Who is the one who must "prove"

[Secret Chief]

My new view of non believers is that i have no problem with them

You had a problem with those who did not accept Falun Gong?

 

[Secret Chief]

The proves to me is in the spiritual teachings

Thank you.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You had a problem with those who did not accept Falun Gong?

I think I was the problem, not the teaching of Falun Gong or even Buddhism.
My ego was to big and i took comments to personal

 

[Valjean]

Prove there is a "we" for example. You assert a "we" so now defend it.

List of secularist organizations - Wikipedia

What is Atheism? | American Atheists

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would be crazy if I said I can.
But what I might be able to do is prove that some of your beliefs are inconsistent and contradict each other. If I could do that, I would not have proven that Allah does not exist, but I would have proven that you do not understand

• either the law of non-contradiction,
• or what you believe.

Well, according to Polymath257 there is a form of logic, which allows for contradictions in a limited sense, i.e. paraconsistent logic. It appears to apply to the concept of reality and all the versions of everything; the world; the universe and what not. In other words, you can't make a model of reality, which is strictly logical and without contradictions. That is not unique to you, I also can't do it.
You have to look at the law of non-contradiction and realize it is about something or something else and not everything in toto. I.e. everything is the set of all cases of something in some time, space and sense, but you can't make everything one time, space and sense.

 

[Secret Chief]

Is it non existence just because it is in a different realm then the visible realm we live in?
Or must it be "proven" by science before it becomes real?

Those questions don't really address my question:
"I can't think of what might constitute proof of the non-existence. Can you?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

List of secularist organizations - Wikipedia

What is Atheism? | American Atheists

From their site:
Our Vision | American Atheists

Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Now prove that.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Now prove that.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

Now prove that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have often seen someone say.

You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.

There have been many times when I've seen you argue for things like denying rights to LGBTQ people based on what you think God wants, and then someone challenges you to back up your argument.

When you're trying convince someone of something, the burden is on you to support your argument.

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

Generally, the person trying to convince the other one is the one who needs to support their argument properly. This isn't always the theist, but it often is. It's pretty common to see theists arguing different things to non-theists or theists of other religions.

Also, we're talking about religion here. It's usually a person's core belief system... the collection of claims they've built their life around. When we're talking about claims of, say, God's existence or the truth of some religious scripture, there are really only two possibilities:

- the believer has good justification for their beliefs, or
- they don't.

If they have good justification, then - unless there's extenuating circumstances (e.g. a language barrier) - they ought to be able to explain what that justification is.

If they don't have good justification, then their faith is irrational.

When someone starts giving long, passionate arguments about how it's unfair that they should be asked to provide justification for their beliefs, I generally take this as a sign that they don't have justification for their beliefs... which itself is a sign that there's probably no reason for me to take their claims seriously.

So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?

Prove to your satisfaction? Probably not. Prove to a reasonable satisfaction? Yes.

Keep in mind that a religion's claims are more than just things like "God exists." Religions often make testable claims; they also make the meta-claim that their belief system is justified.

For example, take this chain of Muslim claims:

1. God exists: this claim - in and if itself - might not be provable as true or false.

2. Muhammad is God's prophet: this might not be provable as true or false either, but it would be necessarily unreasonable to accept it as true until claim #1 is established as true.

3. God inspired Muhammad to write the Quran: again, necessarily unreasonable to accept as true until claim #1 (and probably #2) is established as true.

4. The Quran is reliable: this is false - not just "not established as true," but false - until it can be established that the Quran really did come from God. IOW, this claim is false until #3 is demonstrated (which depends on #1 being demonstrated).

5. The Quran's claims about the physical world are correct: this claim is testable and, depending on one's interpretation of the Quran, either is definitely false or could be proven false.

Edit: but at the end of the day, I care much more about whether a belief system is justified than whether it's demonstrably false. Lots of made-up things aren't falsifiable, so even if I can't disprove a claim, if it has no more merit than some ridiculous claim I just made up myself, I'm going to disregard it.

And no i have no desire to mock you for not believing, feel free to disbelieve.
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?

So I just have to take your word for it for now, and once I've let you convince me, I'll understand why you're correct?

This sounds like a line that a con artist would use. Maybe you're not deliberately trying to con me, but if I can't tell you apart from a con artist, I'm not going to taje your word for anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those questions don't really address my question:
"I can't think of what might constitute proof of the non-existence. Can you?"

I don't know what existence and non-existence are, since they are beliefs without evidence and I don't believe in them. Give evidence for existence and I will listen.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Those questions don't really address my question.

The wisdom that opens up to someonecwho deeply practice a religioues teaching is the " proof" a religioues person need to understand that God is real.

For a person who do not devote his/her life to religioues practice will not experience God like a religioues person do. So that part can not be proven except for those who actually do the practice (in my understanding)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thee is no 'spiritual teaching'. All that was said to fool people into accepting what they said. In my 78 years (you may remove the years when I was a child, say about 12 years, so 66 years, I have not come across even one incident / occurrence which would convince me of existence of God. And there is a hell of a lot better explanation for creation of the universe and evolution. To me, that proves that there is no God / Allah and that it is silly idea if not charlatanry.

 

[Brian2]

That would have to be the believer. Theres no question where the initial assertion came from.

