Burden proof is coupled with burden to listen.

[brewer]

bold mine

Prove it. 

There is a difference between questing, understanding yet dismissing as lack of proof, and bickering.

I have done so, I have in detail proved this, among them is the Value thread with the moon analogy.

And I don't accept what you have stated as proof to me (understanding yet dismiss). It's only proof to you.

You can believe anything that you want. I am not compelled to agree, but will understand.

[SaStrike]

I have done so, I have in detail proved this, among them is the Value thread with the moon analogy.

And I don't accept what you have stated as proof to me (understanding yet dismiss). It's only proof to you.

You're only listening and being honest if you ACCEPT the batshit crazy theories. If you don't accept, see Opening Post and try to keep a more open mind and be more honest when debating.

[Mystic]

I have done so, I have in detail proved this, among them is the Value thread with the moon analogy.

And I don't accept what you have stated as proof to me (understanding yet dismiss). It's only proof to you.

If you wish to have a dialogue about any of the proofs I have presented over the years, I am willing to do so.


This thread is a quite a simple proposition:  

If someone is burdened to prove something to a person, the latter person is required to listen attentively and sincerely.

But we all saw you guys support bias as opposed to sincerity to truth when Jo proposed that as justification. Since you believe we evolved from animals and that is some of natural mechanism, you can justify it by your circular reasoning that will go on and on with no stop in conjecture.

Or you can at least admit, at least admit two things:

1. Sincere attentive listening is required.
2. That has not been done.

If you admit these two,  I am telling you, if there is proofs for God, they will become very easy to understand from my perspective. 

The problem with stubborn denial is that it's references itself and sees itself as intelligent doubt, deceiving itself, and is a severe dark ignorance.

You choose the way forward.  You guys want to attack me, fine.. but without sincere dialogue, truth won't be arrived at. It's quite simple proposition I am claiming here in this thread.

[brewer]

And I don't accept what you have stated as proof to me (understanding yet dismiss). It's only proof to you.

You're only listening and being honest if you ACCEPT the batshit crazy theories. If you don't accept, see Opening Post and try to keep a more open mind and be more honest when debating.

And I don't accept what you posted. I can listen honestly yet not accept horse shit, like yours.

---

And I don't accept what you have stated as proof to me (understanding yet dismiss). It's only proof to you.

If you wish to have a dialogue about any of the proofs I have presented over the years, I am willing to do so.


This thread is a quite a simple proposition:  

If someone is burdened to prove something to a person, the latter person is required to listen attentively and sincerely.

But we all saw you guys support bias as opposed to sincerity to truth when Jo proposed that as justification. Since you believe we evolved from animals and that is some of natural mechanism, you can justify it by your circular reasoning that will go on and on with no stop in conjecture.

Or you can at least admit, at least admit two things:

1. Sincere attentive listening is required.
2. That has not been done.

If you admit these two,  I am telling you, if there is proofs for God, they will become very easy to understand from my perspective. 

The problem with stubborn denial is that it's references itself and sees itself as intelligent doubt, deceiving itself, and is a severe dark ignorance.

You choose the way forward.  You guys want to attack me, fine.. but without sincere dialogue, truth won't be arrived at. It's quite simple proposition I am claiming here in this thread.

I have listened (read) and disagree. This is only proof(s) to you. I accept that you consider them proof(s), I do not.

[Mystic]

I have listened (read) and disagree. This is only proof(s) to you. I accept that you consider them proof(s), I do not.

I'm not here to discuss the proofs of God (in this thread, this would be off-topic).

I will quote:

If someone is burdened to prove something to a person, the latter person is required to listen attentively and sincerely.

It's a simple proposition.

Why side track the issue. At least agree on this.

[brewer]

I have listened (read) and disagree. This is only proof(s) to you. I accept that you consider them proof(s), I do not.

I'm not here to discuss the proofs of God (in this thread, this would be off-topic).

I will quote:

If someone is burdened to prove something to a person, the latter person is required to listen attentively and sincerely.

It's a simple proposition.

Why side track the issue. At least agree on this.

I agreed with you up to a point. But then you went side track with the "God is light" claim. Up to that time you were fine. So, I listened, then challenged requesting proof. I could have challenged other things you claim but thought I'd start with the most obvious unfounded claim.

[Foxaèr]

Light is light, no god needed.

[Mystic]

I'm not here to discuss the proofs of God (in this thread, this would be off-topic).

I will quote:

If someone is burdened to prove something to a person, the latter person is required to listen attentively and sincerely.

It's a simple proposition.

Why side track the issue. At least agree on this.

I agreed with you up to a point. But then you went side track with the "God is light" claim. Up to that time you were fine. So, I listened, then challenged requesting proof. I could have challenged other things you claim but thought I'd start with the most obvious unfounded claim.

That was a side comment.   It's just informing of my perspective. If you want to discuss proofs regarding that, I suggest reading "Ultimate Value and the Signs of it in ourselves" thread. It's very detailed, and I've read a quite a few times, and I don't see flaws in the reasoning though I try my best to pick at it. And you should read the conversation that ensued as well so nothing get's repeated.

If you want to discuss proofs I am willing to do so. Since you agreed that sincere dialogue is required, I think, you and I should have a one on one debate about the witness/sight/perceiver argument with respect to the value of ourselves.

I will be delighted to clarify it and argue for each of it's premises. I think it's a very strong proof of God and that no human can function without believing in it (which is different then actually proving to be true), and I think showing no human functions without it although different then proving God and the argument to be all true premises leading to a sound conclusion,  shows how much you depend on it. You never didn't know a single one of it's premises, and you never lived your life without acting according to it, and you even knew the conclusion and relied on it. 

It's a matter of perceiving what you are perceiving. 

Ball is in your court, good sir!

[possibletarian]

I think most people have listened intently at some point or other, many on this forum are ex-believers.

Often when things are dismissed out of hand it's because it is not a new argument being presented, it is one that has been listened to many times before, and just because it's new or truth to you does not mean hasn't been found lacking many many times before. Also just because it's presented with sincerity does not make it new or any more believable than the many times it has been said sincerely before.

No, no one has a duty to listen to the same failed argument over and over again, no matter how sincere the presentation.

[Mystic]

^If humans weren't so prone to error in reasoning, you might have a point. But re-assessment is needed. I still remember thinking I found 28 unsolvable issues in Quran that proved Islam decisively false. It was all flaws in my thinking.

And we have to assess ourselves, because if good and evil are real,  evil will seek to cloak itself and present itself as good. It will seek to deceive and confuse.

We can deceive ourselves, and so must pull out the sword of honesty in our selves.

Without honesty, we can never know if we are justified in doubting something or even believing something, knowledge and ignorance become distinguishable in multilayered fashion and even belief in some morals become ad populism reasoning which is flawed.

We have to stop at one point and assess our attitude and track we are on.