Burden of proof

[Luchito Prays]

That unevidenced anecdotal claim, even were it true, would not support your assertion. People who have suffered the trauma of sexual abuse, especially as a child, may suffer confusion and guilt about their own sexual desires. This does not mean that people are not born gay, and have no choice about it. This sort of dangerous rationale is used in so called conversion therapy, an evil and immoral victimisation of gay people, based on the appalling lie that there is something wrong with them, which is nonsense.

Being gay is a natural variation of adult human sexual desire. It harms no one, and what consenting adults do, or who they love and marry, is no one else's business.

Your answer went way beyond the case mentioned.

It's about a minor who was abused sexually and because that abuse he might feel confusion about his sexual desires.

He wasn't born with such a sexual tendency, but after the sexual abuse, he got a trauma, and such bad experience is now causing him guilty feelings because he now might have homosexual desires.

****Mod Edit****

He is a victim and needs help.

Similar case are not simple anecdotes. I have witnessed one sometime in life, and the victim ended as a male prostitute. He died with AIDS at age 33.

He didn't deserved that kind of life and such young age death.

 

[Luchito Prays]

The burden of proof lies with the one who claim to know, or claim his or her belief is the one true belief.

When the proof comes from lack of evidence, is that also considered burden of proof?

 

[Bird123]

We need to get on-message about our millennial third-generation alignment. Since a wave loudly clashing against a long shoreline shakes beliefs widely held.

First, explain third- generation alignment. I do not understand what you are trying to say. What actually is does not need alignment.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

Eternal stillness reflects cosmic acceptance

Eternity has purpose. Do you really think eternal stillness actually exists?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

Then go handwave at someone gullible.

Come now. Have you actually seen my hands? Do you have proof they exist? Are you living on beliefs and assumptions?

Do you give anyone a friendly hand wave? Must they fit within your box of beliefs and assumptions?

Those who seek come with millions of questions.

What is your goal? Do you strive to convince others God does not exist? For what purpose??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Eternity has purpose. Do you really think eternal stillness actually exists?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Orderliness is the ground of the light of phenomena

 

[Bird123]

Curiosity is the birth of healing, and of us. Joy is a constant.
Nothing is impossible. Without spacetime, one cannot reflect. You must take a stand against greed. The complexity of the present time seems to demand an ennobling of our chakras if we are going to survive.

Curiosity can lead to one seeking which is the start of a journey. Curiosity is good.

The time-based causal nature of the universe is perfect for learning. There will come a time when you will not be within spacetime and reflect.. On the other hand, that which you reflect will probably be actions you have chosen within spacetime.

There is no need to take a stand against greed. Greed is one of the petty things mankind holds so dear. When one really understands all sides of greed. Intelligence will discover greed is no longer a viable choice. This is because greed is not the best choice.

Like all the petty things mankind holds so dear, one should not run from them. Only discovering what they really are will teach and lead one to realize they are not viable choices an intelligent person could make.

As for chakras, I have no need of them much less ennobling them in any way.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

Come now. Have you actually seen my hands? Do you have proof they exist? Are you living on beliefs and assumptions?

Do you give anyone a friendly hand wave? Must they fit within your box of beliefs and assumptions?

Those who seek come with millions of questions.

What is your goal? Do you strive to convince others God does not exist? For what purpose??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Have you just decided that you want something from me, after all? Or are you just wasting my time? I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Christianity is true but I don't think I have a burden to prove that to anyone.

How about, to yourself?

I think that the "burden of proof" thingy applies on multiple levels in various ways.

The classic type being that when you wish to convince people and / or for example push legislation or alike, based on some premise (claim) that is not in evidence. Then the person making said claim will be required to meet that burden. When (s)he fails, the claim (and by extension the thing (s)he's pushing for) could / should be ignored.

On another level, the whole burden of proof thingy deals with the believability of claims in general. With the rational justification for belief. This needs not to involve other people.

The things I believe personally, I find it important to be rational justified in them - just for myself, to make sure I minimize belief in falsehoods for myself. I even consider it a moral responsibility / duty.

Having said all that... some time ago, I went upstream on this very subject where I felt like people were of the opinion that prefixing a claim with "I believe" somehow absolves the claim from its burden of proof. I stopped posting because it felt like a dead end as it was turning into a game of "yes", "no", "yes", "no" ... and it ended up in a stalemate.

I still stand behind what I said there though.

"god exists!" has a burden of proof.
"I believe god exists!" has the same burden of proof.

The prefix of "i believe" doesn't absolve it. Both statements express the exact same thing.
The prefix of "i believe" is implied in the first statement. Why would one make such a statement if one doesn't believe it also?

Imo, what they were REALLY saying to me there was that prefixing it explicitly with "i believe" in actuality just meant "i don't want to meet the burden of proof" or "i don't care about it".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it helps, I think "the burden of proof" is not the same thing as "the burden to prove".

Love it!

Well said. You managed to express very clearly in few words what I was trying to say in multiple paragraphs - and I feel like I didn't get anywhere near the clarity you expressed there.

