME things about God?
And how is it possible to know SOME things, and yet not KNOW whether he exists or not... or is it a case of "IF God exists, we know this about him/it/her/whatever"?

What one knows can strengthen of ones belief.

You tell me.

The question was directed at you in response to your point.
I cannot imagine not being able to think.

No they can't. Or please think of the precise chemical details for a verified cure for cancer. You can't?? Gosh.

Let me think.....pixie dust

SO, given that philosophers have been arguing about it for centuries, what is your understanding of "knowledge", and of "belief".
Answer those and then maybe we can see if our understanding is the same.

I am working with standard definitions. That is all you really need to know.

Jan Arden I'm claiming that the definition of theism is belief in God, not knowing God exists, especially in a way that they could show physical evidence that could satisfy your question.This is a very strange way to use belief.

If you have a belief in something, you accept it as true.
If someone else has a belief in anything, they accept it as true.

Belief does not mean you do not know if it is true.
The one who has the belief does believe it is true, it is just that others disagree. The person themselves has no doubt (not that doubt is impossible, just not necessary).

Additionally, the one who has the belief is not able to convince unbelievers.

When all are convinced, the belief becomes a recognized fact.

I have a belief Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. If everyone agrees with me, my belief is raised to the status of a fact or truth (depending on the usage of truth).

For the one experiencing a belief, it is the same as a fact or truth. It is just not a universal fact or truth, so others call it a belief.

Many times I will say “I believe….”. This does not mean I have any doubts, it simply means I realize others may disagree, so it would be very arrogant for me to say “I know…..”, when I realize the other person “knows” with the same certainty, quite the opposite.

We call own truths beliefs, out of respect for others.

I am sorry to say I am having many of the same problems experienced by Sarkus, as to your use of terms and words. They are unconventional.

BeHereNow].

If you have a belief in something, you accept it as true.
If someone else has a belief in anything, they accept it as true.

This is true, and to accept something means it must have been offered, meaning it comes from another source.


Belief does not mean you do not know if it is true.

No, it means you accept it as true. This acceptance is based not having the full picture, or not knowing what actually is. If one had full knowledge of something, there would be no need to accept other versions of truth, as one would already know.

Buffalo is the capitol of the US.
Are you prepared to consider it as a truth, or are you not, based on what you know?

The one who has the belief does believe it is true, it is just that others disagree. The person themselves has no doubt (not that doubt is impossible, just not necessary).

But it is all based on belief, which can be altered at any moment.

Additionally, the one who has the belief is not able to convince unbelievers.

Whether they can or can't, is not the point. Everybody believes according to their understanding.

I have a belief Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. If everyone agrees with me, my belief is raised to the status of a fact or truth (depending on the usage of truth).

You don't have such a belief, Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. You know it, and as such there is no room or need for belief, you have come to the end of knowledge regarding the subject.

For the one experiencing a belief, it is the same as a fact or truth. It is just not a universal fact or truth, so others call it a belief.

Not in my experience.

Many times I will say “I believe….”. This does not mean I have any doubts, it simply means I realize others may disagree, so it would be very arrogant for me to say “I know…..”, when I realize the other person “knows” with the same certainty, quite the opposite.

That is just a figure of speech.

I am sorry to say I am having many of the same problems experienced by Sarkus, as to your use of terms and words. They are unconventional.

As I said to Sarkus, I am happy to use standard definitions. This way there should be no confusion.

Jan.

Jan Ardena You don't have such a belief, Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. You know it, and as such there is no room or need for belief, you have come to the end of knowledge regarding the subject.I believe this is our disagreement in a nutshell.
If I accept something to be true, I have come to the end of the chain of knowledge. I have realized the final, ultimate, immutable truth. That is what belief means to me.

If I believe something, I have a belief about it being true, and that belief has had sufficient evidence to convince my mind it is true.

I have no special fondness for dictionary definitions, and readily agree they have limited use, but the first definition of belief is “acceptance by the mind that something is true or real,”.

