Firstly, I want to say I'm not attacking religion, nor am I wanting to attack beliefs.

This is merely a post about the process of debate, and more importantly, who holds the burden of proof.


To begin, let me define burden of proof as I understand it (So there are no misunderstandings.) Burden of proof is the responsibility of proving the claim.

Now, I present my argument as to whom the burden of proof lies on.

When a claim is made (no matter the claim) it is the sole responsibility of the claimer to provide evidence as to why the claim should be believed, thus the claimer has the burden of proof. The other way around is simply illogical.

Example: If I claim there is an invisible unicorn that only I can see, it would be illogical for me to ask you to disprove me. It cannot be done. Thus it would be my responsibility to provide evidence to my claim in order for you to fully believe my proposal.

I felt the need to post this, due to a few debates I've seen on this forum that completely ignore the burden of proof. Hopefully in future debates or arguments this prospect is kept in mind, and acknowledged.

Religion is one of those things that I hate talking about/But it can be fun at times too.

It doesn't really matter who has the responsibility of proving or disproving god. Neither one can be done. Atheists can't because there is no scientific way to prove that something like god doesn't exist.

Religious people believe on faith and feeling which doesn't prove anything. All they can do is argue about what they believe based on their own thought processes.

It can be entertaining to watch though. Like check out this video of Joe Rogan who does a joke about Noah's ark and then has a talk with some guy who think's he has found the ark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF9Xn5m2OGg

Burden of proof relates to science, law, debate, etc., but doesn't really apply to religion.

Example:

I saw an angel.
Prove it.
I saw it.

I believe in God.
Prove it.
I am the only judge of what I believe.

Religion relies on faith, not proof.

That's what seems to drive atheists around the bend on that topic doesn't it?

I wonder why this is in the religion forum, as it truly does apply t debate in general.

I agree, it drives me loony when people post things as if they are fact but ask the questioner to find the proof themselves, or post tired clich�s or personal attacks as if that's proof or an answer.

IT also drives me loony when people cant discern from what is fact and what is opinion.


but, to be honest, Im usually a little closer to loony than further, so the drive can be shorter on some days than others,,,,

msharmony: I posted it here because religion spawns many debates, and I've seen many times where the claimer asks the receiver to prove them wrong. Thanks for keeping this civil guys, I know how hard it can be at times.

izzyphoto1977: I agree with your claim, however I would anecdote that it is impossible to prove anything without physical evidence doesn't exist, which is exactly why the burden of proof exists.

Metalwing: I would argue that anything that exists must have some form of physical proof of its existence.

Physical evidence isn't always used. Like if you watch Ghost Hunters. they try to get audio or video recordings and pictures. Unless you consider the device that records the media as physical evidence then I would say that they are trying to prove the existence of spirits without physical evidence. Especially since it's largely digital media. Plus I can recall a murder case where a woman was convicted because she left very hateful msgs on her ex's voice mail of answering machine. I mean very vile msgs too. Guess it may depend on what you call physical evidence.

One more thing is that science often tries to explain things based on visual evidence. Clouds in space they think may have come from a dead star. Theorizing on invisible things like anti-mater. Just a thought anyway.

Ghost hunters is something I refuse to watch, simply due to the pseudo science used, but that's unrelated.

My personal definition of physical evidence is; evidence that is conclusive and can be tested. Misunderstanding here, I did not intend to use physical evidence in the mainstream term.

a couple of proofs that a higher power is at work.

1.. life is in the blood stay away from it and do not eat it.. just until present time has science came out and said this is very true. proofs are not hard

another easy one.

2.. Do not eat the fat. just recently really has science said animal fat should be avoided

How is this proof of anything?

That just sounds like dietary advice. Personally I've eaten cooked blood before. When you cook a steak the blood in the meat will come out some and get fried. It tastes pretty good if you ask me. I would also add that if you eat meat it's just about impossible not to eat blood in the process. It's also next to impossible to avoid fat since it's in just about everything in one form or another. It's like trying not to eat sugar. It's in everything. hahaha

It's all good. I like watching that show because it's cool to see the places they go and hear the history of those places too. Sometimes the things they get are interesting too.

I agree that in a reasoned discussion or debate the party making a claim has the burden of proof.

However, in Christian theology the term "proof" means "scripture says" so what is regarded as sufficient verification of claims is to quote scripture. Of course, scripture is subject to thousands of different interpretations, many different versions, has been repeatedly edited or revised, etc – but that is another matter.

The bible is considered absolute authority (and often regarded as infallible or inerrant) and "written (or inspired) by god." That it is actually a compilation of writings by humans (usually unidentifiable), by churchmen at the direction of Roman emperors, centuries after the supposed events seems unfamiliar to all but scholars and theologians (or kept quiet by others).

If the non-theist does not accept biblical authority, testimonials, opinions and conjectures as proof -- but asks for verification of truth and accuracy of claims -- the situation is an impasse (and often reduces to emotionalism and sometimes hostility).

