The Burden of Proof

[Chang]

Many claims are made on this forum stating the worth of one system, method or teacher over another.

 

How do we choose what is right, what is wrong. Good,bad,true or false.

 

This may give us some ideas on the subject.

 

Edited May 4, 2012 by Chang

[Thunder_Gooch]

Great video, but remember it is a two way street. Usually skeptics refuse to accept proof even when provided with it. Usually no amount of proof is enough for these people.

[Chang]

Great video, but remember it is a two way street. Usually skeptics refuse to accept proof even when provided with it. Usually no amount of proof is enough for these people.

 

True. Most people believe what they want to believe.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Chang

[zerostao]

...or can see only what they are prepared to see"

one size does not fit all. anyone should find what resonates with them and go with that.

i recommend tai chi to everyone, yet consider how many different styles and variations of tai chi are known.

[Brian]

Great video, but remember it is a two way street. Usually skeptics refuse to accept proof even when provided with it. Usually no amount of proof is enough for these people.

 

This is similar to the thought in my head while watching this otherwise excellent video -- while the burden of proof lies on the theistic claimant it lies equally on the anti-theistic claimant as well. Saying " I don't believe X" is not the same as saying "I believe not-X"; the former has no burden of proof while the latter does. It is common, however, for the anti-theist (as well as many other closed-minded people) to not recognize his or her position is legitimately a "belief" and that person may erroneously perceive their position as a "non-belief" that is falsely misinterpreted as a "truth."

 

Of course, the taoist thing to do is to not argue and to simply experience both the phenomenological and noumenological aspects of reality without precontructed filters, right? As the saying goes, the truth will out...

Edited May 4, 2012 by A Seeker

[Friend]

When it is a lie or untrue make it become true.

[Stosh]

This is similar to the thought in my head while watching this otherwise excellent video -- while the burden of proof lies on the theistic claimant it lies equally on the anti-theistic claimant as well. Saying " I don't believe X" is not the same as saying "I believe not-X"; the former has no burden of proof while the latter does. It is common, however, for the anti-theist (as well as many other closed-minded people) to not recognize his or her position is legitimately a "belief" and that person may erroneously perceive their position as a "non-belief" that is falsely misinterpreted as a "truth."

 

Of course, the taoist thing to do is to not argue and to simply experience both the phenomenological and noumenological aspects of reality without precontructed filters, right? As the saying goes, the truth will out...

 

I could be considered an anti-theist because I dont believe in Gods, I think that such belief isnt helpful as a general thing, but I have no problem respecting those who do believe in gods.

I consider my position to be an open minded one, in that it is accepting and respecting other folks.

I do consider it closed minded and insulting to label folks closed minded because they do not believe in gods.

I also think it wrong to imply that Taoists who argue arent "doing it right".

And as a total of all the above points I consider a person who takes judgemental pot shots at folks and then wont stand and defend their points as having done an unfair thing.

 

Moreover I feel that there is a qualitative difference to say that one does not believe in gods because they see no objective proof of them,, and between those who believe in gods 'proven' subjectively.

[Stosh]

[quote)Many claims are made on this forum stating the worth of one system, method or teacher over another.

 

How do we choose what is right, what is wrong. Good,bad,true or false.

 

It depends on how you mean your question, The eternal Tao knows no 'good bad true false right or wrong',, they are all subjective.(illusory)

If you are asking how one goes about deciding which subjective decisions would be most expedient for them ,then I would suggest that Lao tsu implied or said that mans true nature, his natural impulse ,was the truest determinant of virtue (though still subjective and circular in argument).

If you are asking me as a random individual respondent, I would say they are all wrong and I am right:)

Edited May 4, 2012 by Stosh

[Brian]

I could be considered an anti-theist because I dont believe in Gods, I think that such belief isnt helpful as a general thing, but I have no problem respecting those who do believe in gods.

I consider my position to be an open minded one, in that it is accepting and respecting other folks.

I do consider it closed minded and insulting to label folks closed minded because they do not believe in gods.

I also think it wrong to imply that Taoists who argue arent "doing it right".

And as a total of all the above points I consider a person who takes judgemental pot shots at folks and then wont stand and defend their points as having done an unfair thing.

 

Moreover I feel that there is a qualitative difference to say that one does not believe in gods because they see no objective proof of them,, and between those who believe in gods 'proven' subjectively.

 

My apologies. I should have more clearly explained the distinction between a theist, an agnostic, an atheist and an antitheist. Theists believe in the existence of a god, believe they should prosthlytize, and generally believe that no "proof" is necessary. They generally have an unshakable "creation" cosmogony, too. There is little point in discussing their position as they are unlikely to listen. Agnostics believe that one cannot be sure whether god exists and usually have a cosmogeny that is along the same lines. An atheist does not beieve in the existence of a god and usually has an "accidental" cosmogeny but they tend to be tolerant of people with other beliefs. An antitheist generally believes that their non-belief is not in fact a belief system but a statement of fact supported by science and they often feel compelled to combat theism. They have all the dogma and unshakability of the theist and neither theist nor antitheist is capable of seeing the others perspective or of seeing how similar they are in their polor-opposite "religions."

 

By your own description, you would be considered an atheist. Many who claim to be theists are really agnostics, many who claim to be agnostic are really atheists and many who claim to be atheists are really antitheists. Curiously, the trend is rarely in reverse.

 

It is important to note, though, that this is a spectrum so it is possible to have some elements of your personal belief system fall into one of these broad categories while other elements might fall into another (other adjacent) category.

 

These are all just words and artificial constructs, of course, and should never be taken too seriously. The Tao that can be described is not the Tao.

 

[Stosh]

 

By your own description, you would be considered an atheist. Many who claim to be theists are really agnostics, many who claim to be agnostic are really atheists and many who claim to be atheists are really antitheists. Curiously, the trend is rarely in reverse.

 

These are all just words and artificial constructs, of course, and should never be taken too seriously. The Tao that can be described is not the Tao.

 

 

Agreed, enough for words to bridge.