Very nice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

On another level, the whole burden of proof thingy deals with the believability of claims in general. With the rational justification for belief. This needs not to involve other people.

The things I believe personally, I find it important to be rational justified in them - just for myself, to make sure I minimize belief in falsehoods for myself. I even consider it a moral responsibility / duty.

...

Are there any limits to rational justification?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That unevidenced anecdotal claim, even were it true, would not support your assertion. People who have suffered the trauma of sexual abuse, especially as a child, may suffer confusion and guilt about their own sexual desires. This does not mean that people are not born gay, and have no choice about it. This sort of dangerous rationale is used in so called conversion therapy, an evil and immoral victimisation of gay people, based on the appalling lie that there is something wrong with them, which is nonsense.

Being gay is a natural variation of adult human sexual desire. It harms no one, and what consenting adults do, or who they love and marry, is no one else's business.

You are stating as fact commonly held notions that are not perhaps factual. For example the claim "one is actually born gay" to someone who thinks through the lens of scientism is self-defeating, since there is no smoking genetic or hormonal or etc. gun, only certain tendencies. You have at best anecdotes and clinical studies that are not free from bias.

I must tell you that there are ones I've counseled who have no early memories of gay desire or same-sex attraction before abuse or other trauma.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are stating as fact commonly held notions that are not perhaps factual. For example the claim "one is actually born gay" to someone who thinks through the lens of scientism is self-defeating, since there is no smoking genetic or hormonal or etc. gun, only certain tendencies. You have at best anecdotes and clinical studies that are not free from bias.

I must tell you that there are ones I've counseled who have no early memories of gay desire or same-sex attraction before abuse or other trauma.

And I had no heterosexual desire before abuse. Thank you. Now I can become gay and know that Jesus and God is with me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

. This concept of yours has been shown to be false. At best you have only confirmation bias. Do you understand what that is?

No, I've never heard of it, please explain this concept to me. I'm intrigued.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I doubt if you are a trained counselor. You may have given a lot of people a lot of very bad advice. That does not make you a counselor.

You may be correct.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why are you assuming they're unhappy because they are gay?

I know why! Because the Bible tells you they are bad people and so you must believe it.

A strange response to what I actually wrote: "You are missing the point that people seeking counseling are pursuing a healing from brokenness."

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) That doesn't mean you've done a good job of it, or that you've assessed the results property. Especially if you're telling people there is something wrong with them just because they're gay AND if you're telling them they're gay because they were sexually abused as a child. That's not a thing.
2) I have a psychology degree.

It's been pretty well established that gay conversion therapy causes harm. There is a reason it has been banned in the psychology field and by other governing bodies.

I agree that the practices of gay conversion therapy were wrong. I disagree that people wanting lay counseling or prayer from sex abuse or other trauma are harming themselves by pursuing free-of-cost counseling.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Freud is garbage. You are using outdated ideas from the earliest days of psychology, more than a century ago, that are no longer used by anyone with a proper education in psychology and counseling. We have found much more effective treatment methods such as cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, structural family therapy, etc., that don't require delving into the past at all. The obvious reason you are doing this is because thanks to the Bible, you believe that there is something wrong with gay people and so have sought out ideas that reinforce that belief. That's how it appears from where I'm sitting. Please tell me I'm wrong.

If you don't have a proper degree, then what you are doing is straight up unethical. No counselor with the proper education and a proper degree would be pushing this stuff onto people. A counselor's job is to help people navigate their lives to the best of their ability and to minimize distress - not judge them and make their lives worse. You actually do need to seek guidance from the AMA - that's what they are there for. And sorry to tell you, but they know a little more about this than you appear to.

You just made a claim that modern methods of counseling "don't need to resolve past trauma at all"?!

Please post evidence here for the faith-based claim you've made above. For example, everything I've ever heard about addiction counseling looks for triggers and roots for the triggers.

Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I've never heard of it, please explain this concept to me. I'm intrigued.

I really do not have time to teach the obvious right now.

You may be correct.

It is rather obvious that I am. Anyone can give bad advice and call themselves a "counselor" in some places. But when one makes one's decisions based upon falsehoods and old wives tales the odds of being a good counselor are almost nil.

 

[Sheldon]

Your answer went way beyond the case mentioned.

So what?

It's about a minor who was abused sexually and because that abuse he might feel confusion about his sexual desires.

Yes I know, which has nothing to do with being gay.

He wasn't born with such a sexual tendency, but after the sexual abuse, he got a trauma, and such bad experience is now causing him guilty feelings because he now might have homosexual desires.

Then he is not gay, thus to make a blanket claim about gay people based on this is absurdly dangerous.

That minor, now an adult is a victim, a victim of a sexual abuse, he is not one of you guys who are pervert and decided to be homosexuals by your own will.

I happen to have been born straight, and gay people are not perverts, this kind of hate speech is homophobic bigotry and has no place in any decent society.

He is a victim and needs help.

Quite possibly, but again this has nothing to do with being gay, or religious bigots persecuting gay people by telling them there is something wrong with them.