Ask me that question again in a couple of millennia. At any rate, religious books aren't "responsible" for what their misreaders and proselytizers, jihadists and missionaries have done with them.

Ask me that question again in a couple of millennia — 180 Proof

Yeah, fair enough

At any rate, religious books aren't "responsible" for what their misreaders and proselytizers, jihadists and missionaries have done with them. — 180 Proof

I already covered that:

I have heard some theists with a personal god belief, say that the 'real' god or 'their god,' can't be held responsible for the lies that have been written by humans, and passed off as the word of god. But even they start to get confused and challenged, when faced with probing questions regarding their personal perceived properties of their god and what should/could follow, based on the properties stated, as measured against common human secular notions of morality. — universeness

Why do you think believers must give an account of "the personal perceived properties of their god" to (the?) satisfaction of nonbelievers that can be "measured against common human secular notions of morality"?

Those who make claims inherit the burden of proof.

Those who make claims inherit the burden of proof. — universeness

Since when? That only applies in the scientific sphere. Nobody ever made a king or president or general prove his pronouncements and no religious leader has ever offered secular proof for the basis of his canon.

Identifying mistakes and errors in methodology does not change the logical position that those who make claims must accept the burden of proof. To suggest otherwise is folly and irrational.

To suggest otherwise is folly and irrational. — universeness

And this, applied to faith and power, is news to you?

No, Would it make such behaviour more acceptable, if I said yes?

Nothing you or I do or say make any difference whatsoever. Power and faith, madness and delusion have nothing to do with logic, rationality or accountability.

Those who make claims inherit the burden of proof. — universeness

My friend, onus probandi applies only to positive claims of fact (about how things are) and not to clams of faith (about how "gods" are).

Nothing you or I do or say make any difference whatsoever. — Vera Mont

Are you declaring a personal vow of silence Vera? If not then why do you continue to do or say anything if you really believe what you just typed above?

Power and faith, madness and delusion have nothing to do with logic, rationality or accountability. — Vera Mont

Sure, but there is nothing to stop us from using logic, rationality, and accountability to combat these issues and that is exactly what democratic socialists/ secular humanists / atheists / rational thinkers / logicians, etc, etc do every day and we (which includes you and I[/b] ) can make very significant differences indeed, when we choose to organise and act in common cause.
Please feel free to 'sigh' again, if you feel the urge.

Many theists present their faith that god exists, as fact that god exists.
The burden of proof therefore lies with them.
If their response to a question such as 'do you know for a fact that a god exists?' or 'do you believe with a 100% confidence level that a god exists?' is yes, then they have the burden of proof.
I have watched theists who try to deflect this in debate after debate, many many times with atheists on-line, and they have been trounced, every time they try to reject the burden of proof.
So much so, that I rarely now hear the theist side, reject that onus. They now try to bolster and rehash the poor evidence they think they have, such as Kalam arguments about the universe must have a cause and god is the only one that makes sense or they point to scriptural evidence or personal experience / god encounters or even worse evidence such as NDE's.

Why are you baiting me, mate, to take up the thankless role of Advocatus diaboli? :sweat:

"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ... like "Zeus exists" or "The Infinite exists" or "Truth exists" or "Justice exists" or "Consciousness exists" ...

"God exists" – idea ideal idol icon – is only a claim about "god". No burden of proof obtains. :naughty:

I cry as well because everyone seems desperately unhappy, stressed, and pressured.
Lucky are those who have some temporary peace and sanity. (I say temporary because ‘the shit can hit the fan’ at any moment).
Not just adults… even little children.

So if we are starting life under a constant thunderous barrage, education and wisdom have trouble even being heard, let alone being followed. — 0 thru 9

:rofl: My sister and I are dealing with old age problems. And we are nearing Thanksgiving and dealing with the reality of pretty serious family problems. It is hard to know which problems are the most urgent and demanding of my attention. I am reading as much as I can about dealing with personal and international problems and so far the best advice I have come across is to focus on the facts. However, I am also paying attention to how I feel and acting on the importance of having good feelings. What we think about everything, to a large degree, depends on how we feel.

At this time in my life, I am so aware of how our feelings affect our judgment and fortunately, I am a whole lot better at staying calm and happy. What if we helped children discover ways to be happy and ways to do good in the world? I have a problem with a previous post about education for technology. Sure we need that technology to make it possible for so many people around the world to survive, but we might even be coming to an end of what this technology can do for us. No matter what, perhaps the most important thing for us to know is how to be happy and share that happiness with others.

