[ArthurHung]

Originally Posted by Angela

Here's a claim contained in this article which I reject, because it's false:



If I make a claim to you, I have (and feel) absolutely no responsibility to show you what I say is true, unless it's a transaction of some kind. If it's a transaction, then I would feel a legal or moral responsibility to back up my claim. Not every claim involves a transaction.

If this guy is trying to give you some strength in resisting a transactional claimant, and it's valuable to you, great. But the examples he cites are not necessarily transactional claims. A preacher who claims there's a god in heaven who loves you, or someone who claims he's been abducted by an alien, or tells you he has a dog, has no responsibility to prove anything to you. If you feel there's a transaction involved (preacher asking you for money or to commit your immortal soul, abductee wants you to buy his book, dogman wanting to sell you puppies) then it's up to you to solicit, request, demand, or research your own proof and if you feel you've been wronged, to seek redress in a court of law or public opinion, where you may be vindicated.

A promiser has a responsibility to live up to his promise. But a claimant has no responsibility to provide you with anything.

Very nice way of putting it. So a preacher is essentially a salesman claiming his product is quality, you can research into it and buy it if you'd like to, it's your choice. If more athiests thought this way they would probably no longer identify themselves as athiests; instead on focusing on what they are not they would focus on what they are or can become. Become Taoists or believe in Subjective Reality, for example.