If the mind accepts something as true, it has reached the pinnacle of understanding that something conforms to reality.
What you call belief, I would call (self admitted) opinion.
I believe your position is similar to Kant’s.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Vkothii
I can’t help feeling that the speaker has truths, whereas their opponent has beliefs.
Other than that, I believe the criteria is the same.

BeHereNow,

I believe this is our disagreement in a nutshell.
If I accept something to be true, I have come to the end of the chain of knowledge. I have realized the final, ultimate, immutable truth. That is what belief means to me.

Then I would say that you no longer believe Washington D.C is the capitol of the U.S, as you now know it to be. I would say that your belief now rests in your knowledge and understanding of the fact.
Would you honestly consider my belief, that Buffalo state is the capitol of the U.S.?

If I believe something, I have a belief about it being true, and that belief has had sufficient evidence to convince my mind it is true.

There are two positions here;
a) truth
b) belief in the sufficient, and convincing, evidence.

I think it is reasonable to assume that there must be a truth, a correct knowlege and understanding of everything. In my mind.
Our beliefs are based on trying to understand what this "truth" is, and is strengthened by sufficient evidence.
This evidence is a form of knowledge, and this knowledge is basis of our belief. The confusion lies in mistaking this knowledge as the "truth", instead ofto a truth.

I have no special fondness for dictionary definitions, and readily agree they have limited use, but the first definition of belief is “acceptance by the mind that something is true or real,”.

I am of the same mind regarding dictionary definitions, but, it acts as a common language of referance and understanding, in a reasonable discussion. The other alternative is to posit our personal definitions and opinions, which ultimately leads to no reasonable conclusions.
Accepting that something is true, does not make it true, which is why it is labelled "belief". This is my understanding.

If the mind accepts something as true, it has reached the pinnacle of understanding that something conforms to reality.
What you call belief, I would call (self admitted) opinion.
I believe your position is similar to Kant’s.

If the mind accepts something as true, there doesn't have to be any understanding. With regards to God, this would be labelled as blind-faith.
One can be of a certain opinion without invoking a belief or understanding, so I would tend to disagree with your first analysis.
With regards to likening my position to Kant's, I agree that there are heavy similarities.

Jan.

Jan Arden I think it is reasonable to assume that there must be a truth, a correct knowlege and understanding of everything. In my mind I cannot understand how a concept of randomness could account for what we percieve. I cannot think, or even imagine, how it could be. Our beliefs are based on trying to understand what this "truth" is, and is strengthened by sufficient evidence. This evidence is a form of knowledge, and this knowledge is basis of our belief. The confusion lies in mistaking this knowledge as the "truth", instead of a truth.
We have a common goal: To know, realize or understand, objective reality.

Your approach is what I would call the scientific approach. Information or data passes through a series of ‘truth filters’, progressing up a defined path towards pure objectivity, what we can call a correct knowledge and understanding.

The problem is, this goal is never reached, it is at best, extremely close, but never actually there.

As evidence of what I say:

I have been told, by one who more of these things than I do, : BeHereNow, you seem to think that Science deals with "proof". It doesn't. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1755043&postcount=7)


And by another: Scientific theories cannot be proven true.. . . we accept them as "true beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is the language of the law, not the language of science. . . .We casually refer to them as "truth" when speaking to laymen, but that is just dumbing down the language for laymen. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1755043&postcount=7)

And by another:
Yes - there is no "proof" - only a very high probability (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1756882&postcount=17).

All of these statements are of course, true, for the science minded. This proof of a correct knowledge and understanding of everything, does not occur, by scientific enquiry. You can’t get here from here, by science.

Implied in this are some other truths of science.

Science is inherently without morals or ethics. There are sets of internal guidelines, such as how to deal with colleagues or intellectual content, but not a morality or ethics in regard to the world outside of science. Just as it cannot judge the material world for absolute truth or proof, it cannot judge itself as to rightness or wrongness of its actions.
Outsiders must apply external morality and ethics to the field of science, to give it direction and purpose.

