Nobody should 'have to prove' diddly squat to anybody else about what they believe, unless they are trying to force someone else to agree with them.
Atheism a creed that needs the same religious protections of Christianity and Islam:
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Nobody should 'have to prove' diddly squat to anybody else about what they believe, unless they are trying to force someone else to agree with them.
I could say the same to you, if you are a believer, and you don't have to prove anything to me either,
BUT, when you believe in something that isn't proven, it is quite different. Where is it.
If you think this has to be proven, then prove it, if that is important to you, seems it is.
And, in your way of thinking, then you are an agnostic.
See how silly all of this is, 'just believe what you want, and don't interfere
with others telling them 'what' they are, they are what they want to be.
in a court of law. when somebody is arrested for a crime. you have prosecutors who present evidence to a judge and jury. it's up to the prosecutors to prove the person commit the crime using evidence gathered by the police
Just think of the shxt storm within the Atheists over what will and will not be written in their book. I sense a Schism acoming.
And multiple books explaining why they lack belief.
Yes the fun and games will begin.
Argument Clinic - YouTube
And multiple books explaining why they lack belief.
Yes the fun and games will begin.
Argument Clinic - YouTube
Are we in a court of law? Not very good, try harder.
You stated the burden was mine. Prove that I have that burden or admit you were in error.
Or you can exercise the "tap dance and run away" option. That's very popular hereabouts.
He's not in error, you are, that's just one of the basic rules of elementary logic. The burden of proof is on the claimant because failing to prove something is false is not the same as proving it's true, otherwise people could make any damnfool claims they feel like and insist they be taken seriously. For instance, I have an invisible purple leprechaun living under my desk; prove me wrong. You can't, but you'd be justified in demanding I produce evidence in support of that claim or dismissing it as nonsense. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That's also why the claim that there is no deity is logically indefensible: it cannot be demonstrated to be correct. The most anyone can do, and this is what any sensible atheist will do, is argue that the evidence offered in support of the claim that there is a deity is insufficient to justify accepting it as true. In the absence of such evidence, the default position is thus to treat it as false, just as my claim about the purple leprechaun would be treated as false.
On another subject, it's not correct that you can't prove a negative. First, if you can prove any proposition is true you've also proven the negative, that the proposition is not false, and you can do that trick with any proposition at all.
Second, if people mean you can't prove a specific sort of negative claim, that a thing does not exist, that one doesn't work either. It depends on what is meant by prove. You can construct a valid deductive argument from a set of premises to generate any conclusion you want, like this: if Sasquatch had ever existed there would be evidence in the fossil record, but no such evidence is found, therefore Sasquatch never existed. You could argue that I didn't prove the two premises there, which is true, but the only way to prove a premise is to give an argument to that conclusion, which will also have premises, which I'd also have to prove, and so on, an infinite regress. If I have to prove an infinite number of statements to justify a conclusion, we'll never be able to talk about anything.
Third, if people mean no inductive argument can prove a negative, that's true but largely irrelevant. No inductive argument can prove anything, it's just a way of showing a conclusion is probable, not certain. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white, looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.
I am protected by the Charter. I'm just not _as_ protected as religious people and aboriginals.
Well, I see no signs of him around here or in his original homeland, and that's got some nice desert places and lots of sheep, much like the place he supposedly first appeared, that seems a reasonable starting hypothesis. Maybe I'll go have a look and bring back a report.
I've said it time and time again, I have been shown the proof. Enough proof for me to say definitively that there is a God. It is a personal proof and not one I can show someone else. As to whether or not someone else believes me, does not concern me. They will get "their' proof at some point in time.