RicOlie_2 said:
Well, my dad doesn't have the ability to use the Zillions file...though that could be arranged I suppose. I'll check with him to see which he prefers.
I seem to have this ability just fine.
RicOlie_2 said:
Being that I started out with the presumption that elves did not exist, I would not have expected any in the first place. Any splattered blood and flying body parts originating from the rock would be suspect, and I doubt I would stay around to have DNA confirmation that these were elves. If these elves were of supernatural or non-corporeal nature, and were not affected by the explosives, I would perhaps try to make amends before fleeing.
Fair enough...
RicOlie_2 said:
I think I would get the burden of proof, if I challenged his claim...showing that there is no evidence for his claim would be my first step. I'd obtain some explosives and blow up his rock to show that it was empty of elves, and if there were indeed elves, I would probably run and get back to Canada before the authorities apprehended me.
Should elves be discovered within the rock, surely an explosive device of this magnitude must needs have obliterated them. If so, how many portions of elf recovered might be necessary to prove the existence of the whole? To clarify: would you have become an elfin believer with the mere discovery of a remaining toe, or must it be recovered along with a complete, frowning expression of clearly elfin origin?
Further, if said elves might be shown to be mortal, would this evidence constitute a scientific discovery or merely provide a footnote that the supernatural may be destroyed with well-placed TNT? If so, might it be assumed that all beings of supernatural origin might equally be so susceptible? If so, might this potentially explain the vastly inferior number of sightings of the supernatural since the advent of such explosives?
Alternately, is it your view that they would have remained immune to such corporal division due to their supernatural origin? If so, might it have been wise or unwise to have destroyed their home?
TV's Frink said:
I'm an adult. No one imposes a belief system on me. And I don't give it much thought, it is neither curse nor cure, it just seems the obvious way for me to be. I don't see how anyone can claim to have the answers.
If religion or its lack might play so little a role in your life, might the religiosity of others be a cause for concern or is it to be understood that it is held in equal ambivalence? To clarify: would you prefer a world which was to a degree less religious, and if so, to what degree?
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
I think the burden of proof would be dependent, not on location, but on who made the claim. For instance, if this Muslim declared to his colleague that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet," he would have to back himself up. If he overheard a conversation between two atheists who were expressing their disbelief in God, and he wanted to contest that point, the onus would be on him to support his theistic worldview, despite the assertion that there is no God having been made by others, since he would be challenging the claim.
In the first instance, he made the claim, and accordingly, he needed to back it up. In the second instance, he also made a claim that a previous assertion was false. Had the original party asserted that the holocaust had never happened--there simply wasn't any evidence for it--and he had disputed it, the onus would still have been on him to show that they were wrong, since it was he who intruded on the conversation to add his input. The burden of proof could easily shift, however. For instance, if the Muslim man showed a photograph of the aftermath of a gas chamber, with a Nazi flag visible in the photo, and one of the holocaust-deniers said it was photoshopped, the latter would have to support his claim.
The reason I think the minority position has the burden of proof by default is because it is they who are asserting that most people are wrong in a particular area. If they want anyone to pay any attention, they have to make their case. If a member of the majority disputes one of the reasons given by the minority for holding their position, the onus shifts to the member of the majority to back up their reason for disagreeing on a particular point, and so forth.
These are fine and clear points and I thank you for them. Three things more must be inquired upon if not too great a burden...
If a theist and an atheist might be the sole occupants of the International Space Station, during a global devastation that is assumed to eliminate the remainder of mankind. The theist is prepared to claim the event as a retribution from God whilst the atheist is about to blame the cause of the conflict on religion. Is the burden of proof upon the one who might first speak? Supposing it is the theist who speaks first, but the atheist does not at first hear. Then supposing the atheist speaks, thinking he is first. Must they both bear then the burden of proof?
In this case, two separate claims are being made. Thus, both bear the burden of proof. If, when our hypothetical theist claims the event is retribution from God, the atheist asserts that the theist is wrong, the onus is now on the atheist to prove the theist wrong.
Supposing still further that the atheist might be deaf and unable to hear the theist whilst the theist might be able to understand neither the signing nor the written word of the atheist. To whom might belong the burden of proof in such an instance?
