The Burden of Proof

[Napoléon]

Well then fr0d0, prove to me that there isn't an invisible, ten foot, naked woman with breasts the size of my head floating 1000 yards in the air above you. If you can't, then that must be proof it exists.

Or at least enough to believe in it right?

The only problem is those titties are invisible.

[The Grand Nudger]

well, they're invisible to you because you have closed your heart to Them. It's a choice you must make.

[orogenicman]

While we're keeping religion out of all of those places, perhaps we should keep the pitfalls of religious thought, infallibility for example, out of our idea of the constitution. It's a minor nitpick. Welcome aboard btw.

I see your point. I have such a great respect and admiration of the constitution though. I do see it as infallible and it upsets me to no end to see religious fundamentalists and zealots try and screw it up with their superstition. Thank you for the welcome.

I highly respect the Constitution, but I don't believe it to be infallible. In fact, it's falings are why we have such disagreements on so many important matters today. I don't believe the founding fathers, or anyone who came after, intended for it to be infallible. I believe that they intended for it to be a living document subject to revision and change, but I could be wrong.

For instance, I think we could strengthen the 1st amendment to include wording that makes it clear that the separation of religion and government is not negotiable, and spell out more clearly what that means, and what freedom of expression means.

I also believe we could weaken the 2nd amendment to indicate that the right to bear arms is not absolute, and doesn't include the right for everyone to possess an assault weapon and a bazooka, particularly the mentally disturbed and criminals with violent records. But that's just me.

I also believe that the constitution can be clarified as to what states rights mean. For instance, most states have a religious test for office encoded in their own constitutions. There needs to be an amendment making it clear that this cannot be allowed.

I could go on, but I think I've gotten my point across.

[The Grand Nudger]

Mentally disturbed criminals with violent records are already prohibited from purchasing guns.

[Welsh cake]

No human idea is infallible.

Must...resist urge...to invoke...liar paradox. X[

Equally Anti religious claims shoulder the same burden. IOW : STFU

No they don't. Read up on the philosophical burden of proof to appreciate that not all claims are equal; positive and negative ontological claims like for example Loch Ness Monster does exist or Loch Ness Monster does not exist, are asymmetrical. Whoever makes the positive claim has the greater burden of proof because he or she is seeking to add to our 'collective pool' of knowledge, while the refuter, who is merely arguing against the proposition, does not.

[Atheistfreethinker]

No human idea is infallible.

Must...resist urge...to invoke...liar paradox. X[

Equally Anti religious claims shoulder the same burden. IOW : STFU

No they don't. Read up on the philosophical burden of proof to appreciate that not all claims are equal; positive and negative ontological claims like for example Loch Ness Monster does exist or Loch Ness Monster does not exist, are asymmetrical. Whoever makes the positive claim has the greater burden of proof because he or she is seeking to add to our 'collective pool' of knowledge, while the refuter, who is merely arguing against the proposition, does not.

I'm pretty sure I demonstrated the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim in my original post. If he chooses to disagree, that is his option. Some people are so credulous that they hold on to religious dogma as if it were a rope in a tug of war. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. However if you just get yourself called reverend you can lead them to South America and if you add kool-aid and arsenic they will drink it by the gallon.

[orogenicman]

Mentally disturbed criminals with violent records are already prohibited from purchasing guns.

And yet they manage to get them. Admittedly, that might have been a bad example.

[Violet]

Equally Anti religious claims shoulder the same burden. IOW : STFU

But note, only if they are claims

It's good to know that the brainless are exempt the burden of proof

---

Well then fr0d0, prove to me that there isn't an invisible, ten foot, naked woman with breasts the size of my head floating 1000 yards in the air above you. If you can't, then that must be proof it exists.

Faithnormore is colorblind, and probably delusional. I'm going to say that it exists... but only to him To the rest of us: we're just going to set him in the asylum for his own safety. He'll probably be a rapist when that illusion fades. Too much boobs can be bad for you.

---

well, they're invisible to you because you have closed your heart to Them. It's a choice you must make.

It's a "choice" that's made for you, rather. Silly atheist culture

---

I also believe we could weaken the 2nd amendment to indicate that the right to bear arms is not absolute, and doesn't include the right for everyone to possess an assault weapon and a bazooka, particularly the mentally disturbed and criminals with violent records. But that's just me.

Good luck enforcing that now. Such people often end up disarmed when imprisoned. But good luck getting them there.

[Napoléon]

well, they're invisible to you because you have closed your heart to Them. It's a choice you must make.

Oh shit! How could I have missed such an obvious point!

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, as our oral tradition clearly stated. "There will be those to whom the truth is hidden, for they have closed their hearts to the beuaty of the kingdom, and glory, for ever and ever, preferably in the size of D, amen."