The initial assertion came from God. "Here I am and I made you and everything" The story is that the first people believed in God because they experienced God. It was after that that people started to doubt the stories passed down to them from their ancestors and added to them and even dismissed the whole God/s thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thee is no 'spiritual teaching'. All that was said to fool people into accepting what they said. In my 78 years (you may remove the years when I was a child, say about 12 years, so 66 years, I have not come across even one incident / occurrence which would convince me of existence of God. And there is a hell of a lot better explanation for creation of the universe and evolution. To me, that proves that there is no God / Allah and that it is silly idea if not charlatanry.

You are subjective. There is no proof or evidence for what reality really is. All positive version including yours and mine are subjective belief systems. There is no objective in the strong sense better explanation of reality, all are subjective.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There have been many times when I've seen you argue for things like denying rights to LGBTQ people based on what you think God wants, and then someone challenges you to back up your argument.

When you're trying convince someone of something, the burden is on you to support your argument.


Generally, the person trying to convince the other one is the one who needs to support their argument properly. This isn't always the theist, but it often is. It's pretty common to see theists arguing different things to non-theists or theists of other religions.

Also, we're talking about religion here. It's usually a person's core belief system... the collection of claims they've built their life around. When we're talking about claims of, say, God's existence or the truth of some religious scripture, there are really only two possibilities:

- the believer has good justification for their beliefs, or
- they don't.

If they have good justification, then - unless there's extenuating circumstances (e.g. a language barrier) - they ought to be able to explain what that justification is.

If they don't have good justification, then their faith is irrational.

When someone starts giving long, passionate arguments about how it's unfair that they should be asked to provide justification for their beliefs, I generally take this as a sign that they don't have justification for their beliefs... which itself is a sign that there's probably no reason for me to take their claims seriously.


Prove to your satisfaction? Probably not. Prove to a reasonable satisfaction? Yes.

Keep in mind that a religion's claims are more than just things like "God exists." Religions often make testable claims; they also make the meta-claim that their belief system is justified.

For example, take this chain of Muslim claims:

1. God exists: this claim - in and if itself - might not be provable as true or false.

2. Muhammad is God's prophet: this might not be provable as true or false either, but it would be necessarily unreasonable to accept it as true until claim #1 is established as true.

3. God inspired Muhammad to write the Quran: again, necessarily unreasonable to accept as true until claim #1 (and probably #2) is established as true.

4. The Quran is reliable: this is false - not just "not established as true," but false - until it can be established that the Quran really did come from God. IOW, this claim is false until #3 is demonstrated (which depends on #1 being demonstrated).

5. The Quran's claims about the physical world are correct: this claim is testable and, depending on one's interpretation of the Quran, either is definitely false or could be proven false.


So I just have to take your word for it for now, and once I've let you convince me, I'll understand why you're correct?

This sounds like a line that a con artist would use. Maybe you're not deliberately trying to con me, but if I can't tell you apart from a con artist, I'm not going to taje your word for anything.

I have no reason to try convince you one way or the other, you are free to believe what you want. I do not say my belief is correct for others, its correct for me.

When it come to LGBTQ i can only say it is not for me, and yes of those religions i have practiced in my life it is said it is immoral to practice LGBTQ if you want to practice religion, i have no reason to say it is wrong to be born Gay or Lesbian or any of the LGBTQ and practice it if one are non believer, but in a religioues setting one can not practice both ( my understanding)

But i do not want to harm anyonwe who are LGBTQ.

 

[Secret Chief]

I agree with much of this. Perhaps we are envisaging different scenarios, though. You seem to be envisaging the issue of the existence of God coming up in the context of someone trying to evangelise you (which I agree can be bloody annoying). I was envisaging a discussion in which the subject comes up in the pub and various people say what position they hold, and perhaps how they justify it to themselves, but without trying to persuade others.

I'd say the same whether online, in the street or in the pub - I don't see how the scenario affects that?
(Actually on the rare occasion I do get collared in the street I quite enjoy the exchange!)

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are subjective. There is no proof or evidence for what reality really is. All positive version including yours and mine are subjective belief systems. There is no objective in the strong sense better explanation of reality, all are subjective.

True. Subjective or objective, why should I believe in something of which I do not see any evidence?

 

[Secret Chief]

I think I was the problem, not the teaching of Falun Gong or even Buddhism.
My ego was to big and i took comments to personal

You might practice non-attachment

 

[Polymath257]

The burden of proof is *always* on the one making the existence claim.

So, if a physicist makes the claim that some new subatomic particle exists, it is the job of that physicist (or those who agree with them) to provide the evidence of that existence. It is NOT the job of those who disagree to prove non-existence.

if an astronomer claims the existence of a new type of star, it is the job of that astronomer (or those who agree) to provide the evidence for that existence. It is NOT the job of those who are skeptical or disagree to provide negative evidence.

The same is true for any other existence claim: it is the job of those who make the claim that something exists to provide evidence of that existence. It is NOT the job of those who are skeptical to provide counter evidence (although that is allowed and questioning the provided evidence is also allowed).

Part of the reason for this is that a general non-existence claim is usually impossible to give, but a lack of evidence when evidence is expected is enough to support skepticism about that existence. Again, this is true in *any* area of study.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

[QUOTE="Amanaki, post: 6824913, member: 65429"...if you want to practice religion, ...[/QUOTE]

You use a narrow version of religion as far as I can tell.

 

[Polymath257]

The initial assertion came from God. "Here I am and I made you and everything" The story is that the first people believed in God because they experienced God. It was after that that people started to doubt the stories passed down to them from their ancestors and added to them and even dismissed the whole God/s thing.

Yes, that's the story. Is there any evidence that the story us actually true?