My final point

[OldTrees]

I agree that finding the truth is important. If someone stated that they believe the earth is flat I would react by trying to persuade them that it is not flat. However by doing so I have accepted the burden of proof because I am claiming that they "should not believe the earth is flat in order to be correct". This is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. In the case of the earth being flat or not flat such extraordinary evidence has been found and can be presented.

Quoted for emphasis.

Quoted for misusing and not fully understanding terms.

Saying that earth is not flat is not an extraordinary claim because we have tons of scientific evidence to prove that earth is round. Saying that earth is flat would be against all that scientific evidence, therefore an extraordinary claim. It's like this:

I saw a squirrel in the woods <- not extraordinary claim
I saw an alien in the woods <- extraordinary claim

What you were trying to do there was to put the burden of proof on the wrong side. It's a common fallacy that is explained here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

You misrepresented what I said

I believe X <- not extraordinary for it is akin to "I like noodles"
You should believe X <- extraordinary for you are trying to persuade (In a debate you are not responsible for persuading your opponent but you are responsible for persuading the audience. If the audience has a default position you will need to provide evidence to overcome that bias)
X is true <- whether or not it is extraordinary depends on X

Let me break it down for you
I believe in God <- Their belief is evident from them stating they believe. No additional evidence is needed to prove the statement is true.
I don't believe in God <- Their belief is evident from them stating they believe. No additional evidence is needed to prove the statement is true.
You should believe in God <- Extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence
You should not believe in God <- Extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence
God exists <- Extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence

When BluePriest makes the claim "I believe in God" it is not the same claim as "God exists" or "You should believe in God".

[maverixk]

Difference between atheists and religious people is that atheist will get to the truth eventually, even if that truth is against all logic. If God spoke to me, I would run to the nearest hospital. If after months of testing and treatment, doctors couldn't explain it but I would still hear the voice, I would probably convert to that religion because it would be the only explanation left.

Religious people on the other hand might never get to the truth because they tend to skip the most logical reasons, go straight to "God did it", and keep that theory for the rest of their lives no matter how much contradictory evidence is shown.

This is a pretty big generalization. I would consider myself to be religious, however I also seek out truth in all my beliefs. You make it sound like in order to believe in God, I must accept all of my beliefs at face value. Far from it.

My point is that religious people are more inclined to skip logical explanations and accept supernatural ones. If they didn't behave like that, they wouldn't be religious in the first place.

There is clear correlation between how important religion is to a person and how much supernatural experiences they have had. Ask any highly religious person, and it's pretty much guaranteed that they have personally seen or spoken to God in some shape or form, usually multiple times. But if you talk to people are religious but don't really pray or go to church, it's much less likely that they have experienced something supernatural.

Of course we could make the argument that the reason why highly religious people experience those things is because they are highly religious and God likes them more, therefore talks to them more, but a logical explanation would be that they are so caught up with religion that they start imagining things.

Just a quick interjection:Religious people(not trying to generalize but i can't really help it here):You have to realize that at least this part of what SG is saying is true. Religious people don't always jump to conclusions like "God did it", but they are definitely more likely to do so because non-religious people don't usually consider that God did it even if they don't know why it happened, etc. It's even worse if you've been raised to be religious, because then, like it or not, a religious explanation for something will most likely be the first thing you consider. SG is right on this point, be insulted or not, yes it's a generalization, yes it's not ALWAYS true, and yes it's a pretty good generalization in that it's true at east in principle.
Btw SG not saying that everything else you said is wrong, just thought I'd point that section out.

[BluePriest]

Just a quick interjection:Religious people(not trying to generalize but i can't really help it here):You have to realize that at least this part of what SG is saying is true. Religious people don't always jump to conclusions like "God did it", but they are definitely more likely to do so because non-religious people don't usually consider that God did it even if they don't know why it happened, etc. It's even worse if you've been raised to be religious, because then, like it or not, a religious explanation for something will most likely be the first thing you consider. SG is right on this point, be insulted or not, yes it's a generalization, yes it's not ALWAYS true, and yes it's a pretty good generalization in that it's true at east in principle.
Btw SG not saying that everything else you said is wrong, just thought I'd point that section out.

In an episode of House, (season 2, ep 19 House vs God) House said that the Catholic Church recieves thousands of testimonies of miracles God performed in peoples lives a year and that only a handful of them are accepted as miracles. Thats just an episode of House though, and I have had no luck finding out if it is true or not.

The broad generalizations dont really apply to me though. I am likely to thank God for allowing certain things to happen, however, I dont neccessarily say its because of God (if that makes sense) I mean, the generalizations could very well be true, im not saying one way or the other, im just saying that you cant use them on me because they arent usually true when it comes to me. Spotlight fallacy.