Either the burden of proof would function no differently than otherwise, or, due to the difficulty of communication, the pair ought to stop arguing, seeing as they have the rest of their lives to live in solitude and would do better trying to get along.
Finally, supposing a woman might be put on trial as a witch. Allowing that it may be agreed that the burden of proof must needs be with her accusers, supposing said burden is one with which the community is in accord and all have agreed has been readily provided both in visible fact and by testimonial witness. Supposing all willingly recognize this evidence save the accused. Is the burden of disproof now at her feet as a member of the minority?
In this scenario, the legal burden of proof, rather than the philosophical one, would be deferred to. The burden of proof would naturally fall to her, however, since she has no way of saving herself if she places it on her accusers, who would not feel obligated to prove anything when there was no disagreement save among the accused.
One last instance...supposing an individual should make a claim that elves in a boulder saved his life. Further, let us assume that he is to exist in a community in which such a thing is considered commonplace.
Now supposing he has hired you to move this boulder, but in so doing he claims you have damaged the elfin home and now must suffer a consequence. Upon whom should rest the burden of proof in the existence or non existence of such elves?
RicOlie_2 said:
I think the burden of proof would be dependent, not on location, but on who made the claim. For instance, if this Muslim declared to his colleague that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet," he would have to back himself up. If he overheard a conversation between two atheists who were expressing their disbelief in God, and he wanted to contest that point, the onus would be on him to support his theistic worldview, despite the assertion that there is no God having been made by others, since he would be challenging the claim.
In the first instance, he made the claim, and accordingly, he needed to back it up. In the second instance, he also made a claim that a previous assertion was false. Had the original party asserted that the holocaust had never happened--there simply wasn't any evidence for it--and he had disputed it, the onus would still have been on him to show that they were wrong, since it was he who intruded on the conversation to add his input. The burden of proof could easily shift, however. For instance, if the Muslim man showed a photograph of the aftermath of a gas chamber, with a Nazi flag visible in the photo, and one of the holocaust-deniers said it was photoshopped, the latter would have to support his claim.
The reason I think the minority position has the burden of proof by default is because it is they who are asserting that most people are wrong in a particular area. If they want anyone to pay any attention, they have to make their case. If a member of the majority disputes one of the reasons given by the minority for holding their position, the onus shifts to the member of the majority to back up their reason for disagreeing on a particular point, and so forth.
These are fine and clear points and I thank you for them. Three things more must be inquired upon if not too great a burden...
If a theist and an atheist might be the sole occupants of the International Space Station, during a global devastation that is assumed to eliminate the remainder of mankind. The theist is prepared to claim the event as a retribution from God whilst the atheist is about to blame the cause of the conflict on religion. Is the burden of proof upon the one who might first speak? Supposing it is the theist who speaks first, but the atheist does not at first hear. Then supposing the atheist speaks, thinking he is first. Must they both bear then the burden of proof?
Supposing still further that the atheist might be deaf and unable to hear the theist whilst the theist might be able to understand neither the signing nor the written word of the atheist. To whom might belong the burden of proof in such an instance?
Finally, supposing a woman might be put on trial as a witch. Allowing that it may be agreed that the burden of proof must needs be with her accusers, supposing said burden is one with which the community is in accord and all have agreed has been readily provided both in visible fact and by testimonial witness. Supposing all willingly recognize this evidence save the accused. Is the burden of disproof now at her feet as a member of the minority?
DuracellEnergizer said:
Post Praetorian said:
Would you prefer to have a belief in God?
Alternately, what type of evidence might persuade you hold such a belief?
Yes, I would prefer to believe in God. I'm only agnostic because I have to be, not because I want to be.
As for evidence, I've pretty much given up hope that any concrete scientific/historical evidence in favour of any religion will come to light. I'd be satisfied with a personal spiritual experience.
If it might be considered that you feel this burden of agnosticism keenly, it might be helpful to note that if any justice or love based deity might exist it must surely consider this difficulty a form of payment no less equal than daily piety of another sort.
Alternately, if no such deity exists this weight must at the very least be looked upon as a means of deepening one's character. For if one might shoulder such a burden with a fair mind and honest heart it should be clear that such a one might prove to be capable of enlightening others without pretense to specific agenda.
To clarify, such a position must needs allow for a level of objectivity not possible among the more decisive. A potential in spirit, it may be called...
