Religious people have no burden of proof - none whatsoever. The uneducated don't understand that. A study at from the University of Pennsylvania Philosophy (logic) department has proven this beyond any doubt.
Text follows.
------------------------------
"This discussion is best defined as the age old clash between a declarative statements of fact versus declarative statements of religion [1].":
'All declarative statements of fact require proof - even when the declaration is a negative one. Any person is 100% free to say he does not believe any god/gods exist, but his belief does not prove anything. He certainly does not "know" any such thing. He may absolutely and sincerely believe it, but he did not prove it and he does not "know" that to be a fact. Though, of course, that does not impede the non-believer's right to non-belief - they are two different things. One of these things has nothing to do with the other.
'Example: Suppose I declare that no yellow butterflies exist on a newly discovered planet in orbit around Alpha Centauri - that statement is a declarative statement of fact and it requires proof - because that statement implies that I went and looked or in some manner I had established that as a fact - If I provide no physical proof that this is a fact, then I have proved nothing - period. It is true that I may believe what I said to be absolutely true, but I did not prove anything of the sort - And I certainly do not "know" any such thing.
'No declarative statement of religion requires proof whatsoever- by definition, a declarative statement of religion is a belief in the absence of proof. In other words, if something is a fact it is not a religious belief - though, of course, a fact could be included in a religion, but it is still a fact whether it is included in a religion or not - indeed it is a fact whether anyone anywhere knows it or believes it at all.
That is the difference in belief and proof and that is the difference in declarative statements of fact versus declarative statements of religion.'
'All declarative statements of fact require proof (including negative ones) and no declarative statement of religion requires proof. The fact that some people do not like the distinction changes nothing.'
[1] University of Pennsylvania: Philosophy (Logic) Department:
Declarative Statements of Fact Versus Declarative Statements of Religion - A Major Difference" (April 2017).
If ten of my friends each tell me they know Bill Smith, then I, being a rational person, take that as clear evidence of Bill Smith's existence, even though I haven't met Him personally. If hundreds of millions of intelligent people all claim to know and live in daily relationship with God, then what am I going to do? Tell them that they are all imagining exactly the same thing, and look like an idiot?
Writing something down does not make it proof. The shroud has been dated to about 1200 years after Christ and the holy grail - where is it and what does it do?
The bible was written by men back in an age that if lightning caught a bush on fire it was called magical, and there is no irrefutable proof that the shroud was actually imprinted with Jesus' face, nor is there any definitive proof that there is an actual holy grail.
Answers & Comments
Ah, my favorite troll.
Religious people have no burden of proof - none whatsoever. The uneducated don't understand that. A study at from the University of Pennsylvania Philosophy (logic) department has proven this beyond any doubt.
Text follows.
------------------------------
"This discussion is best defined as the age old clash between a declarative statements of fact versus declarative statements of religion [1].":
'All declarative statements of fact require proof - even when the declaration is a negative one. Any person is 100% free to say he does not believe any god/gods exist, but his belief does not prove anything. He certainly does not "know" any such thing. He may absolutely and sincerely believe it, but he did not prove it and he does not "know" that to be a fact. Though, of course, that does not impede the non-believer's right to non-belief - they are two different things. One of these things has nothing to do with the other.
'Example: Suppose I declare that no yellow butterflies exist on a newly discovered planet in orbit around Alpha Centauri - that statement is a declarative statement of fact and it requires proof - because that statement implies that I went and looked or in some manner I had established that as a fact - If I provide no physical proof that this is a fact, then I have proved nothing - period. It is true that I may believe what I said to be absolutely true, but I did not prove anything of the sort - And I certainly do not "know" any such thing.
'No declarative statement of religion requires proof whatsoever- by definition, a declarative statement of religion is a belief in the absence of proof. In other words, if something is a fact it is not a religious belief - though, of course, a fact could be included in a religion, but it is still a fact whether it is included in a religion or not - indeed it is a fact whether anyone anywhere knows it or believes it at all.
That is the difference in belief and proof and that is the difference in declarative statements of fact versus declarative statements of religion.'
'All declarative statements of fact require proof (including negative ones) and no declarative statement of religion requires proof. The fact that some people do not like the distinction changes nothing.'
[1] University of Pennsylvania: Philosophy (Logic) Department:
Declarative Statements of Fact Versus Declarative Statements of Religion - A Major Difference" (April 2017).
If ten of my friends each tell me they know Bill Smith, then I, being a rational person, take that as clear evidence of Bill Smith's existence, even though I haven't met Him personally. If hundreds of millions of intelligent people all claim to know and live in daily relationship with God, then what am I going to do? Tell them that they are all imagining exactly the same thing, and look like an idiot?
Writing something down does not make it proof. The shroud has been dated to about 1200 years after Christ and the holy grail - where is it and what does it do?
I refer to the ultimate authority.
The bible was written by men back in an age that if lightning caught a bush on fire it was called magical, and there is no irrefutable proof that the shroud was actually imprinted with Jesus' face, nor is there any definitive proof that there is an actual holy grail.
We haven't, I've thoroughly investigated many Christian writings and artifacts, and find it uncompelling.
The shroud had been proven to be a fake, the holy grail has not been found, and the bible cannot be used to prove itself. That is just logic.
The bible, Turin shroud or holy grail are just myths, not provable facts.
None of those things are evidence or proof. There is no mythical or actual holy grail that is in any museum or church.
Can you prove the Shroud is genuine?
Can you prove the Bible is inerrant?