It always puzzles me when people say that, while they may not be able to prove god exists, nor can atheists prove he dosn't exist.
Isn't the burden of proof with the believer?
If the burden of proof were to lie with those who don't believe something rather than those who do, wouldn't that open things up for progress to grind to a complete standstill as everyone wasted time trying to prove that there were no pink teapots orbiting the sun and other such nonsense?
2007-06-16 02:06:50 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I too have read that teapot analogy.
But even it seems to miss the mark in my little world of reality.
What I care about is what a person does with their belief.
1. A person either loves all of us or ...... doesn't.
2. A person either forgives others or ......... doesn't.
3. A person either judges the purity/righteousness of others or ..... doesn't.
1. I love all ... if you love only one person, you don't really love anyone but yourself.
2. I forgive all, it's tough, but it is the only thing workable.
3. I judge no one, cause once you start, it seems after a while you are judging the purity and righteousness of everyone.
"The whole world is (evil) except for you and me; and sometimes I have my doubts about you" - a paraphrase from Dickens.
2007-06-16 02:17:35 · answer #1 · answered by Uncle Wayne 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Atheism is also a belief system. It is not a religion, as some would claim, but it does require a leap of faith, since there is no possible way for an atheist to know for certain that he is right. In this regard, the atheist is making a positive claim (that there is no god) in the absence of evidence one way or the other, and refuses to accept the burden of proof.
2014-10-18 23:05:02 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well ofcourse the burden of the proof is with the believer.
But theres a bigger burden on the person who preaches, not the person who simply believes.
As a preacher is required to explain things and must back it up with solid proof and reference.
---
On another note, an atheist may be someone who is a non believer in the existence of God, but the atheist is also a believer. He /she believes there is no god. :) So s/he carries the burden of proving this by the sheer fact that the believer has to too. Also, the rule above applies to the atheists as well, and the atheist man who 'preaches' the non existence of the Creator, needs to back it up with proof as well :)
2007-06-16 02:31:13 · answer #3 · answered by Antares 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim that a given thing exists, not the person who rejects that claim. This usually comes as a surprise to those who have never studied logic or engaged in academic argument.
2007-06-16 02:14:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
properly you notice the subject is that i'm no longer attempting to make up my suggestions, you notice for me the load of information has been happy, and that i've got concluded that He does in certainty exist. so a techniques as putting up or shutting up is going, i'm no longer required via my faith to teach something. i'm basically required to cutting-edge the alternative. you notice at the same time as i might quite like the assumption of somebody like your self coming to be attentive to the certainty i be attentive to, the alternative is honestly yours. wish that helps.
2016-10-09 08:01:22 · answer #5 · answered by gilbreth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since religion is a personal thing we don't have to prove anything to anyone else. No one can be forced to believe in God, it's something you have to do yourself. The proof is out there (cue X Files music) but you have to find it yourself. Any Christian already has all the proof they need. That this proof is not something that can be photographed and posted online for everyone to see is irrelevant.
2007-06-16 02:16:11 · answer #6 · answered by Machaira 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The first rule of academic debate is "He who asserts must prove". The burden of proof lies with whomever first asserted as true some statement. Who fired the first shot in here?
2007-06-16 02:14:19 · answer #7 · answered by RIFF 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We're not trying to prove that God exists. We already believe it.
It's a deep and personal thing that defies all logic.
Science has nothing to do with what we believe.
That's why it's called faith. Your asking me to use logic to describe what I believe is the same as me expecting you to describe what you believe using faith.
It's the trust in love of God that makes my faith so beautiful man. I could tell you all that God has done for me and that I've seen him do, but you would simply dismiss it as lies or chance.
Your loss, not mine. You have your science I have something much better that suits me just fine, thank you.
Brian D
2007-06-16 02:22:21 · answer #8 · answered by The Brian 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
1. You Can Never Really Prove ANYTHING !
2. You Only Need to Do One ... Well Designed, Repeatable
Experiment to Disprove Something !
3. It is Impossible to Confirm a Negative !
No matter what our belief, we need to keep in mind these points of logic. However, I hope that everyone can keep in mind that the human experience allows some irrational thought as well. Feelings such as love, kindness, patience, sincerity are irrational, but we need them nonetheless.
2007-06-16 02:12:33 · answer #9 · answered by jaicee 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You are absolutely correct. Its like having to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. When it comes to religion people can not allow themselves to think.
Now, can I have a pink teapot?
2007-06-16 02:13:17 · answer #10 · answered by in a handbasket 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