TV's Frink said:
I think Post Praetorian is a psychologist-bot.
Allowing your weak atheism is not self-imposed, would you consider it to be more in the nature of a curse or a cure? If portions of each, how great might be each measure?
Would you prefer to have a belief in God?
Alternately, what type of evidence might persuade you hold such a belief?
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
If this may be the case, might a potential future in which God might be disbelieved by the majority then shift the burden of His proving back to the theist?
At what % of belief/disbelief might this burden change?
Certainly, it would shift back onto the theists if the generally accepted view changed. However, I'm not entirely clear on how the burden of proof is generally accepted to work when the majority is asserting a positive. I think the existence or non-existence of God is unprovable, nearly as much as it is impossible to prove or disprove whether or not we are living in an advanced race's computer simulation, excepting personal experiences demonstrating his existence to the person who has that experience.
As for a percentage, since I would say the burden of proof is not an precise rule, but rather more of a good guideline (much like Occam's Razor), a clear majority would not have the burden of proof, but the narrower the gap between the majority and minority becomes, the less clear the burden of proof becomes (probably defaulting to the positive claim, however).
Wikipedia says the following, but I'm having trouble figuring out if this supports what I asserted above, refutes it, or does neither:
Wikipedia said:
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".
If it does not offend, might such a concept be probed yet further? Let us envision one who might have been raised within a large family who might ardently believe that Allah is God.
Let us further suppose that this family chooses to recreate within a community of Christians. Allow this same family to live within a community that is largely in agreement with their faith, but propose only that the father of the household must work a half-hour's drive away in a region whose population is of a majority atheistic.
Is Allah then to be assumed to be God whilst at the dinner table, but to be argued to be God whilst at the recreation center, only to be assumed to be God whilst at the local supermarket, but then argued even to exist at all during the working week?
Finally, if the father of this household might invite a colleague to dine with him at home and the two might enter into a discussion of God's existence whilst car-pooling home, must the burden of proof for God's existence be on the father to provide only half of the way home or the entire way so long as the conversation began at the office and not on the outskirts of town?
It would appear that you have no misgivings over the religiosity of others. If this is an accurate assessment, why might this be so?
dclarkg said:
Post Praetorian said:
Did you have any apprehension in revealing your strong atheism to others? Did you lose any relationships as a result?
Is not that I go screaming around that I'm a atheist, if someone asks about the subject I'll answer. I don't feel uncomfortable at all saying that I'm a atheist. I haven't lost any relationships due to that.
In your opinion, might the world be improved or impoverished by a general reduction of religious views?
RicOlie_2 said:
dclarkg said:
Possessed said:
At the end of the day you really can't prove he exists. You can't prove he doesn't exist either though. Arguing about it will always be fruitless because there is no definitive argument for either side.
How I'm going to prove the NOT existence of something? The person who makes a claim has to provide the evidence to support the claim. You can't disprove the unicorns, magic pixies or elfs neither so therefore they exist?
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Atheists are making the claim, since they're in the minority. Most people believe a god exists. Therefore, the burden of the proof is on the non-believers to show that he does not. If someone thinks a certain god is the right one, the burden of proof is on that person, since their is no majority agreement on any specific god.
It's like if I decided to become an a-atomist, because I believed atoms weren't real. In that case, the burden of proof would be on me, because it's generally accepted that they are. I can't just say "hey, I don't find the reasons for their existence convincing, there just isn't any evidence for them," and expect people to think it a valid position to hold (I'm not saying that atheism isn't, however).
If this may be the case, might a potential future in which God might be disbelieved by the majority then shift the burden of His proving back to the theist?
At what % of belief/disbelief might this burden change?
This must prove difficult. Does this force you to partake in their services or are you free to avoid such?
This is interesting, thank you.
Seemingly you approve of religion even if you, yourself cannot actively partake. Does this cause difficulties with any family members? Are they aware of your current position?
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Post Praetorian said:
One is walking in an unfamiliar city at night and one encounters a very powerful looking stranger. Is one more relaxed to discover he is a Christian or an Atheist? Why?
Am I gay or straight? :)
This is a question to be considered, but unless one might choose to be flamboyantly so, let us assume there is no means of its discovery.
Did you have any apprehension in revealing your strong atheism to others? Did you lose any relationships as a result?
