The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try.

Just because I decide to believe in the God of Anal sphincters and you can't damn well disprove his existence does not mean he does so.

..again I think that the 'school' thing is a generalisation and a judgement...maybe some schools do 'indoctrinate', I don't know of any but that may be so...but no school that I know of does that at all...there may be 'bible stories' but it's more of a philosophy/'moral story' type thing which other 'non religious' stories are also used for...and teaching children to be kind to others/to think about their actions/learn empathy etc is a very good and valuable 'life lesson'....but if parents strongly object to any even slight reference to religion being used in any way, then there is always an 'opt out' available for their child ..it's not just one specific religion that's referred to anyway, many religions are used to explain different beliefs, which also teaches tolerance and understandings...

...I don't think there is any 'burden of proof' to be explained with a faith by it's very definition, it is having faith...and nothing was ever 'proven' until science provided 'proof'...there are so many things that science has not got round to 'proving' yet and always will be...

:clap1:

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

Kyle, you have completely misread, or misunderstood what I posted - or both. I actually said that:

"Atheist's cannot prove that God does not exist" -- not, as you misquote, that "the non religious" has to "prove God exists".

Further; your statement;

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

is totally misleading and simply not true, because, 'Burden of Proof' by definition:

'It is a fundamental principle of English law that a litigant bears the burden (or “onus”) of proof in respect of the propositions it asserts to prove its claim. The burden of proof does not lie with the person who denies the allegation'.

Therefore, 'Burden of Proof' actually falls squarely upon the shoulders of the claimant - whether he be a 'believer' claiming that God exists, or an Atheist claiming that God does not exist. :wavey:

Superstition, faith, religion etc are all interlinked and all originate from events that the person is unable to explain. Historically, the majority of superstitions have been proven to be false as science advances, because people generally connect events together for their own benefit/advantage with little to back up their assertions. Like it or not, religion has, and continues to be used as a method of controlling the actions and behaviour of people to fit in with the agenda of those controlling. When spirituality is finally allowed to be divorced from religious agendas, then it may have some substance and depth, until then, its nothing more than mumbo jumbo.

I went to a Church of England primary school.Good school,Used to sing hymns every morning,Pray go to church for certain events.They never indoctrinated me because i never believed any of it at any point,Even as a 5 year old.Did'nt ever do me any harm at all.Nothing wrong with faith schools imo,Still have good memories of going there.

And if there was no religion at the school you went to do you think that you would have turned out different. Lets say that all the time that you were singing, going to church and praying you instead were learning new things?

This is a very old argument and to save you and others time you are wrong. :spin:

But I wonder which god you are talking about. I presume that you yourself are a strict atheist for 99% of the hundreds of other gods but the one you claim to believe in?

You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof. You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence.

The school thing is a fair and valid point, there are hundreds of faith schools up and down the country all touting their specific version of the 'truth' and 'bible stories' are a form of indoctrination there are 101 different ways you could instill moral reasoning into a child without the use of religion, Aesop managed it.
I wouldn't want my child to opted out of learning about values, tolerance and understanding ... so if I don't want the religious spin do they then have to miss out? that doesn't seem right or fair.

..anyone parent who wants to opt their child out of any religion in schools is within their right to do so..if they then feel that in doing that, their child also loses out on other valuable ‘life lessons’ in terms of life philosophies, is just really maybe the assurance they may need to show that there is indeed a valuable and relevant place for some religion in schools in the way it is taught at present ...because otherwise they would feel no ‘loss’...it’s not ‘indoctrination’ in any way whatsoever, there are many, many children’s books and stories that have a ‘moral’ value in them..those are the stories that are mostly read to children in school and the stories which are discussed with the children and part of their learning and 'growth'...just because a story has biblical names in and therefore may receive ‘judgement’ or doubt from some for that, doesn’t make the philosophy from that story any different to any other from any children’s book...


..from my own personal experience and that’s all I can comment on..?...with the very few parents I have ever met who have felt very strongly against their child having any religion in school because of their own personal views and have actually considered opting their child out...once they have actually attended those lessons and attended church assemblies and celebrations etc, they’ve then been totally in favour of their child taking part in those lessons and extremely encouraging for them to do so...

Another well written, logical,:thumbs: and fair post Ammi.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

"You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof."

I am using the same legal parlance that Kyle used in my response to his post - which was a response to my earlier post. Kyle wrote: "The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

"You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence."

I really don't understand why you have quoted me and posted TS - because you're merely agreeing with me.
:shrug::shrug::shrug::conf::conf::conf:

I agree to an extent - I don't think school really ever manages to indoctrinate, parental influence is much stronger (i.e. a child from a religious household in a non-religious school will quite probably be religious themselves - and vice versa, a child from a non-religious household going to a religious school is likely to play along but ultimately reject religion as "truth"). We are an entirely non-religious household (my wife was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school and yet rejected it as truth very early on, as many do, confirming what I was saying) and yet this summer our 4 year old attended a "summer camp" at the local church hall run by a Christian group. She absolutely loved it and enjoyed the stories (or probably more that they were very enthusiastically acted out by the volunteers...) and she was full of questions when she came home. It opens up a plethora of learning opportunities. She decided for herself that they were obviously "just stories, like Frozen" which I'd be lying if I said I'm not glad about, but we're always careful not to lead her thought processes in either direction.