There are many examples in recent history where grave inhumanities where done to humans, in the name of scientific advancement. The information gathered from the Nazi experiments were considered by many to be not worthy for retention or study. From a purely scientific point of view, data is data, and it can be as useful from the suffering of other humans, as if it can from watching a summer storm.
Data has no morality, and its existence causes no ethical problems. Please note that I said from a purely scientific point of view. . .

Naturally science does not operate in a vacuum. Moral and ethical restrictions are imposed on science, to keep it in line, as it were. To a large extent they are permitted to self regulate, peer to peer judgment.

Science is a wonderful thing, and in many endeavors, it is without equal.

But it never gives us proof, never gives us truth. It brings us to the edge, and we have to jump over, or stagnate. If we jump over, we may land at various points.

I do not believe reaching the correct knowledge and understanding of everything, has to be done scientifically, through a series of truth filters.
I am not sure what you mean by “correct”. It may be objectivity, or it may be an ideal subjectivity, relating to mankind’s relationship with it. I do not think it matters much.

I believe this same correct knowledge and understanding can come by methods other that the purely rational or empirical. I believe in those areas where science has no authority, other means can and must be successfully used.

I believe it is self evident, that other disciplines must have their own standards of truth judging, so as to be able to judge the actions, progress and goals of science.

These various methods are considered by science to be substandard in determining proof of objectivity, or a correct knowledge and understanding of everything.

I believe the mind can grasp what science is unable to touch.
I believe the mind can determine the correct moral action, according to an absolute moral law, that is not dependent on any particular religious group, any more that the physical laws are dependent on particular scientific group.

I believe in the field of science and mathematics, a correct knowledge and understanding is possible, by intuited truths, which withstand the scrutiny of science. Intuited truths bypass rational thought processes, and arrive immediately at the truth,at the understanding of reality.

When I believe something, I take it for truth, because I believe the mind is capable of knowing the truth.

If I can be proven wrong (which is probably not possible, scientifically speaking), then I was mistaken.

When science can make no judgment concerning the veracity of a belief, the mind can make absolute judgment.
Some would rather make no judgment than the possibility of making an incorrect judgment.

Others would rather have an absolute judgment (with the possibility of error), rather than an unknown judgment (‘Right or wrong, no one can say.’)

Yes, your usage of belief fits well in a scientific model.
For myself, it doesn’t fit well with my beliefs.

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

This may seem trite to you, and it may very well be, but here goes. Please explain, I apologize for the hypothetical, why this preceding analogy is different than your requirement of the proof of the afterlife.

Without the use of scientific technology prove that Atoms exist.

So I suggest you can't, though you may have a way of doing this. So maybe 200 years ago you would say the same thing (burden of proof) to a scientists claiming that Atoms exist. And that would be fine, he would be encouraged to do so and would diligently pursue his investigation. But why, to prove it to you? Would that be why? Do you think that people that believe in the afterlife actually think that that belief is an end, a state of belief to exist in? Or do they think of it more as a beginning? As maybe a scientist wondering what matter was composed of, or how small the building blocks were, rather than accepting that powdered rock is as small as it gets.

Your spiritual existence and that of your existence after your body dies cannot be seen, held, or measued in a conventional way, normally. A microscope does not exist to look at it. Does that make it less worthy of investigation? If I told you that consciousness is proof of the afterlife, what would you say? If the human body is just a a vessel to express the consciousness, and without the body, it cannot be expressed in our world, how do you prove that?

Show me that Atom without a microscope and I will strive to come up with a way to "prove" to you the "afterlife".

My belief is our free will is the microscope we are given to have eyes to see.

If someone close to you died (God forbid) and appeared to you after death, would you believe in the "afterlife"? I propose that you would not. Or at least not in the way you believe in gravity. So what proof would you need? And better yet what good would proof do for you? Imagine for a minute, believe it, that there is an afterlife. What would you change about your life? Why would you make these changes? Does the existence of an afterlife mandate you to be altruistic? Why would that be? Does the death penalty stop psychopaths?

I propose that you would change nothing. Because the fact there is an afterlife should not matter. What matters is who you are, what you do, and how you relate to this world. Afterlife and Atoms aside. God sending Jesus to help us realize this must have really irked him. Peace.