This question has been asked before in a slightly different guise and so I pass it on here:
One is walking in an unfamiliar city at night and one encounters a very powerful looking stranger. Is one more relaxed to discover he is a Christian or an Atheist? Why?
Clearly this bears a relationship to our "survey" and is meant to provoke discussion and thought without striking at emotions. It is not meant to be leading...in spite of being somewhat absurdly so.
twister111 said:
So since the subject of evidence was brought up. I'll simply ask what evidence of God's existence would you atheists accept as proof of God? Something short of God actually appearing to you as proof. Something that you wouldn't deny. Like what would you accept that proves God's existence?
Seemingly the question rests upon several key points:
1) If proof of a (g)od is what is desired, the proves must necessarily be in character with that particular deity.
2) If proof of God is being sought, seemingly support for claims made by that same being should be in order:
An example might be, if said being wished a personal relationship with humanity what might prevent Him from entering into such a relationship? Any strong evidence pointing to that relationship might then suffice for proof of its existence, provided it is not negated by simultaneous strong evidence pointing away from it.
Alternately, if said being claimed to be all-knowing, any text quoting His discussions with humanity might be expected to be devoid of emotions such as surprise, anger, frustration, disappointment, rage, threats, and/or a change of mind/heart.
Further, if God might make a claim to be all-powerful, evidence to the contrary likely should be refuted with sufficient clarity.
Finally, if such a being might make a claim to be all just and all loving, either such terms might be expected to be clearly explained to hold a different meaning to God than those understood by humanity in general or any evidence to the contrary in His recorded history might be expected to be countermanded by later clarifications from this same entity. For might not anything less be misunderstood as being less than just?
Possessed said:
Plus in genesis it mentions light and dark on the earth being separate, which also implies a sphere. And that's how it looks when earth is viewed from outer space.
My personal opinion is that all gods are real but not what we commonly think they are. I hate to use the term "aliens" because that makes me sound like a nut, but basically I believe aliens have influenced our creation and development, and have manifested themselves as "gods" to give us something tangible to understand.To me this explains the circle vs sphere thing. The bible talks about people being taken straight to the heavens (more than just Jesus, it happens at least two other times. One to Elijah, and another to somebody else that I can't remember their name). So perhaps the writers viewed the earth from space in some manner, and had no knowledge of what spheres and the like and simply described it as a circle because that's what it appeared to be to them.
Some might say a liberal reading of Ezekiel might support this view...consider:
4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north—an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, 5 and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was human, 6 but each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. All four of them had faces and wings, 9 and the wings of one touched the wings of another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.
12 Each one went straight ahead. Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, without turning as they went. 13 The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it. 14 The creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning.
15 As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. 16 This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like topaz, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. 17 As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not change direction as the creatures went. 18 Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around.
19 When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose.
Etc...
To what faith did you originally subscribe?
darth_ender said:
I really don't think your situation is so bad. I still think you could win. This is the first time I feel we have a chance, honestly. But if you still wish to resign, I understand. If yes, then do you want to pick up the other three player game I suggested?
I thank you for your positive view, but it is only a matter of time before you both realize the strategy that will allow you to gain any piece you should desire from my side. You have begun down that path so there is no further likelihood that you will not see it within a few more moves. There is a basic flaw in that the King cannot afford protection to any single piece without that piece already having protection. To protect each piece therefore requires 2 moves...2 moves for every 4.
Short of fantastic luck it cannot be done.
As for the other 3 player game, I would be quite interested.
RicOlie_2 said:
:(
I don't suppose you'd want to continue, but disallow any communication between the two of us in terms of strategy?
EDIT: I could have walked across the hallway to ask that...it goes to show how lazy I can be. :P
That is what we considered might happen...our communicating via email.
It would seem unsporting for me to change the rules mid-stream, however tempting...what should then happen if I should find a further problem as the game progresses? Should I be allowed to adjust still more rules?
Gentlemen, it has been fun, but it is my assessment that this game cannot be won against two communicating foes. No move nor gambit seemingly can survive when it must outlast 2 moves for every 1. Further, it is only a matter of time before coordinated para-trooping renders my moves futile.
I thank you for the experience, it was most interesting!
What might be considered the first step that may have led you on the path to agnosticism?