[maverixk]

Just a quick interjection:Religious people(not trying to generalize but i can't really help it here):You have to realize that at least this part of what SG is saying is true. Religious people don't always jump to conclusions like "God did it", but they are definitely more likely to do so because non-religious people don't usually consider that God did it even if they don't know why it happened, etc. It's even worse if you've been raised to be religious, because then, like it or not, a religious explanation for something will most likely be the first thing you consider. SG is right on this point, be insulted or not, yes it's a generalization, yes it's not ALWAYS true, and yes it's a pretty good generalization in that it's true at east in principle.
Btw SG not saying that everything else you said is wrong, just thought I'd point that section out.

In an episode of House, (season 2, ep 19 House vs God) House said that the Catholic Church recieves thousands of testimonies of miracles God performed in peoples lives a year and that only a handful of them are accepted as miracles. Thats just an episode of House though, and I have had no luck finding out if it is true or not.

The broad generalizations dont really apply to me though. I am likely to thank God for allowing certain things to happen, however, I dont neccessarily say its because of God (if that makes sense) I mean, the generalizations could very well be true, im not saying one way or the other, im just saying that you cant use them on me because they arent usually true when it comes to me. Spotlight fallacy.

I wasn't trying to say that it applied to you, just that SG had made a good point and that people shouldn't get offended. SG actually made a really good point, I was going to start another thread dedicated to that point, but decided to simply point it out here instead. And yes, I completely understand what you're saying by that.

[Scaredgirl]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Funny thats the site I was reading about the burden of proof. I dont see where it contradicts what I said anywhere, instead, I only see where it verifies what is being said.

I was referring to OldTrees putting the burden of proof on the person who tries to convince the other guy that the world is not flat.

I agree that finding the truth is important. If someone stated that they believe the earth is flat I would react by trying to persuade them that it is not flat. However by doing so I have accepted the burden of proof because I am claiming that they "should not believe the earth is flat in order to be correct". This is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. In the case of the earth being flat or not flat such extraordinary evidence has been found and can be presented.

Quoted for emphasis.

Quoted for misusing and not fully understanding terms.

Saying that earth is not flat is not an extraordinary claim because we have tons of scientific evidence to prove that earth is round. Saying that earth is flat would be against all that scientific evidence, therefore an extraordinary claim. It's like this:

I saw a squirrel in the woods <- not extraordinary claim
I saw an alien in the woods <- extraordinary claim

What you were trying to do there was to put the burden of proof on the wrong side. It's a common fallacy that is explained here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

You misrepresented what I said

I believe X <- not extraordinary for it is akin to "I like noodles"
You should believe X <- extraordinary for you are trying to persuade (In a debate you are not responsible for persuading your opponent but you are responsible for persuading the audience. If the audience has a default position you will need to provide evidence to overcome that bias)
X is true <- whether or not it is extraordinary depends on X

Let me break it down for you
I believe in God <- Their belief is evident from them stating they believe. No additional evidence is needed to prove the statement is true.
I don't believe in God <- Their belief is evident from them stating they believe. No additional evidence is needed to prove the statement is true.
You should believe in God <- Extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence
You should not believe in God <- Extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence
God exists <- Extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence

When BluePriest makes the claim "I believe in God" it is not the same claim as "God exists" or "You should believe in God".

I'm sorry but those two are the same. By believing in something, you acknowledge its existence. That's what the word "believe" means in that context. Using your logic, I could say this:

I believe in God but I don't think God exists.

That doesn't make any sense. If I believe in something, I have to also believe that it exists, and by saying I believe in something, I'm also saying that it exists.

In an episode of House, (season 2, ep 19 House vs God) House said that the Catholic Church recieves thousands of testimonies of miracles God performed in peoples lives a year and that only a handful of them are accepted as miracles. Thats just an episode of House though, and I have had no luck finding out if it is true or not.

I would like to clarify that these "accepted miracles" are accepted by the religious community, not the scientific community. To this day, not a single case of supernatural incident has been scientifically proven. Related to this, it's important to understand that the fact that we don't know why something happens, does not automatically mean that it's Gods miracle, it only means that we don't yet know why it happens.


The original post includes the following claims:

1. God exists
2. BluePriest has had personal experiences with God
3. BluePriest has proof that God exists

All of those are extraordinary claims, none of which have any proof of course.

I feel that this topic is your typical "I have my beliefs and I will hold those beliefs regardless of any contradictory scientific evidence". While I think that this kind of logic is a huge step back for humankind, there's is nothing in it that would make it plain wrong because there is always the possibility of that the person with the belief is correct and everyone else is wrong. Incredibly unlikely, but still a possibility.