"belief" in the "afterlife" is the beginning of the journey to awareness.

This may seem trite to you, and it may very well be, but here goes. Please explain, I apologize for the hypothetical, why this preceding analogy is different than your requirement of the proof of the afterlife.

Without the use of scientific technology prove that Atoms exist.

So I suggest you can't, though you may have a way of doing this. So maybe 200 years ago you would say the same thing (burden of proof) to a scientists claiming that Atoms exist. And that would be fine, he would be encouraged to do so and would diligently pursue his investigation. But why, to prove it to you? Would that be why? Do you think that people that believe in the afterlife actually think that that belief is an end, a state of belief to exist in? Or do they think of it more as a beginning? As maybe a scientist wondering what matter was composed of, or how small the building blocks were, rather than accepting that powdered rock is as small as it gets.

Your spiritual existence and that of your existence after your body dies cannot be seen, held, or measued in a conventional way, normally. A microscope does not exist to look at it. Does that make it less worthy of investigation? If I told you that consciousness is proof of the afterlife, what would you say? If the human body is just a a vessel to express the consciousness, and without the body, it cannot be expressed in our world, how do you prove that?

Show me that Atom without a microscope and I will strive to come up with a way to "prove" to you the "afterlife".I think you miss the point of the post...
There IS proof, or at least evidence, to support the existence of the atom.
The one who made the claim that atoms exist provided that proof / evidence.

The same should be true of anyone claiming existence of the afterlife.


Noone is saying categorically that it does not exist - only that if you claim it exists then you should provide evidence for it.

Your challenge, to prove that atoms exist without the use of a microscope is pathetic.
It has no bearing on the argument or discussion.
The fact remains that atoms have been shown to exist - and the ones claiming their existence were able to demonstrate it.

There is no evidence of an afterlife - none for its existence, none for its non-existence.
But the one making the claim should, as it is oft said: "either put up or shut up".



My belief is our free will is the microscope we are given to have eyes to see. Does this even make sense?

If someone close to you died (God forbid) and appeared to you after death, would you believe in the "afterlife"?If there was no alternative rational explanation, it would certainly be good evidence.

I propose that you would not. Or at least not in the way you believe in gravity.I don't "believe" in gravity.
Gravity is a fact. It has gone so far beyond mere "belief". If you feel otherwise there is always a tall building you could walk off in an attempt to prove me wrong?

So what proof would you need? And better yet what good would proof do for you? Imagine for a minute, believe it, that there is an afterlife. What would you change about your life? Why would you make these changes? Does the existence of an afterlife mandate you to be altruistic? Why would that be? Does the death penalty stop psychopaths?The last question is another pathetic argument - a logical fallacy. Just because one group of people, with sever mental disorder, do what they do is an irrelevancy.

I propose that you would change nothing. Because the fact there is an afterlife should not matter.The proof of an afterlife would massively change the way people behave, in my opinion. Imagine an interview: in one scenario you are told that it is merely for fun, nothing within the interview will ever have an effect on your life - and in another you are told that your dream job will be a possible result.

What matters is who you are, what you do, and how you relate to this world.Who does it matter to? Why does it matter?
I'm not disagreeing with you - I just want to know more about where this statement comes from.

God sending Jesus to help us realize this must have really irked him.And your evidence for the existence of God? And for Jesus being sent by him?

"belief" in the "afterlife" is the beginning of the journey to awareness.Belief without evidence is irrational.
If "awareness" is arrived at through irrationality... what value "awareness"?

I think you miss the point of the post...
There IS proof, or at least evidence, to support the existence of the atom.
The one who made the claim that atoms exist provided that proof / evidence.

The same should be true of anyone claiming existence of the afterlife.


Noone is saying categorically that it does not exist - only that if you claim it exists then you should provide evidence for it.

Your challenge, to prove that atoms exist without the use of a microscope is pathetic.
It has no bearing on the argument or discussion.
The fact remains that atoms have been shown to exist - and the ones claiming their existence were able to demonstrate it.

There is no evidence of an afterlife - none for its existence, none for its non-existence.
But the one making the claim should, as it is oft said: "either put up or shut up".



Does this even make sense?

If there was no alternative rational explanation, it would certainly be good evidence.

I don't "believe" in gravity.
Gravity is a fact. It has gone so far beyond mere "belief". If you feel otherwise there is always a tall building you could walk off in an attempt to prove me wrong?

The last question is another pathetic argument - a logical fallacy. Just because one group of people, with sever mental disorder, do what they do is an irrelevancy.

The proof of an afterlife would massively change the way people behave, in my opinion. Imagine an interview: in one scenario you are told that it is merely for fun, nothing within the interview will ever have an effect on your life - and in another you are told that your dream job will be a possible result.

Who does it matter to? Why does it matter?
I'm not disagreeing with you - I just want to know more about where this statement comes from.

And your evidence for the existence of God? And for Jesus being sent by him?

Belief without evidence is irrational.
If "awareness" is arrived at through irrationality... what value "awareness"?


Pardon me for interrupting your discussion. Your response to my post varies somewhat in an interpretation of the threadstarter's views and then an explanation of your own. In betwixt I am not sure how to respond.

Suffice to say there is no "proof" of "the afterlife" and the "proof" is everywhere. You, are in fact, "proof of the afterlife". I propose there is no empirical "proof of the afterlife" that the world would agree on. So what the poster is asking is for personal proof that he would believe in.
How does that differ measureably than me asking for proof of an Atom without a microscope?

Sarkus Belief without evidence is irrational.
If "awareness" is arrived at through irrationality... what value
"awareness"?Logical fallacy here.
You are using evidence in two different ways.
Those who have a belief in afterlife, have evidence that is consistent with their belief system. Their belief is not without evidence, just without evidence you accept. You refer to their evidence, which is obviously different than yours, and yet you equate it with yours. It is not the same. Two different kinds of evidence.

Their belief is not arrived at irrationally, by their standards. Therefore their awareness is not arrived at through irrationality.
If they want to convince you, they would need to use your standards, no disagreement there.

Logical fallacy here.
You are using evidence in two different ways.
Those who have a belief in afterlife, have evidence that is consistent with their belief system. Their belief is not without evidence, just without evidence you accept. You refer to their evidence, which is obviously different than yours, and yet you equate it with yours. It is not the same. Two different kinds of evidence.

Their belief is not arrived at irrationally, by their standards. Therefore their awareness is not arrived at through irrationality.
If they want to convince you, they would need to use your standards, no disagreement there.Okay - let me correct myself:

"Belief without evidence that can rationally be attributed to the thing being believed in is irrational."

And their belief IS arrived at irrationally, if it is based on evidence that can not be rationally attributed to the thing they believe in (i.e. more rationally attributed to an alternative - or more rationally NOT attributable at all).

Once they have accepted the evidence as such then I accept that the thought process from there to the "belief" can be rational - but if they assign evidence to their item of belief irrationally then everything that follows is irrational - albeit due to being based on the irrational attributing of evidence to their item of belief.


So, bringing it back on topic, the burden of proof requires the evidence to be put forward AND for the demonstration that the evidence is rationally attributable to the item under investigation.

Pardon me for interrupting your discussion. Your response to my post varies somewhat in an interpretation of the threadstarter's views and then an explanation of your own. In betwixt I am not sure how to respond.

Suffice to say there is no "proof" of "the afterlife" and the "proof" is everywhere. You, are in fact, "proof of the afterlife". I propose there is no empirical "proof of the afterlife" that the world would agree on. So what the poster is asking is for personal proof that he would believe in.
How does that differ measureably than me asking for proof of an Atom without a microscope?Hmmm - I have reread the opening post... and I see no reference or implication of "personal proof" required for belief.
However, I do apologise if my response to your post did not take into account the possibility of a different understanding / interpretation.