I can see where the alternative viewpoint is coming from though - and it doesn't necessarily mean that there "is indeed a valuable and relevant place for some religion in schools" - rather than strong moral stories are important and that those might be overlooked when every story being taught is religious and taught as truth. Many religious stories have wonderful messages. Many in my opinion have truly abhorrent messages. But anyway - even if they are to be present, I disagree with it all being based around one doctrine, it should be a more well rounded moral / philosophical education. There are some wonderful stories in religions not traditionally taught in Western schools, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and it would be very limiting to overlook these in favour of dogmatic Christianity / Catholicism / Islam, etc.

I personally enjoy a lot of religious tales as much as any other, from all religions, living and dead (ancient greek and pre-Christianity Roman Empire myths and legends from those dead polytheistic religions are fascinating)... but in a universe of endless possibility I find the thought of subscribing to one religion completely depressing.

"We can only perceive a fraction of the near infinite planes of existence and barely understand anything about those immediately neighbouring ours, let alone the ones we haven't even considered! Imagine what incomprehensible things might b..."

Religious person: "Yeah but the answer is this :)"

:( spoilers! Boring!

"This is a very old argument and to save you and others time you are wrong."

Can you please expound, because I am totally confused as to what you mean by "This is a very old argument" --- What is?

Further: "and to save you and others time you are wrong"

Wrong about what? Please expound.

And please also explain why anyone with a different viewpoint to yours is decreed by you to be "wrong"? On what authority do you make such absolutes? Are you secretly the all-knowing, omniprescent and infallible true God whom you take such delight in denying?

As for: "But I wonder which god you are talking about. I presume that you yourself are a strict atheist for 99% of the hundreds of other gods but the one you claim to believe in?" -- This is ludicrous. I believe in one God. I am a monotheist. This being so, how can I believe in anyone else's God? However - unlike your good self - just because I do not share someone else's beliefs, I still respect their right to believe, and do not attempt to pour scorn on those beliefs at every opportunity.

Unlike you, I also answer every response to my posts where such a response dictates an answer.

I am genuinely intrigued LeatherTrumpet.

No, you're saying that the burden of proof always lies with the person making an assertation; that for someone saying "god does not exist" the burden of proof is on them to prove that. Which in philosophical / logical terms, is incorrect. You can't disprove existence and therefore the burden lies on the person claiming existence, always. Non-existence does not require proof, as by definition, non-existence requires an absence of proof.

It's a pointless argument though that only really serves as a distraction, people should stick to "near absolute" terms rather than absolute, if they want to be completely accurate. For example, I would say that I personally don't believe in a christian God or the god / gods of any other organised religion. It seems very, very unlikely that with infinite possibility, one of those humanistic Gods exists. I'd be confident in saying that the possibility is maybe something like a trillionth of 1%, but infinite being infinite, anything is possible. But I'd require proof of existence to consider it in any way likely or even outside the realms of fantasy.

This is completely different to the burden of proof in the legal system, where one would be seeking to prove or disprove truths and either stance has the possibility of proof, e.g. alibi ("Bobby stole my car" / "No I didn't, couldn't have, because I was at Jimmy's house!")

My point is there is not the need though, religion is manipulating, controlling and limiting... that's not the meaning of life for me.

And by sitting in on a religious assembly does not negate the fact it's used as a tool for social control more than a 'moral and ethical ideology, whether or not the one parent you asked had a epiphany.

Great post TS but I think we are at 'cross purposes' on the 'Burden of Proof' point -- Kyle used the legal phrase and I continued with the phrase in a Legal Context; as if the debate was a court case. Thus my contention that "The Burden of Proof falls squarely on whoever is making the claim etc."

Anyway, I respect your viewpoint and the fact that you took the time to explain why you have that viewpoint, which is something I try to do.
I also like the fact that you admit that you are not dealing in 'absolutes' and therefore allow the possibility (no matter how infinitesimal) that you could be wrong.

I know you believe in one god but you must have heard that there are a few around and so I would wager that you dont believe in them?

How do you feel about Sikhs and Muslims and what they believe in?

Indeed

There is an interview in this weeks Radio Times by Prof Brian Cox is which he states: We are made of 3 sub-atomic particles. We are Up Quarks, Down Quarks and electrons, and thats it. Its all you need to make a human and all you need to make a rock. So its quite tremendous that they form planets, rocks and brains. He also states that in our galaxy alone (MW) there are 20 BILLION Earth like planets!

Now there is more to marvel and wonder at in one Radio Times article than in the whole of Genesis alone :shocked:

I am going to make a stab in the dark and say that Scientology is wrong, how about them apples?


:hehe:

Yeah i don't understand Scientology, but i do get along with Buddhism:pat:

Ooops looks like i spilt some tea:grin2:

I am also going to say that the beliefs of ISIL are wrong

more tea spillage

Agree with you:thumbs: