2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KAtheism is not really a belief but a specific absence of a belief, specifically, the absence of the belief that there exists a god or gods. You couldn’t talk about theism appropriately as being ‘the absence of belief in atheism’ because atheism does not so much as propose a hypothesis as it refutes a hypothesis.
In this thread, however, an atheist first asserted God does not exist; he did this gratuitousy and offered no justification for this statement. Why shouldn't the burden of proof not be on him?
For a belief to be rational, I am glad that you recognise the fact that you need justification or premise for that belief. But, given the fact that atheism is the absence rather than the presence of a specific belief, atheists do not need to give justification of their belief in their non-belief! At most, they just need to justify their belief that theists have no justification for their beliefs. The burden of providing proof or at least some justification for the persons beliefs must therefore rest solely and exclusively on theists and not atheists.
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionDivine attributes within human virtues. Let's take an example from the New Testament. If you would read Luke 7:11-17 you would see the account of Jesus raising from the dead the widow from Nain's only son.
That's just gobbledegook. Actually it reminds me of new age' speak and is meaningless.
The divine attributes of this Person are expressed in Human virtues. And the relationship between the Divine and the Human, the natural and the supernatural - are perfectly synthesized.
What the hell is this supposed to mean?
I get that you're a christian a t me wrong, I'm not trying to dis Jesus, but c'mon, you've got to do better than this ...
"And as He came near the gate of the city, behold, one who had died was being carried out, an only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and a considerable crowd from the city was with her.
And when the Lord saw her, He was moved with compassion for her and said to her, Do not weep.
And He came near and touched the bier, and those carrying it stood still. And He said, Young man, to you I say, Arise.
And the dead man sat up and began to speak. And He gave him to his mother.
And fear took hold of all, and they glorified God, saying, A great prophet has been raised up among us, and, God has visited His people!
And this report concerning Him went out in the whole of Judea and in all the surrounding region." (Luke 7:12-17)
Jesus was moved with compassion for the widow whose only son had died. This is a display of His tender human virtue of empathy, of sympathy. But not only was human compassion manfested but divine power. We as humans may feel sorry for a widow. But Jesus also excercised the divine atrtribute of miraculous power to raise the widow's son from the dead.
He comes, He feels compassion as a human. He draws near and touches the coffin and stops the procession. He speaks to the child and raises him from the dead.
This is one example of what I mean that His divine attrbutes were expressed within human virtues. And He still acts this way today.
In Jesus we see the perfect man and the divine God as one Person.
Now you should understand me a little better. There are many many examples.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe original claim was "God does not exist." This qualifies as a belief, and as such, should be accompanied by a justification.
Atheism is not really a belief but a specific absence of a belief, specifically, the absence of the belief that there exists a god or gods. You couldn’t talk about theism appropriately as being ‘the absence of belief in atheism’ because atheism does not so much as propose a hypothesis as it refutes a hypothesis.
For a belief to be rational ...[text shortened]... for the persons beliefs must therefore rest solely and exclusively on theists and not atheists.
I do not want to broach discussion on whether atheism constitutes belief; it has no bearing on whether a particular atheist statement (God does not exist) is a belief. Furthermore, should you prove that such an atheistic formulation is a not belief, it is not clear to me how it avoids the burden of proof. What is the criteria for deciding the burden of proof?
Originally posted by Conrau KWhilst I see your point, I wonder if you would still make it if he had said "anal dwelling monkies do not exist". It's pretty much the same thing.
In this thread, however, an atheist first asserted God does not exist; he did this gratuitousy and offered no justification for this statement. Why shouldn't the burden of proof not be on him?
Originally posted by jaywillI may have wronged others, but I have never sinned against them. 'Sin' does not appear in my moral ontology. Most often when I wrong another it is due to inattention on my part or inadequate information (though it is strange to call these errors instances of wronging another, as opposed to, say, instances of reason-insensitivity), but I admit that there are virtues I am still in the process of cultivating, and that it will take time and effort to become saturated by these virtues; to have the reasons they provide be the very same reasons that motivate me. But none of this entails that my heart or the human heart generally is incurably sick, nor that one need recourse to some gaseous vertebrate for ethical transformation. Honest study, attention, experience and meditation will suffice for my ethical journey. No savior is required.
It is not a matter of worrying about it. It is the recognition of the fact that you have wronged others. You have sinned against others.
You have. I have. We all have.
Now we are sensative when we are wronged. Often times we are not that sensative when the wrong comes FROM us TOWARDS others.
You have offended as well as having been offended. You ...[text shortened]... That is unless you're an angel and not a typical human being on this side of the fall of man.
Originally posted by bbarrIs there an element of "forgiveness" or making amends for your failings though they may be unintentional?
I may have wronged others, but I have never sinned against them. 'Sin' does not appear in my moral ontology. Most often when I wrong another it is due to inattention on my part or inadequate information (though it is strange to call these errors instances of wronging another, as opposed to, say, instances of reason-insensitivity), but I admit that there are ...[text shortened]... ention, experience and meditation will suffice for my ethical journey. No savior is required.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIn that case, I doubt I would need a counter-argument - although I do have several reasons to reject the claim. And should someone insist that there are anal-dwelling monkies, I could marshal these reasons rather than nag about burden of proof.
Whilst I see your point, I wonder if you would still make it if he had said "anal dwelling monkies do not exist". It's pretty much the same thing.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]No, I understand him no better at all. All this gives me is a fifteenth hand account of an event that may or may not have happened.
Divine attributes within human virtues. Let's take an example from the New Testament. If you would read [b]Luke 7:11-17 you would see the account of Jesus raising from the dead the widow from Nain's only son.
"And as He came near the gate of the city, behold, one who had died was being carried out, an only son of his mother, and she was a widow; ne Person.
Now you should understand me a little better. There are many many examples.
If it did actually occur as written - which is doubtful - it's likely that the son was not actually dead at all. There are many syndromes that mimic death, especially for those who are not familiar with them or medically trained.
Now I'm not after any other anecdotes about Jesus and his magical powers or heavenly love or whatever. I know you'll be able to astound me with many.
And I'm sure that this Jesus guy was a hell of a nice person.
But our proof of this?
The claims of religious people that stuff written about him after his death is truth. And stuff, I might add, written by his supporters ... who of course would never be biased would they?
If you're going to convince me (or any atheist) of the divinity of some human or other,you've got to do better than the rantings of that human's supporters, decades after his or her death.
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K“…What is the criteria for deciding the burden of proof?…”
The original claim was "God does not exist." This qualifies as a belief, and as such, should be accompanied by a justification.
I do not want to broach discussion on whether atheism constitutes belief; it has no bearing on whether a particular atheist statement (God does not exist) is a belief. Furthermore, should you prove that such an atheistic ...[text shortened]... o me how it avoids the burden of proof. What is the criteria for deciding the burden of proof?
Simple: in this context the relevant criterion is that the burden of proof must rest on the person that claims something does exist as opposed to the person that claims that same something does not exist.
Let me give justification for that criterion:
Lets assume that that criterion is wrong and should never be applied and then see if we can then make ourselves reach an absurd conclusion as a result of rejecting that criterion:
Lets suppose that I claim that there is an invisible elephant in the sky right now but it is impossible to either prove or disprove that it is there is. Now if you where to claim that there is no invisible elephant in the sky right now, I would just counter this by saying you cannot prove that there isn’t an invisible elephant in the sky right now so there is no more reason to believe there is a that there is an invisible elephant in the sky right now than there isn’t. So, given this limited information, we should assume that there is about equal probability (I.e. ~50% ) that there is an invisible elephant in the sky right now as there is no such elephant (although, of course, it alternately must either exist or not and not both so, in that sense, there is no probability some where between 0% and 100% that it exists -but that is why I said here “…so, given this limited information,…” for we just have no alternative but to judge by the limited information we have got).
We can use the same reasoning to justify claims that there is about 50% probability of each of the following exists in the sky right now and that each of the following is invisible: a man: a tree, a house, a car, a billion-trillion rampaging nuns, ….the list is endless. Given that there is ~50% probability of each item on this list and given that this list of items is infinitely long, we must conclude that there is 100% probability that the sky is full of a bazaar mix of an infinite number of invisible things existing up there in total perpetual mayhem and all overlapping in space because else there wouldn’t be enough room in the three-dimensional space for all of them up there.
OK. So maybe you would agree with this conclusion? (I don’t honestly know if you would).:
Lets suppose there is an incredibly strong but tiny safe with a faulty lock that means it cannot unlock and there is absolutely no practical or credible way we can open this safe to see what is inside.
Lets further suppose we have absolutely no clues to what has been put in the safe and we cannot ask the owners of the safe because they died a long time ago and they never kept records.
Now, if I claim that there exists a tiny skeleton in the safe but I cannot prove it and we all reject the criterion that the burden of proof must rest on the person that claims something does exist as opposed to the person that claims that same something does not exist, then if you where to now argue that there is no skeleton in the safe, I would just counter this by saying you cannot prove that either so there is no more reason to believe there is a skeleton in the safe than there isn’t. so, given this limited information, we must assume that there is ~50% probability that there is a skeleton in the safe. I can repeat this argument to justify the claim that there is a ~50% probability of each of the following in that safe:
a marble, a brick…the list is endless. Given that there is ~50% probability of each item on this long list and given that this list of items is infinitely long, we must conclude that there is 100% probability that the safe is full of an infinite number of solid items. But, this is an absurd conclusion because there isn’t enough room in a tiny safe for an infinite number of items!
I could also argue that there is ~50 probability that there is exactly 3 (I.e. 3 and only 3) marbles in the safe
and that there is ~50 probability that there is exactly 4 marbles in the safe,
and that there is ~50 probability that there is exactly 5 marbles in the safe,
and…so on forever. This would be a mathematical absurdity.
All this absurdity can be simply avoided using the criterion that the burden of proof must rest on the person that claims something does exist as opposed to the person that claims that same something does not exist. Therefore, the burden of proof should rest on the theists that claim that god exists and not on the atheists that claim that god does not exist.
Originally posted by kirksey957Of course there is. I try to make amends for failing to meet the reasonable expectations of others even when my putative failure was a result of exculpable ignorance.
Is there an element of "forgiveness" or making amends for your failings though they may be unintentional?