How did they know this 3500 years ago?

and why is it just recently since aids really did they say stay away from blood and fat. before and apparently people still refuse this advice.

with all our science why did it take so long to believe the scriptures?

1 reason Constantine and his pagan ways he brought into the church.

yes this is proof. show me something someone has said a 1000 years ago that it took us until now to realize.

foods we are now told to cook well done and salimela will be killed.


u just refuse to believe.. u do not want any proof I have just begun to show u where u r wrong

neither do Christians. they want to say Yahweh made a mistake when Yahshua said he brought nothing new. like mercy and grace both in the OT. the OT is a higher learning letting the physical be shown in the spiritual. like basic electronics can not be separated from advanced electronics without the basics the advanced does not work.

The problem is we threw the baby out with the bath water.

it even says the world is not flat but a circle but for basically 1400 years after Yahshua science said the world is flat.. why because they refused the OT because they wanted to separate themselves from the jews.


so show me an example of a MAN who said a 1000 years ago a truth it took us until the last 30 years to figure out? Wheres your proof?

common prove what u say is true?

So you do not believe the scriptures or science..

Fat in most animals is marbled in the meat. Ratites which are Ostriches Rheas, Emus and a few other the fat is on the outside of the meat and the meat when you eat it is comparatively dry. If you eat Rabbit and only rabbit because it has little to no fat you will die from protein poisoning because it has no fat. Fat to a point is an essential part of diet when eating meat.

If you want proof of blood in meat. It's not that hard. Just start frying it. You will see red liquid come out and it will fry and it will have a kind of clay kind of look to it or maybe something like gun. That is in how it looks. You can squeeze it as much as you want and there is still going to be some amount left in the meat. Even in fish you fry it without ripping it apart and the blood vessels are still there so obviously so is the blood.

Sugar has been found to be is pretty much everything. The difference is how much is there. Every living thing as far as I know requires sugar to live. I know a teacher I had in college who said that sugar would cause you brain to fire faster or something like that. That was at least 5 to 7 years ago perhaps. But sugar is an essential part of your bodies working just like fat is. It more about the type of fats and sugars you are eating then anything else.

They also "knew" 3500 years ago that sacrificing animals (and sometimes humans) pleased "gods", that diseases and infirmities were caused by displeasing "gods", that droughts and storms were punishment for "sins", that many different "gods" died and came back to life, that donkeys and snakes could converse with humans, that those who refused to worship a popular god should be stoned to death.

They evidently did not know (and/or were not informed by their "gods") the importance of washing hands, boiling questionable water, cooking food thoroughly.

milesoftheusa:

Words in a book are not proof of anything, nor can they be proven to be anything other than coincidence, thus, your evidence is nothing but happenstance. But, let's pretend that these words could be taken as scientific evidence.

1. This does not prove the existence of a god, merely the existence of dietary knowledge.

2. The bible also asks man to drink the blood of christ, which contradicts your message that it says not to drink blood.


Also: in your last statement, you're still not understanding the point of this thread. I posted it to say the claimer has the burden of proof. As I have made no other claim, I don't have the burden of proof here, and actually have no idea what you're asking me to prove.


JohnDavidDavid:
To your first post:
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, however would add if the debate is held public, it should also be withheld to public standards of debate.
To your second post:
When multiple people write a book, you can expect there to be controversies. While this does apply to the topic at hand, poking sticks at someone probably won't prove your point. :P


izzyphoto1977: Your knowledge is much appreciated, and thoroughly enjoyable. I only regret I have nothing to add to your post!




We know cooking meat is good because not cooking meat makes us sick. Is it possible the people who wrote the bible knew this? Yes. Does that prove god exists, or that the entirety of the bible is true? No.


Also: Eating blood isn't really that unhealthy, here's some evidence to prove so:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sausages-and-luncheon-meats/1323/2

u do not accept truth.. where is your proof of a man a 1000 years ago knowing more than we did before 1970 or 80?

thiers none yet u want to say because it says it in a book it means nothing . u just like to do exactly what u say u r not doing.


u will not get sick from fresh meat that is cooked well done u can if u leave blood in it. fact.

sugar is refined. it was not then thats not the bibles fault its man. what does science say about refined sugar in just the last few years? do u know?

When most people think of sugar, they probably imagine a fine white powder. In reality, sugar does not exist in this form in nature, and it takes an extensive process of refining to yield such a concentrated final product. Along the way, all the other nutritional benefits of the original sugar source are lost. The super concentrated refined sugars are absorbed quickly upon consumption and contribute to several types of diseases and health risks.

http://www.ehow.com/ehow-mom/education-and-activities/blog/new-years-diy-make-vision-boards-with-the-kids/

u come on a religious board and ask for proof yet give u it and u refuse and say that's not proof.. yea but we came from apes. evolution is fact when both are false.