But where this topic fails big time is that it incorrectly uses terms like burden of proof by shifting it to the person who did not make the extraordinary claim. That's not how it works. No matter how you try to reason it, you just cannot do that.

I don't have to disprove any of those 3 extraordinary claims because I didn't make them. I also don't have to prove that "You shouldn't believe in God" because that's not how it works. Atheists don't try to find arguments why you shouldn't believe in God. Atheists try to make you only believe in things that have scientific evidence to back them up. God has not, therefore he or she most likely does not exist.

I see what BluePriest tries to do here, but the facts are that burden of proof just doesn't work like that. Period.

[maverixk]

The original post includes the following claims:

1. God exists
2. BluePriest has had personal experiences with God
3. BluePriest has proof that God exists

All of those are extraordinary claims, none of which have any proof of course.

I feel that this topic is your typical "I have my beliefs and I will hold those beliefs regardless of any contradictory scientific evidence". While I think that this kind of logic is a huge step back for humankind, there's is nothing in it that would make it plain wrong because there is always the possibility of that the person with the belief is correct and everyone else is wrong. Incredibly unlikely, but still a possibility.

But where this topic fails big time is that it incorrectly uses terms like burden of proof by shifting it to the person who did not make the extraordinary claim. That's not how it works. No matter how you try to reason it, you just cannot do that.

I don't have to disprove any of those 3 extraordinary claims because I didn't make them. I also don't have to prove that "You shouldn't believe in God" because that's not how it works. Atheists don't try to find arguments why you shouldn't believe in God. Atheists try to make you only believe in things that have scientific evidence to back them up. God has not, therefore he or she most likely does not exist.

I see what BluePriest tries to do here, but the facts are that burden of proof just doesn't work like that. Period.

BluePriest may feel free to correct me on this, but I think that this thread is a place where BluePriest may be reversing the burden of proof so that he could see any arguments against God. Not so that he could be stubborn, but so that he might have a better chance of understanding the opinions of people like yourself. I think he made this topic because everywhere else the burden was on him and people who thought the same way, so he created this so that he might have a different experience in this and maybe gain some insight.
No, you don't HAVE to, nor did you have to reply to this thread, but you did. BluePriest was asking for someone to do that, and was trying to find a place where you had to explain yourself instead of the other way around, and yet, here you are, putting the burden of proof on him once again.
I would beg to differ sometimes...
Dangit, I forgot part of my response...ah well, hopefully when you undoubtedly find some fault in my logic I'll remember it.
Feel free to correct me BluePriest

[OldTrees]

@ScaredGirl

The two claims below are different. I will now explain their difference more in depth.

Claim 1: I believe X exists.
This claim is not commenting on the nature of X. (IE it can be true independent of the existence or nonexistence of X)

I believe X exists	X exists	X does not exist
I believe X exists	T	T
I do not believe X exists	F	F

Claim 2: X exists.
This claim does comment on the nature of X. Hence its truth value is dependent on the existence or nonexistence of X. However it is independent of the beliefs of the poster.

X exists	X exists	X does not exist
I believe X exists	T	F
I do not believe X exists	T	F

Claim 1 comments about the poster, Claim 2 comments about the nature of X.
Consider: I do not believe in god vs God does not exist. Do you see the difference often missed by people of faith about Atheism?

To change someones mind on Claim 1 it takes more than simply disproving the related Claim 2. Usually it takes proving an alternative Claim 2 to that person's satisfaction. Hence the third claim "You (should not/should) believe in X" requires evidence that the audience (the person making the Claim 1) will accept as valid.

[Essence]

OldTrees squeezed that in on me while I was writing, but I think this is an equally good if less logical and more rhetorical example.

When BluePriest makes the claim "I believe in God" it is not the same claim as "God exists" or "You should believe in God".

I'm sorry but those two are the same. By believing in something, you acknowledge its existence. That's what the word "believe" means in that context. Using your logic, I could say this:

I believe in God but I don't think God exists.

That doesn't make any sense. If I believe in something, I have to also believe that it exists, and by saying I believe in something, I'm also saying that it exists.

Actually, unless you're pretty solidly rooted in a scientific mindset, that's entirely untrue.  Also varies depending on your definition of existence.  To a degree, any concept I can dream up exists -- if it didn't, I couldn't dream it up.

Let me provide a realistic example that a scientists can understand: the Higgs Boson.  The Higgs Boson (formerly the Higgs Field) is a particle (formerly a force) that has never been seen and cannot be proven to exist in the traditional sense.  It's purpose is to endow matter with mass.   It is perfectly reasonable for a scientists to believe in the Higgs Boson (and thus use the theory's mathematical models to predict how mass might change under extreme circumstances) while also believing that the Higgs Boson doesn't actually exist.  He's simply willing to use the math the theory provides because it works well, even if the Truth With A Capital T is that the Boson actually is purely an abstract concept with no grounding in physical reality.