If the world considered the golden rule of doing unto others as we would have them do to us, might we resolve our problems peacefully? I think we should hold anyone who does not follow the golden rule accountable. Israel was not treating Palestinians as they themselves want to be treated. The United Nations knew that and did nothing about it. If you have to use weapons to get control of land, something is wrong and it is not the defenders of the land. :heart: And while I write this I am thinking of ways to achieve peace and harmony in my family. That may not be any easier than stopping the escalation of wars. But darn it anyway, I think we could improve education so everyone has a better approach to dealing with life. That needs to trump education for technology. We live a long time, so there is plenty of time to learn technology after we learn how to enjoy life.

:smile: It's not my intention to place you in any uncomfortable position.
I am just disputing your suggestion that

"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is . — 180 Proof

is the position held by the majority of theists. 'God exists,' is a statement they believe to be fact. I am sure you have heard declarations such as 'I know that I know that I know that Jesus Christ is real!' The claim is not 'god the possibility,' it is god the fact!
The burden of proof is 100% with them, you have not offered any compelling reason for me to moderate that position in any way, yet.

As long as the place does not remind anyone of the Berghof :scream: and I can get there without adding to the problems of climate change :scream:
Do you think we humans could create a guidance book that became as popular or more popular than the bible or the quran, but provided well-chosen 'what if,' scenarios and gave sound, robust, advice on what to do next. Would such a book be too big? Would a knowledge-based electronic hand-held computer system be better? Could a 'ziggy' type device be created to help humans deal with all situations they might face in life :chin: :grin: :lol: — universeness

That is what we are working on here. Religions work because they make people feel good and give them rules for living together successfully. More than one book was written for that purpose and those books served people well for centuries. The problem for Western civilization is being literate in Democracy means being literate in a library full of books and this is not manageable as the Bible and the Quoran are managable. However, if we can get past our tribalism we might acknowledge all religious books work for the same reasons. They all teach the same basic things and perhaps a more scientific approach to these books can become one book that works well for everyone.

The Greeks appear to have gotten this secular ball rolling with the notion of logos and our human potential to be heroes and logical and capable of self-government. Their equivalent bible is Homer's books, The Iliad and the Odyssey.

Homer's epic poems shaped aspects of ancient Greek culture and education, fostering ideals of heroism, glory, and honor.[7] To Plato, Homer was simply the one who "has taught Greece" (τὴν Ἑλλάδα πεπαίδευκεν, tēn Helláda pepaídeuken).[8][9] In Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, Virgil refers to Homer as "Poet sovereign", king of all poets;[10] in the preface to his translation of the Iliad, Alexander Pope acknowledges that Homer has always been considered the "greatest of poets".[11] From antiquity to the present day, Homeric epics have inspired many famous works of literature, music, art, and film.[12] — Wikipedia

Our books need to be books we carry with us and hold in our hands and require no technology because we need to prepare for a possible collapse of our high-tech society.

I've never heard a believer claim that "god" is one fact among all other facts – and neither have you. Let's dispense with "folk beliefs", which are typically used by "New Atheists" as canicatures, and dispute theology (e.g. T. Aquinas, I. Kant, M. Buber, P. Tillich, J-Luc Marion, J. Caputo et all) if you're game. :smirk:

Many theists present their faith that god exists, as fact that god exists.
The burden of proof therefore lies with them.
If their response to a question such as 'do you know for a fact that a god exists?' or 'do you believe with a 100% confidence level that a god exists?' is yes, then they have the burden of proof.
I have watched theists who try to deflect this in debate after debate, many many times with atheists on-line, and they have been trounced, every time they try to reject the burden of proof.
So much so, that I rarely now hear the theist side, reject that onus. They now try to bolster and rehash the poor evidence they think they have, such as Kalam arguments about the universe must have a cause and god is the only one that makes sense or they point to scriptural evidence or personal experience / god encounters or even worse evidence such as NDE's. — universeness

I have found everyday Christians find the existence of God be a fact. That is because every time something good happens, they thank God for that. I think in their minds there can not be goodness without a God providing it. This can go as far as believing without God, their savior, we can not be good. There are so many false beliefs that go with Christianity I avoid debating if there is a God and take on the other false beliefs.

I was blown away when the woman I was playing Scrabble with announced she thought she was wrong when she was a child and told her parents we should not kill. She went on to mention the Hebrews fight for the promised land that justifies all wars of us against them. And she justifies this by saying, that when the Bible says we are not to kill, the word "murder" should have been used not the word "kill". Wars fought in the name of God are wars we should fight, and with this logic goes unquestioned assurance that Muslims are wrong when they fight for Allah. The debate over whether a God exist is futile because of how a Christian sees proof of God every day, but perhaps debating other false ideas can get good results. Just not in a senior center where are supposed to be civil with each other.

