(October 15, 2009 at 10:04 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: It does change what's being said to a degree (although in essence if you believe in something you think its true), but I'm not arguing that point.. We are talking out burden of proof, and it doesn't shift the burden of proof if you use the word "believe".
Then maybe we do agree on this. I was not trying to imply that when someone says "I believe in God" that somehow this shifts the burden of proof to another to prove that God does not exist. I agree that it does not. I guess what I was really trying to say/suggest is that if two disagreeing individuals want to get into a discussion of the reasons why each think the way they do, maybe using the phrases "I think" or "I believe" is better than "God is" or "gods are not" as the latter seems to invoke the whole burden of proof thing. As I said (or hopefully at least implied) before, I am not here to formally argue things to shift any burden of proof as I think it is pointless as the following type conversations would result:
Christian: "God exists."
Atheist: "Prove it then."
Christian: Provides arguments X, Y, and Z.
Atheist: "You have not met your burden of proof so I reject your claim."
and/or
Atheist: "Gods do not exist."
Christian: "Prove it then."
Atheist: Provides arguments A, B, and C.
Christian: "You have not met your burden of proof so I reject your claim."
This type of thing is apparent in many of the threads I have read. I, personally, am more interested in hearing an atheist's justification/reasons for thinking the way they do and providing my justification/reasons (if asked), rather than formal arguments back and forth trying to shift the burden of proof. Maybe this did not really come across with my initial post and maybe/probably I only came to this conclusion subsequent to my initial post, but that is really where I am at this point.
