Comments on: Burden of Proof

By: Rock You Like A Hurricane

Rock You Like A Hurricane — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:25:34 +0000

Markus…

It was quite useful reading, found some interesting details about this topic. Thanks….

By: JT

JT — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:43:05 +0000

One more note/question to reluctant atheist - Imagine I am a witness of a crime and my friend also witnesses the crime. I saw the criminal - a man with a blue shirt. My friend also saw the criminal - a man with a purple shirt. Which is reality?

The point being, if truth is only based on experience, whose experience do you trust? Truth is not “what I sense.” Truth is what corresponds to reality.

By: JT

JT — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:20:37 +0000

Just a note - that atheists cannot disprove God exists does not mean that God does exist, only that it leaves open the possibility that God does exist. I don’t think many theists would argue that God must exist just because an atheist can’t disprove it.

By: severalspecies

severalspecies — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:50:13 +0000

To CT:

Why does the burden of proof claim need to be debated in the CONTEXT of the debate between the christian and the atheist? Is the burden of proof claim different for different situations? If so…How/Why?

By: Claudia

Claudia — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 04:00:25 +0000

I am a theist. ANYTHING human hands touch is fallible. This includes the bible. Scientifically, there is no proof of God. For now. Faith by its definition is belief in something for which we have no scientific proof. Religion is man made. A socialization and fellowship of like minded believers. Religion is for socialization of the people. God certainly can’t be proved or understood based on human institutional religions.

That which the world needs to know most, is that we are all brothers and sisters, predicated on the fact that we have all been created by a Universal Parent (at some point in evolution). The golden rule should be the fundamental guide for living on a shared planet. Its simple, just not easy.

If your definition of atheism is belief that god does not exist, based on the tenants of scientific proof, then there really isn’t anything to debate. There is no scientific proof. If you want to add logic and philosophy and spirituality to the tenants of proof, then there is a basis for dialogue.