"Proof" is something more than mere evidence - but a sufficiency of evidence to be beyond any reasonable doubt. If one thus considers "proof" to be personal (i.e. sufficient for the individual to accept the claim beyond any reasonable dount) then they leave themselves open to accepting irrational claims if they don't analyse the evidence sufficiently.
And then "proof" becomes purely subjective and, ultimately, pointless - when one person's "proof" is "Well, why not - I heard Joe Bloggs in the pub say it - and he had only had 10 pints to drink!" and someone else's proof is only satisfied after years of dedicated study.

And how am I "proof of the afterlife"?

If your issue is one of "proof" or "evidence" requiring to be empirical in nature, and that this thus discounts all things of a "non-empirical" nature - then the burden is on you to demonstrate / prove / provide evidence that there exists something that is "non-empirical".
It might seem a non-sensical request (asking you to provide evidence for something which you are saying is unevidencable) - but until such time as one can demonstrate the existence of the non-empirical, and can differentiate between existence of the non-empirical item and a mere claim of existence of the non-empirical... the burden of proof will lie with you (or the one making the claim of non-empirical existence).

Sarkus Okay - let me correct myself:
"Belief without evidence that can rationally be attributed to the thing
being believed in is irrational."

And their belief IS arrived at irrationally, if it is based on evidence
that can not be rationally attributed to the thing they believe in
(i.e. more rationally attributed to an alternative - or more rationally
NOT attributable at all).

Once they have accepted the evidence as such then I accept that the
thought process from there to the "belief" can be rational - but if they
assign evidence to their item of belief irrationally then everything
that follows is irrational - albeit due to being based on the irrational
attributing of evidence to their item of belief.


So, bringing it back on topic, the burden of proof requires the
evidence to be put forward AND for the demonstration that the evidence is
rationally attributable to the item under investigation.Of course what you say is true. If I am trying to convince you of something. I must use your standards, or it will not be convincing to you.
However, If you tried to convince me of something, you would have to use my standards.

For example, I see your belief system as being irrational. Like all belief systems, which are either based on their own principles, guilty of circular reasoning, or self supporting, or they are based on so many weak suppositions it is like a house of cards.

Your belief systems appears to be of the former, a narrow and strong base, justified by circular reasoning, although it could have a different weakness or fallacy.

When I see logical fallacies, I disregard it as the truth unless stronger evidence is available that overrides the fallacious argument.

Do you have any nonfallacious arguments that your belief system is free of irrationality?


***************

For example, I see your belief system as being irrational.Firstly... what is my "belief system", as far as you see it? And then why do you see it as irrational?

Do you have any nonfallacious arguments that your belief system is free of irrationality?Again, you'll need to tell me what you see as my "belief system".

Personally I need no argument to demonstrate that my "belief system" is free of irrationality - because to me "belief" is, by definition, irrational - and I try not to hold beliefs. I do when I am not thinking critically but, when pointed out to me, I try to correct my position.

Does this help answer your question(s)?

Sarkus

I’m saying everyone has a belief system. Conscious or unconscious, developed or weak, but everyone has one, and they are all based on at least one fallacy, generally circular reasoning.
One only has to be irrational once, and the remainder can flow from that, as being quite logical.

I do not need to read your mind to say you have a belief system and it is based on at least one fallacy.

Sarkus

I’m saying everyone has a belief system. Conscious or unconscious, developed or weak, but everyone has one, and they are all based on at least one fallacy, generally circular reasoning.
One only has to be irrational once, and the remainder can flow from that, as being quite logical.

I do not need to read your mind to say you have a belief system and it is based on at least one fallacy.:D
But surely this belief of yours is based on a fallacy - and as such should be disregarded?
Or is there a non-fallacious argument to support your claim?
;)

Sarkus But surely this belief of yours is based on a fallacy - and as such
should be disregarded?I did not say all beliefs are fallacious.

I said all belief systems have at least one fallacy as a basis.
My statement that everyone has a belief system, is not a basis of my belief system.
It is merely the opinion of all reasonable philosophers, and most unreasonable philosophers as well.
Tell me, do you actually believe you have no belief system?

Tell me, do you actually believe you have no belief system?You still