I have a question for all members

[InformedIgnorance]

Were I to state 'facts' about divine beings I would likely be asked to prove them;
Were I to state 'facts' about homeopathy I would likely be asked to prove them;
Were I to state 'facts' about volcanic activity I would likely be asked to prove them.

The difference is not the standard to which they are being asked to be held, but rather the standard to which evidence is available that would satisfy the audience's particular needs for reasoning and evidence to suffice proof in their eyes.

Now naturally this will largely depend on the audience's need for various types of proof which will vary depending on the nature of the claim, for example a more scientifically literate audience are likely to require less evidence about geological claims that conform to their understanding of science (given they themselves already provide some of this evidence and reasoning thus diminishing the required level of 'proof' that needs to be supplied), however were the claim contradictory to that understanding of science, it would likely enhance the required level of proof, because the contradictory model would need to be shown sufficiently valid as to overcome the perceived contradictions). In the same way, a trinitarian christian audience for example are likely to require less evidence or reasoning to accept a claim which conforms to their understanding, than they would require to accept a claim that contradicts it.

 

[Sir Doom]

It would be if it was an honest representation of the rule he is whining about.

^That there.

 

[crocusj]

As a topic, religion isn't constrained to purporting the magical or supernatural. There are at least several religions I can think of that have nothing to do with a second plane of existence. There is more public bashing of Christian beliefs in recent years, as you suspect, and this is unfortunate. I sincerely wish that those attending this forum wouldn't criticize unless they have something of at least equal or greater worth to suggest, but this isn't likely to happen any time soon. Even I might occasionally forget this and need a reminder.

What? Are you suggesting that when someone is hitting themselves repeatedly on the head with a brick that "STOP!" is not sufficient?

 

[Quagmire]

I totally agree with you....a double standard

Generally, the only people who object to being asked to provide proof are those who don't have any.

"The other side has proof and I don't and yet we're both being asked to provide some" isn't a double standard.

 

[Blackdog22]

There is more public bashing of Christian beliefs in recent years, as you suspect, and this is unfortunate.

There is more public bashing of Islam and atheists have always been publicly bashed. Every religion is bashed at some point and the bigger you are the more likely you are to come under criticism. Christianity is the largest religion at the moment, but they still dont get as much flak as Islam or Atheists. Welcome to the game I guess

note: I have not witnessed any considerable amount of bashing on this forum or anywhere else. Where are you finding that Christians are being bashed?

I sincerely wish that those attending this forum wouldn't criticize unless they have something of at least equal or greater worth to suggest, but this isn't likely to happen any time soon. Even I might occasionally forget this and need a reminder.

You must of missed the part where he threatened us and fired up the name calling. I didn't notice a single post that threatened him in anyway and the criticism was well earned. (As minor as it was)

 

[Onkara]

As to rule 8 in my opinion it is impossible to prove anything 100% so thereby impossible to fully know anything. Then you should always be open to discussion and opposing views. If you remain open you can learn a lot about yourself, others and God.

If you want to close the book and believe you have the 100% answer then you can learn nothing. In my opinion.

Sorry to pick up on a point you address with someone else, however your first paragraph struck me as true and I wanted to ask you, how can we apply this 'impossibility to prove' to our daily lives?

Regarding your second paragraph, my opinion is that one can still learn from something that one believes in 100%, that learning becomes a type of reinforcement of that belief and I think this is why some people continue to research and recite a religious scripture despite not having any disbelief or doubt to address by doing so. Just a thought.