Thus "I believe in the Higgs Boson" and "The Higgs Boson exists" are entirely separate claims.   

I believe in God in exactly the same way that the above scientist believes in the Higgs Boson -- which is to say, I'm happy to utilize the functionality of those real-world applications that believing in God has, but I don't believe that He actually exists, at least not in a form even slightly near what any given church has defined Him as.

[BluePriest]

The original post includes the following claims:

1. God exists
2. BluePriest has had personal experiences with God
3. BluePriest has proof that God exists

All of those are extraordinary claims, none of which have any proof of course.

I feel that this topic is your typical "I have my beliefs and I will hold those beliefs regardless of any contradictory scientific evidence". While I think that this kind of logic is a huge step back for humankind, there's is nothing in it that would make it plain wrong because there is always the possibility of that the person with the belief is correct and everyone else is wrong. Incredibly unlikely, but still a possibility.

But where this topic fails big time is that it incorrectly uses terms like burden of proof by shifting it to the person who did not make the extraordinary claim. That's not how it works. No matter how you try to reason it, you just cannot do that.

I don't have to disprove any of those 3 extraordinary claims because I didn't make them. I also don't have to prove that "You shouldn't believe in God" because that's not how it works. Atheists don't try to find arguments why you shouldn't believe in God. Atheists try to make you only believe in things that have scientific evidence to back them up. God has not, therefore he or she most likely does not exist.

I see what BluePriest tries to do here, but the facts are that burden of proof just doesn't work like that. Period.

BluePriest may feel free to correct me on this, but I think that this thread is a place where BluePriest may be reversing the burden of proof so that he could see any arguments against God. Not so that he could be stubborn, but so that he might have a better chance of understanding the opinions of people like yourself. I think he made this topic because everywhere else the burden was on him and people who thought the same way, so he created this so that he might have a different experience in this and maybe gain some insight.
No, you don't HAVE to, nor did you have to reply to this thread, but you did. BluePriest was asking for someone to do that, and was trying to find a place where you had to explain yourself instead of the other way around, and yet, here you are, putting the burden of proof on him once again.
I would beg to differ sometimes...
Dangit, I forgot part of my response...ah well, hopefully when you undoubtedly find some fault in my logic I'll remember it.
Feel free to correct me BluePriest

You are spot on Maverixx. Lots of people look at religious people and just automagically assume they have the burden of proof. My point in this thread was that they dont always have the burden of proof. The problem I ran into (which I was aware would probably come up when I started this thread) was that although I had to state my belief so that people understood where my belief was, I didnt want it to be about me trying to prove why you should believe in God. I wanted it to be about other people saying why I should believe in no God.

To further illustrate. Say there is a muslim and a hindu. The muslim is praying, when the hindu comes up and says that allah isnt real. Who has the burden of proof? The hindu because it is making the statement that Allah doesnt exist. Replace hindu with atheist. Who has the burden of proof? The atheist.

edit
PS. My post about house and the miracles wasnt saying that the scientific community accepts them. It is saying that although many everyday religious people will take just about anything to be an act of God, there is also a good amount of people who use acts of God as an excuse sparingly.

[maverixk]

You are spot on Maverixk.

Yay! I was right! Even if my name was spelled wrong just messin'.

[Belthus]

I wanted it to be about other people saying why I should believe in no God.

Proselytizing is a big part of Christianity. It's not necessarily a big part of other points of view. Of course, people like to argue on forums. But in the end, I don't care that much what people believe, so long as they act sensibly and decently. So maybe you are incorrectly envisioning your debating opponents as having a mirror image of your own proselytizing mission to save people from Hell.

[maverixk]

I wanted it to be about other people saying why I should believe in no God.

Proselytizing is a big part of Christianity. It's not necessarily a big part of other points of view. Of course, people like to argue on forums. But in the end, I don't care that much what people believe, so long as they act sensibly and decently. So maybe you are incorrectly envisioning your debating opponents as having a mirror image of your own proselytizing mission to save people from Hell.

Ok, someone's hatin' here. Yes, spreading The Word is a big part of Christianity, but that doesn't mean that every time a Christian says the word God he's trying to convert you. And, at least in my personal experience on this forum, it does seem very much some times that non-Christians(specifically atheists) are, in a sense, proselytizing their disbelief in the Christian God. It may not feel like proselytizing to the atheist when he/she says whatever it is they said, but simple intention doesn't always change the result of the action.
When someone gets deep into a debate/argument it doesn't matter what they believe, they are proselytizing their belief in an attempt to win the argument/debate.
Btw, I can confidently say that most of the time when a Christian says "God" they are not trying to save your eternal soul. Like here, for example.