The debate over whether a God exist is futile because of how a Christian sees proof of God every day ... — Athena

:up:

The burden of proof is 100% with them, you have not offered any compelling reason for me to moderate that position in any way, yet. — universeness

*sigh*
I didn't ask you to moderate anything. You can hold any position you choose. You can stand on one foot on top of The Shard and scream you demands for proof through a bullhorn till you're blue in the face. It will have no effect on theists or political zealots. (Though you might attract a small, fanatical band of acolytes who refuse to believe you're not the messiah.)

I've never heard a believer claim that "god" is one fact among all other facts – and neither have you. — 180 Proof

I have no idea what priority individual theists place on that which they consider a fact or an objective truth. I have indeed heard many theists state god as an objective fact, but not as one fact among others,
but as the most important fact/truth that exists. But they can't meet the resulting burden of proof.
Such is not deserving of dismissal as mere 'folk beliefs,' many highly learned theists no longer believe that god is a fact, that manifestation of doubt was probably what started their decoupling from god, offered as fact.

I have found everyday Christians find the existence of God be a fact. — Athena

I agree.

The debate over whether a God exist is futile because of how a Christian sees proof of God every day — Athena

No, not futile, just very difficult. People are leaving religion in droves, including many who have spent a great deal of their lives deeply entwined with it. and many who have very high qualifications in theology.

Just not in a senior center where are supposed to be civil with each other. — Athena

Sure, you gotta pick your fights wisely.

That is what we are working on here. Religions work because they make people feel good and give them rules for living together successfully. — Athena

Living together successfully based on a foundation of lies and fables is not my idea of wisdom.

*sigh* — Vera Mont

*yawn*

It will have no effect on theists or political zealots. — Vera Mont

On the contrary, I have had my successes in convincing some individual theists to reconsider their position and in changing some right-wing political opinions held by individuals. I still know some of them today.

The burden of proof is 100% with them, you have not offered any compelling reason for me to moderate that position in any way, yet.
— universeness

*sigh*
I didn't ask you??? to moderate anything. — Vera Mont

The response you quoted above was directed at 180proof, not you!

Congratulations!

Congratulations! — Vera Mont

I assume that was directed at me ..... thanks (if I choose to ignore the intended sarcasm behind it.)

I assume that was directed at me ..... thanks (if I choose to ignore the intended sarcasm behind it.) — universeness

Of course it was directed at you. If you've already had such success as you report - far more than I've ever had in reasoning with theists - then demanding rational proofs must be the right way to go about deconverting the faithful. It's just a matter of time until they all come to see the error of their methodology.

... dispute theology (e.g. T. Aquinas, I. Kant, M. Buber, P. Tillich, J-Luc Marion, J. Caputo et all) if you're game. — 180 Proof

I guess you're not game. :ok:

Well done, in letting that penny finally drop. Perseverance dear lady, is in the remit of the truth seeker. Many theists are not complete dimwits, they are open to rational argument, so if you apply small doses of rational skepticism and then let those little seeds take root in their own heads. You then meet them again further down the line, and you can water those little seeds. Over the years, I have had success in seeding deconversions amongst the religious and the politically right wing.
Are you not familiar with the names of many individuals who were deeply involved in theism and are now atheist. From the likes of Bart Ehrman to Matt Dillahunty, you know those names, yes? and the fact that many are leaving theism in their droves. Do you really believe that no 'other humans,' influenced their decisions to decouple from their long held views?

In 2010, censuses and surveys indicate, there were about 1.1 billion atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion. By 2050, the unaffiliated population is expected to exceed 1.2 billion.

Let's dispense with "folk beliefs", which are typically used by "New Atheists" as canicatures, and dispute theology (e.g. T. Aquinas, I. Kant, M. Buber, P. Tillich, J-Luc Marion, J. Caputo et all) if you're game. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Why would I refuse an offer, whereby I can learn more, from your impressive knowledge of the musings of past or present philosophers friend? That would be rather short sighted of me. I am grateful for what you have already posted (that I have read), regarding what philosophers have written on this or on that, and that is, after all, one of the main reason this site was created. I would be pleased to learn more from you on what philosophers have said regarding the burden of proof. I promise to open my mind to its full capacity to see if there is good reason to change my opinion, to one that holds that those who make a faith based claim, that they know a god exists is rational, and they do not have a burden of proof. Please begin! I am quite excited to read about the evidence you have from these philosophers, regarding burden of proof.

:up:

"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof.