Dear Yuyutsu,

I know this is what you believe.

<<Actually, God isn't a layer; everything; a concept; or a label.>>

But you claim that everything is God. I remain sceptical. Therefore, you are making an additional claim. To then (effectively) say, "God isn't an additional claim" is evasive. You know what I mean.

<<If I make a positive claim, then it's because it's so and I hope that it rings a bell in other readers, not because I expect you to believe in it.>>

Whether or not you are trying to convince the person you're talking to is irrelevant to the burden of proof. If you are making a positive claim, then you bear a burden of proof - especially if you are implying that it corrects or invalidates something the person you are taking to has said. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof)

<<Whatever me and my friends are doing, there is no need for you to understand, agree or believe, but as you ask "Hey guys, what are you doing there?",...>>

But I wasn't asking you what you and your friends were doing; I was questioning that validity of your claims since you believe they correct or invalidate others'.

<<I gave you the alternate explanation which doesn't involve any terms you don't like: "We are working on getting rid our selfishness".>>

But then you also claim that this is what religion is and that certain other understandings are wrong, which is why a burden of proof still exists.

<<Now if you are open enough to put aside what religious people say or the symbolism they use and instead look at what they actually practice, you will find that it all comes to that - trying to get rid of selfishness...>>

But sometimes the ridding of selfishness is done for selfish reasons, like the promise of eternal bliss in return. The Islamic suicide bomber has very unselfish reasons for their actions: they sacrifice their earthly life for the greater "good" of their religion, and they assure their family members a place in heaven. The reasons for suicide bombing are actually quite altruistic.

Continued…

...Continued

<<You would be right to claim that we are not being rational ... but as I explained earlier, neither are you, nor anyone else: we all make axiomatic assumptions which can never be proved.>>

A position that is, ultimately, one of scepticism and makes fewer assumptions (if any at all), is still more rational.

<<My starting point was, that using the word 'religion' which is dear to us because we used it for 1000's of years to describe what we strive to achieve in life, to describe the vices of dysfunctional organisations (albeit ones that were initially created for the furtherance of our goal to rid ourselves of our selfishness), is disrespectful.>>

It's not disrespectful if others are sticking to a common and dictionary definition. Seemingly understanding this, you attempt to show others that the such a definition is invalid (with accusations of theft). Which (fast-forward a bit) is why you are now saddled with a burden of proof that you are so desperately trying to wriggle out of.

Dear AJ Philips,

A Soviet joke goes:

Igor: "Vladimir, hey stop, why are you running like crazy?"
Vladimir: "Hurry, Igor, run away with me - the ministry of interior castrates all the camels"
Igor: "But Vlad, you are not a camel!"
Vladimir: "First they castrate you, then go prove to them that you are not a camel..."

Let alone proving anything about God or beating selfishness - if you decided to be obstructive, then I couldn't even prove to you that I'm not a camel.

* But I have no hump!
- How wonderful and rare, I like camels with no humps.
* But I am not hairy!
- So much the better, camels without hairs are unique.
* But I can talk and play chess!
- Indeed, you are the most intelligent camel I ever met.
* And I can walk on two legs, see... Ouch, if only you untie me!
- Why waste your energy struggling? We only castrate camels and you know that no matter what you say, we will castrate you anyway, which will then constitute the ultimate proof that you are a camel.

<<If you are making a positive claim, then you bear a burden of proof>>

Perhaps I was a fool, for not consulting with my lawyer at the beginning of this interrogation. He would have probably reminded me that "anything you say can be used against you in court". Perhaps naively I believed that if people ask me questions then it's because they want to learn, rather than to interrogate me. Yes, I might have been a fool for even mentioning God - I should have only said: "Look man, this word, 'religion', is already in use, we've been using it for 1000's of years, none of your business why and for what, just find yourself and your dictionary other word(s), but don't steal ours, especially if you intend to use them derogatorily."

Pistorius wasn't asked to prove that he didn't murder Steenkamp: producing a consistent alibi was sufficient for his acquittal of murder, but for Soviets and yourself, that's not enough.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I’m not asking you to prove that you are not something, so you're Soviet and camel analogies are invalid.

If your way of proving that your religiosity is not in any way related to the religiosity of those with whom you find distasteful, then find a way to explain that without invoking the Etymological fallacy and making statements-of-fact about a god and reality that you cannot support (I’ve already suggested one). Until you do, you bear the burden of proof.

<<Perhaps I was a fool, for not consulting with my lawyer at the beginning of this interrogation. He would have probably reminded me that "anything you say can be used against you in court".>>

Your foolishness was in your asserting as fact that which you could not demonstrate, and your utter refusal to express your opinions as such with qualifiers such as, “In my opinion...”. Consequently, you have backed yourself into a corner and are now lashing out at me as a result.

Nothing has been held against you. You can’t turn this back on me. I am simply following a basic debating process conducive to productive discussion. This is how rationally-minded people weed out nonsense claims to improve their chances of arriving as close to the truth as possible.

<<Perhaps naively I believed that if people ask me questions then it's because they want to learn, rather than to interrogate me.>>

Your inability to answer my questions does not render them an interrogation. I love learning, but I’m not going to foolishly accept a way of thinking as valid until the reasoning behind it has been shown to be sound. Perhaps if you had done the same, you would not find yourself in the predicament you’re in now. One thing I quickly learned, after doing away with my religious belief, is how much easier life becomes when you start striving to have as many true beliefs as possible, and as fewer false ones. Doing otherwise can complicate your life in the same way that lying does.

Continued…

...Continued

<<Yes, I might have been a fool for even mentioning God - I should have only said: "Look man, this word, 'religion', is already in use, we've been using it for 1000's of years, none of your business why and for what, just find yourself and your dictionary other word(s), but don't steal ours, especially if you intend to use them derogatorily.">>

But then you would be invoking the Etymological fallacy. That would be even more foolish.

<<Pistorius wasn't asked to prove that he didn't murder Steenkamp: producing a consistent alibi was sufficient for his acquittal of murder, but for Soviets and yourself, that's not enough.>>

I knew you’d go there. I picked out the philosophic burden of proof (rather than the legal burden of proof) partly for this reason. Not that I needed to, mind you; courts deal with ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’, not ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’.

With the philosophic purden of proof, we could take all possible nouns and all possible adjectives, apply them to the statement "A is B", and most of the statements we could construct at random would be false (e.g. The sky is red); whereas most of the statements in the form of "A is not B" are true. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the positive assertion, "A is B".

Just to clarify something that wasn't entirely clear there, Yuyutsu...

In the context of the burden of proof, your Pistorius analogy would be more accurate if you were the prosecution saying "guilty", and I were the defence saying "not guilty" (which is entirely different to asserting innocence). You are trying side-step your obligation of proof by painting yourself as the defence and then pointing out that the defence doesn't have to prove their innocence. What you fail to realise, however, is that if (in response to damning evidence put forth by the prosection) the defence makes a claim in support of their being 'not guilty', then they are saddled with a burden of proof regarding that claim.

So whether you're the defence or the prosecution in your analogy, your burden of proof remains.