Believers don't believe

[Ace Otana]

You don't "Believe" in God. Atheists demand evidence before they can believe in something, right? So, where did you receive the evidence that God does not exist? Or are you a non-believer by a leap of faith?

It's your claim, it's down to you to bring the evidence of his existance.

The burden of proof is on you

Now, let's get somethings right.

You claim, you prove it. We cannot give evidence against something if it does not exist.

Now if I told you I have a dragon in my bedroom, would you believe it? Why won't you believe it? Where's the evidence to say I don't have one?

Now I say there is a flying spagehtti monster which is invisible, why won't you believe it? What evidence do you have to say it's not real?

See what I'm doing? I'm using your tactic, you cannot bring evidence against my claims. But it is down to me to give evidence just as it is down to you to provide evidence of your claims.

You say there is a god, where's the evidence to say there is one?
The burden of proof is on you!

[leo-rcc]

To illustrate the burden of proof issue, here's an article by Carl Sagan illustrating the topic.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

[Ace Otana]

Yes exactly.

The one main thing I find amusing is that people like theists can see and hear gods and know very little about the scientific method and those who are skeptic see nothing but delusion.

How can they see and hear god and we cannot? Delusion? Madness? Mentally unwell? I'd choose either of those answers.

Another thing I find amusing is that when they know they cannot bring evidence they reverse the burden of proof and try to get us to disprove their claims. I see that tactic as a message telling me, they cannot prove god's existence and they are evading my request for evidence. So when they do reverse it, I simply put it the way it should be, the burden of proof is on them.

Psalm, used this tactic and that pretty much confirmed my asumtion that he could not provide the evidence of the existence of god. In other words, he was evading my request for evidence of his claims.

I remember being told for the first time about this god thing. I asked where is he and once they said, "he's invisible" I just laughed. I expect children to come up with that kind of responce not fully grown adults! So I dismissed religion right there. Have ever since.

So to make this clear to all theists. It is expected of you to provide evidence since it's your claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Now Pslam got something very wrong when he was evading the request for evidence. He said "what evidence is there for there being no god?" All I got to say is "where's the evidence to say he's there?"

He pretty much told me to believe in santa claws and the easter bunny. Because there is no evidence against them either. Clearly he is evading.

[Purple Rabbit]

Jesus commands me to love even anti-religious people such as yourself.

Commanded love is a contradiction, not genuine love. It's a bit like payed love, isn't it?

[FutureAndAHope]

People are generally drawn towards comfort. I think that is the reason so many people who class them selves as Christian may not perform all the duties to the n-th degree. Comfort is something I believe that all people are entitled to. However sacrifice is a much nobler cause, one who gives to the poor is more noble than the one that buys for ones own comfort. In this world we all have choices to make and not one of us is entirely noble. We all have flaws, none of us give all our money to the poor and buy nothing for our selves, none of us witness to every person we see. As a christian I do give to the poor as is encouraged, and I do witness from time to time. Christianity does not demand perfection but as each one has decided to give in his heart is acceptable to God. What we give willingly is accepted. God wants happy followers not robots to duty. He has faith in us that we will make the right choices given the opportunity. Because he dwells in us his spirit can move us to compassion. This is the one benefit the Christian has over a non believer God's spirit joined to us helps us desire what he desires, which is to be a giving and caring person. Some times it is better to shut your mouth than to witness to some one who clearly does not want it. All things need to be balanced, healthy not obsessive. Obsession leads to burn out, and judging of others who do not meet the high standard we have set for our selves.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am simply saying that atheists deny God.

EDIT: I meant NOT saying that atheists deny God. I must have been distracted and got mixed up, absent minded etc.


And on this subject, I'd say that it would do a lot of good is Psalm and others like him would understand the burden of proof.
Because an awful lot of arguments related to God basically come down to the burden of proof. About whether he exists or not rather than morality etc, its almost always about the burden of proof. I can't right now imagine when it wouldn't be. I mean ideally, shouldn't be.

[Purple Rabbit]

This is the one benefit the Christian has over a non believer God's spirit joined to us helps us desire what he desires, which is to be a giving and caring person.

Listen to yourself, you want to be helped to desire what another entity desires!?! Where is selfdignity, authenticity and genuineness in acting out the will of someone else? And which is more unselfish, the help straight from the heart of the atheist or the help of a theist who is merely obeying what is commanded?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well put PR
Or shouldn't I call you PR?

[Purple Rabbit]

Well put PR
Or shouldn't I call you PR?

Thanx. No problem with PR.

[Psalm 23]

It's your claim, it's down to you to bring the evidence of his existance.

The creation of life form is evidence of God. Non-life didn't kickstart itself into existence without something there to control it.

Now if I told you I have a dragon in my bedroom, would you believe it? Why won't you believe it? Where's the evidence to say I don't have one?

What kind of dragon? Kamoda-Dragon? I believe you, why wouldn't I believe it?

Now I say there is a flying spagehtti monster which is invisible, why won't you believe it? What evidence do you have to say it's not real?

The flying spaghetti monster was invented by a group of atheists at an "Atheist vs. Theist" debate session. So, therefore, we know it's "invented".

See what I'm doing? I'm using your tactic, you cannot bring evidence against my claims. But it is down to me to give evidence just as it is down to you to provide evidence of your claims.

well, the day you can show me ancient texts of a flying spaghetti monster creating mankind from dust, then we can further this debate, until then, you don't have a ton historical documents on your side like I do.

You say there is a god, where's the evidence to say there is one?
The burden of proof is on you!

Mankind has spoken to God, they have witnessed visions of his existence. Why wouldn't I believe? These men claimed to witness God. They have proof he existed, so they wrote it down for all generations to see.