Thought For The New Year

[fossten]

then prove me wrong. otherwise i'm right.

BINGO. You fail with this completely illogical and flawed argument.

Quoted for posterity.

 

[shagdrum]

MISREPRESENT:: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair

try again. as stated above from SHAG'S link, the emphasis is on those who claim existence.

… atheism is just as much an assertion as theism. Therefore the burden of proof falls equally, and a fairer debate question would be ‘Does God exist?’​

The link I gave never took the position that the emphasis is on those who claim existence. In fact, if anything, it rejected that assertion.

What it was talking about was the standard that those making an affirmative claim either way. It points out that; A) that standard is self-refuting, and B) by that standard, the burden of proof falls equally on both Theism and Atheism.

You're exercising at least as much faith in your belief as I am. That is irrefutable, despite how many times you deny it. You can sidestep it, ignore it, pretend to answer it, or just plain name call, all of which you've done in this thread, but you CANNOT refute it.

So hrmwrm, should I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply unable to grasp what the original article is talking about, or should I assume you are being dishonest?

 

[shagdrum]

then prove me wrong. otherwise i'm right.

The argument from ignorance...is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.


a "red herring" is an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.

 

[fossten]

So hrmwrm, should I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply unable to grasp what the original article is talking about, or should I assume you are being dishonest?

It's just as easy to assume that he's a worthless troll who never contributes anything but obtuseness to any conversation.

 

[hrmwrm]

BINGO. You fail with this completely illogical and flawed argument.

ah, no evidence. i thought so. just can't admit you have nothing.

 

[hrmwrm]

now your just throwing out anything, aren't you shag.

atheism is just as much an assertion as theism. Therefore the burden of proof falls equally, and a fairer debate question would be ‘Does God exist?’

i'm not claiming something exists. you fail to see this point. i just ask for evidence of the claim.
and the fairer question might be that, but you would still have to prove there is even the slightest evidence of probability, else your arguing for a null point only backed by religious superstition.
then if you wish to argue god, which one?
limit it to the one of your familiarity, recent history, or dig up the full set? (which would include mythology)
why are some dismissed as mythology, yet others deemed the real thing?


it's not a question of does god exist(because then it would still be your god)
but why is a god ideal necessary to some?
you aren't born knowing, and must be indoctrinated in the ideal of god for which is your culture.
but then, these are not ideals you wish to argue.

 

[shagdrum]

i'm not claiming something exists.

And you fail to comprehend that the article is NOT talking about weather or not someone claims something EXISTS but weather the claim is an affirmative claim. Basically, you LIED about the article

i just ask for evidence of the claim.

...as a RESPONSE to my points. However, that is NOT what we were talking and only serves to distract from those points and avoid confronting them.

and the fairer question might be that, but you would still have to prove there is even the slightest evidence of probability, else your arguing for a null point only backed by religious superstition.

ONLY if judged by a materialist standard. However, that standard is something that you have to justify and can't because you don't understand what it is or what it means.

Do you need a coloring book to spell all this out for you?

 

[cammerfe]

then the definition of god would only be something that is worshipped, and not a supernatural creator.

Hey wormworm---
Every time you attempt to put words in my mouth you fail abysmally. And I have the same thought---your donkey cartoon is very apt---the big mouth makes it easy for you to get all your feet in at once !
KS

 

[shagdrum]

your donkey cartoon is very apt---the big mouth makes it easy for you to get all your feet in at once !
KS

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

when you refuse to consider any opposing view (in whole or in part) as legitimate and/or reasonable, you end up sticking your foot in your mouth and making a fool of yourself.

 

[hrmwrm]

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

here. i quoted it so as not to mistake the ARTICLE in question.

Basically, you LIED about the article

basically? i either did or didn't. now your backpedaling.

ONLY if judged by a materialist standard. However, that standard is something that you have to justify and can't because you don't understand what it is or what it means.

i understand it perfectly. you can't justify your position, nor prove it, now your just trying to switch the burden of proof, which you have shown is on you.

 

[hrmwrm]

your donkey cartoon is very apt---the big mouth makes it easy for you to get all your feet in at once !

hey kmorf.
it's your self portrait.

 

[fossten]

hey kmorf.
it's your self portrait.

Er - wouldn't a self portrait be something he did himself? But it's in your sig...ah, never mind.

Man you're dumb.

 

[hrmwrm]

Man you're dumb.

go play with your imaginary friend.

 

[shagdrum]

here. i quoted it so as not to mistake the ARTICLE in question.

I was mistaken on the article you were referring to.

However, you miss three words; "IN MOST CASES". Considering that an affirmative claim of God's existence is based in faith, and anyone who holds this view readily admits it (including those on this forum) that basic premise doesn't apply. It would apply it we were claiming no faith in making that claim, but we are not.

However, you ARE making the claim of no faith in your view, so that standard DOES fall on you. However, you keep dodging.

Justify your materialist standard.

Justify your rejection of metaphysics.

If you cannot do that, then your argument rests ultimately on faith.

 

[fossten]

go play with your imaginary friend.

You'll meet God one day, and it won't be a friendly meeting. I do pity you and your soul.

 

[NoLimit95]

You'll meet God one day, and it won't be a friendly meeting. I do pity you and your soul.

Foss, that was nice of you to say and I can't believe this thread is still going. I have already flown half way down into Florida, Tampa to be exact and driven back to Northern Alabama and this is still going on.

I think you made the perfect ending statement.

 

[cammerfe]

A fitting finish

Actually, all the forgoing is because of my PERFECT comment regarding trigger fingers !
KS

 

[fossten]

Actually, all the forgoing is because of my PERFECT comment regarding trigger fingers !
KS

Yes you are quite the instigator.

 

[hrmwrm]

I was mistaken on the article you were referring to.

However, you miss three words; "IN MOST CASES". Considering that an affirmative claim of God's existence is based in faith, and anyone who holds this view readily admits it (including those on this forum) that basic premise doesn't apply. It would apply it we were claiming no faith in making that claim, but we are not.

However, you ARE making the claim of no faith in your view, so that standard DOES fall on you. However, you keep dodging.

Justify your materialist standard.

Justify your rejection of metaphysics.

If you cannot do that, then your argument rests ultimately on faith.

the premise applies here. prove god, and i'll explain.
balls in your court.

 

[hrmwrm]

You'll meet God one day,

no, i won't.

and it won't be a friendly meeting. I do pity you and your soul.

while your proving god, prove soul as well. no evidence for existence either. another religious myth.

 

[hrmwrm]

Actually, all the forgoing is because of my PERFECT comment regarding trigger fingers

full of yourself?

 

[cammerfe]

full of yourself?

No, just a little tired of your posturing and your idiot cartoon !
KS

 

[fossten]

Time to stop feeding the troll.