Hey Casey, how are things?
If I may, I'd like to make a small comment about the 'burden of proof' thing. I'm making it to clear my own thoughts about 'burden of proof', which has been prompted by your comment.
If somebody makes a claim about something to you, for example: an English Mastiff. How can you make judgement on the claim if you know nothing about dogs.
If I tell you the English Mastiff is only one foot long and six inches high upon reaching adulthood, that would make me a liar. But, what would it make you if you believed me.
If I show you a Chihuahua and say look, here is proof of an English Mastiff. If you have never done any research in regards to these two breeds of dog, how could you make any judgement about the dog, upon me showing you the fake English Mastiff.
Sure, there is a 'burden of proof' on me, to prove to you, I have an English Mastiff, but if you have done no research into the matter, the 'burden of proof' thing is meaningless.
Lately, I've been thinking it must be hard for American Atheists. For me Atheism has always been the norm, I was an Atheist before I even knew what the word meant. What about you?
The 'burden of proof' thing in relation to god, is a kind of problem for me. And every time somebody mentions it, I try and explain it in a different way.
In the example above I'm trying to show you, and myself, that knowledge is necessary on both sides in order for 'burden of proof' to work. For example:
I'm using this as an example because I don't understand it, and I'm hoping you don't understand it also.
But this is proof that Kinetic energy is equal to the integral of the dot product of velocity of a body and the change of the bodies momentum at a point in time.
My point in regards to 'burden of proof' is: unless the person explaining the above equations and the person listening to the explanation understand every line of each equation, 'burden of proof' is meaningless. Both sides have to have knowledge of the specific subject before 'burden of proof' can be used.
Therefore when we say 'the burden of proof' lies with another person, this is true, but, in order for us to understand their explanation, we also need some prior knowledge of the subject at hand.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, there is no god. No knowledge of god exists. So the 'burden of proof' thing can never be applied to god. And this is my problem.
But you kind of answered my question anyway. When you talked to the Christians about hell. Except the knowledge about hell should have been the other way around. Oh well. You gotta love them Merican Christians.
The person who originally wrote it understands it, yes. Plus, if we know nothing about maths, we can learn how to count, and after studying a bit more, we can all learn to understand the equation. And that is why 'burden of proof' works for things that exist.
I just have a continuous problem with the burden of proof argument for things that don't exist. I feel a need to research for myself the other side of the story. I consider it lazy if no research is done by the listener. But when it comes to things that don't exist. How can I research it? The best I could do with god was the Oxford dictionary. But that just defines the word not the man/spirit or what ever.
it says 'to'
How can somebody be a Gnostic Atheist? It doesn't make sense.