Some say the burden of proof concerning the matters of faith is on me. I don't think so. That's why it's called faith. Isn't the burden of proof for all the things one has to take on faith on those who don't have it? I think so.
2007-03-05 07:37:38 · 27 answers · asked by Mr_Sageseer 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well said...
2007-03-05 07:40:16 · answer #1 · answered by Scott B 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You dont have to defend your posiotion on faith.. you just choose to do that.. an athiest on the other had has no position of faith.. nothing to defend.. (You cannot prove a negative)
Take a lesson from them.. you dont have to defend anything.. you choose to defend.. live and learn.. use what works, and discard that which does not eh?
And NO burden of proof is on you if you believe there is a god.. not to those that say there isnt.. (again you cant prove a negative) But the real question is why do you care and what do you have to prove? Its only important to you not them LOL (Silly rabbit)
2007-03-05 15:52:33 · answer #2 · answered by darchangel_3 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Atheism doesn't, of necessity, state a position or belief. It's an absence of belief in a god of gods.
Because of this, it doesn't make a claim. When you state your belief, you state a claim. The burden of proof is on those making the claims.
If you aren't putting your beliefs out into a public forum, then there is no positive claim being made and no one will ask you to back up your claim. If you merely say that it's your belief, rather than stating is as a fact, then no one can ask you to back it up.
If I state I have a pound of gold in my pantry, there would be a lot of people assuming I was lying unless I backed up this claim.
Since gold is known to exist, people have seen it, some people own it, it's within the bounds of experiential demonstrated possible things. No one has demonstrated, unambiguously, or produced compelling evidence supporting a Deity, so that does allow those to logically ask for evidence, if you state a Deity does exist.
2007-03-05 15:42:51 · answer #3 · answered by Radagast97 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
When one's faith is on shaky grounds you often find the need to rationalize and defend your position. There is no burden in faith just as there is no burden in reality and the reality is that no one really knows... Pick your cult, accept then worship faithfully your deity of choice and in due time you're gonna find out if you were right or wrong doing so, but rest assured you won't be coming back to enlighten the rest of us...
2007-03-05 15:44:28 · answer #4 · answered by ralegas 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You don't need to defend your position on faith. You know what you believe, and that's all that matters.
An atheist doesn't need to defend their position, either. They know what they believe, and that's all that matters.
If your purpose to holding a belief is to convince others that it is true, then you probably are holding that belief for the wrong reasons--be it Christianity, Agnostic, Atheism, any religion you can name. Just follow your faith, and as long as you believe it, it doesn't matter whether anyone questions you.
And this is coming from an Agnostic.
2007-03-05 15:43:56 · answer #5 · answered by SheIsDeath 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what are all the things one has to take on faith? Bigfoot? Loch Ness monster? UFOs? Buddhism? Scientology? Zeus? Ra? the return of Quetzacotl?
anyone making a claim not immediately obvious has to prove it or risk being ridiculed, like astrologists (idiots).
plus, people without faith can prove why. they can say prayer doesn't work, the global flood never happened, dinosaurs lived way before men, etc. when the bible claims it is perfect and you have reason to believe it isn't, then you don't have to have the faith described in it.
2007-03-05 15:47:22 · answer #6 · answered by ajj085 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The person of faith is making the claim not atheists, atheists have nothing to prove, it is the default position...but you really do have something to prove if you care about what others think, if you don't care then there's no problem... believe any old thing you like. Through faith alone you can believe that your old dirty socks are the Messiah but if so should atheists feel obliged to prove you wrong?...I don't think so!.
2007-03-05 15:42:54 · answer #7 · answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You don't HAVE to defend your position. Any more than I HAVE to answer questions about beliefs. We have chosen to do so.
And as for faith, well, traditionally if someone says 'Oh, I have a...' people usually ask 'Oh, really? May I see your... then?'
You say you have a God. Atheists are simply asking 'OK. Where is this God of yours then?' At least that's the way it seems to work here on Y!A
Thank you for asking.
.
2007-03-05 16:29:29 · answer #8 · answered by Nobody 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A negative cannot be proved. That is why the burden of proof is always on the asserter. If I claim I raise pink, purple, and polka-dot unicorns in my basement, and you think that is nonsense, who has the burden of proof? Same reasonung applies to gods.
2007-03-05 15:45:24 · answer #9 · answered by Dawn G 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Anyone, whether believer or non-believer, should be able to cogently and rigorously defend their belief systems and world views.
If either party cannot rigorously answer the question:
"What is the justification for the presuppositions informing your epistemology and ethical system?"
Then they are talking past one another in any meaningful conversation about their beleifs.
More simply, unless two parties to any discusion about religion define their inherent presuppositions and the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity (epistemology), there can be no meaningful dialog. In general, this will require a person to have a solid understanding of philosophy, especially as it relates to the concepts of truth, logic, and ontology.
2007-03-05 15:57:48 · answer #10 · answered by Ask Mr. Religion 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't you think, in a world of many philosophies and religions, that it's kinda odd that not everybody agrees with your "philosophy" and faith in an omnipotent creator being? For me the proof is in the pudding... pure logic, observation of the REAL world around us, study of religions and the history of religions in great depth is where I find the whole creator being logic FLAWED.
It's far easier to take Buddhist philosophy and try to refute THAT than to prove that your creator being exists... now I don't mind people having faith in what they want to believe, but when you try to foist it upon others by swaying laws to condemn and subdue people's human rights based on ONE version of religion, which isn't shared by everyone... then you've got an argument.
_()_
2007-03-05 15:43:57 · answer #11 · answered by vinslave 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