Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Commenting further, it is common to hear it banded about in forums such as this one that the Biblical story of a flood or the exodus or whatever has been disproved. What the people mean to say is:
1. I start with the assumption that there was no global flood.
...
Folks.. Do I really need to unpack this slew of well -poisoning, bile stirring strawman arguments from the false dichotomy (anyone who isn't an atheist is a fundy) to the hinted 'vatican pederasts R not us' pretence that this is the only argument against the religious claims? Nope - i'm sure you can all see it for yourselves.
For someone abusing, sorry, using Bayes, Z likes to ignore relevant evidence.
Well, I've looked through the posts, and there are no arguments to refute. A lot of name calling, sure. A lot of baseless assertions that I ignore relevant facts. Yes, I've seen a lot of that. I've also seen the unsupported assertion:
"The burden of proving that falls on the god -believers."
This is the problem with atheists. You post about socks in drawers, holistic underdetermination, Hempel's Paradox, the problem of induction, Bayes Theorem, etc., etc., and somehow they turn the topic back to their own preconceived notions about God.
So, let's just talk today about special pleading — a logical fallacy in which the poster applies standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making himself exempt from the same criteria.
It is claimed that the burden of proof rests on the person making an assertion. Yet, the statement "The burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion" is an assertion. Therefore, according to your own ruleset, the burden of proof for this assertion lies on you.
Furthermore, most people here insist that the only valid support for an assertion is evidence. Logical arguments are simply not good enough.
Therefore, I will only accept the claim "The burden of proof relies on the person making the assertion" if you provide good, solid, scientific evidence for that assertion, ideally in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
If you cannot, then don't waste my time with this nonsense any more. I have little patience with people who stick their fingers in their ears and shout "Nya-nya! I'm right and you're wrong."
Therefore, I will only accept the claim "The burden of proof relies on the person making the assertion" if you provide good, solid, scientific evidence for that assertion, ideally in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
If you cannot, then don't waste my time with this nonsense any more. ."
Well, I've looked through the posts, and there are no arguments to refute.
You still have my argument about intelligent beings just existing for no reason, but you decided to run from that.
There is also my post about X != Y when you claimed it did, and how Y was true for both X and !X, but again you ran away.
And thank you, my thought experiment worked. Because I left an easy problem for you to attempt to 'refute' in post 70, but as I predicted, you would not spot the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus
A lot of name calling, sure. A lot of baseless assertions that I ignore relevant facts. Yes, I've seen a lot of that.
Your thought experiment did ignore relevant facts (which would have refuted your refutation if you had seen my possible error in post 70).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus
This is the problem with atheists. You post about socks in drawers, holistic underdetermination, Hempel's Paradox, the problem of induction, Bayes Theorem, etc., etc., and somehow they turn the topic back to their own preconceived notions about God.
No, you made these arguments, pretending to be an intellectual. And God? Atheists do not believe in any gods (plural), and many arguments apply to any gods. Such as the probability of intelligent beings just existing for no reason, from which you ran. So your assertion about preconceived notions is just another irrelevant argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus
Furthermore, most people here insist that the only valid support for an assertion is evidence. Logical arguments are simply not good enough.
Logical arguments are excellent. If only you had one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus
Therefore, I will only accept the claim "The burden of proof relies on the person making the assertion" if you provide good, solid, scientific evidence for that assertion, ideally in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
If you cannot, then don't waste my time with this nonsense any more. I have little patience with people who stick their fingers in their ears and shout "Nya-nya! I'm right and you're wrong."
And so the general sneaks from the battle field, his troops of straw dead and dying. Crawling through a ditch full of filth, he reaches a bridge. He climbs out of the ditch, plants hanging from his wet clothes, and turning in the middle of the bridge, he puts his hands around his mouth, fills his lungs with air, and whispers 'I won', before being hit by a truck carrying bovine manure.
Well, I've looked through the posts, and there are no arguments to refute. A lot of name calling, sure. A lot of baseless assertions that I ignore relevant facts. Yes, I've seen a lot of that. I've also seen the unsupported assertion:
"The burden of proving that falls on the god -believers."
This is the problem with atheists. You post about socks in drawers, holistic underdetermination, Hempel's Paradox, the problem of induction, Bayes Theorem, etc., etc., and somehow they turn the topic back to their own preconceived notions about God.
So, let's just talk today about special pleading — a logical fallacy in which the poster applies standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making himself exempt from the same criteria.
It is claimed that the burden of proof rests on the person making an assertion. Yet, the statement "The burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion" is an assertion. Therefore, according to your own ruleset, the burden of proof for this assertion lies on you.
Furthermore, most people here insist that the only valid support for an assertion is evidence. Logical arguments are simply not good enough.
Therefore, I will only accept the claim "The burden of proof relies on the person making the assertion" if you provide good, solid, scientific evidence for that assertion, ideally in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
If you cannot, then don't waste my time with this nonsense any more. I have little patience with people who stick their fingers in their ears and shout "Nya-nya! I'm right and you're wrong."
1. I don't think most of us really care what you'll accept.
2. You don't get to dictate how discussions go here. If other posters don't wish to participate in your flights fancy (what you seem to think are logical arguments), that's their right...and that seems to be what most of us are saying.
Well, I've looked through the posts, and there are no arguments to refute. A lot of name calling, sure. A lot of baseless assertions that I ignore relevant facts. Yes, I've seen a lot of that. I've also seen the unsupported assertion:
"The burden of proving that falls on the god -believers."
This is the problem with atheists. You post about socks in drawers, holistic underdetermination, Hempel's Paradox, the problem of induction, Bayes Theorem, etc., etc., and somehow they turn the topic back to their own preconceived notions about God.
So, let's just talk today about special pleading — a logical fallacy in which the poster applies standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making himself exempt from the same criteria.
It is claimed that the burden of proof rests on the person making an assertion. Yet, the statement "The burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion" is an assertion. Therefore, according to your own ruleset, the burden of proof for this assertion lies on you.
Furthermore, most people here insist that the only valid support for an assertion is evidence. Logical arguments are simply not good enough.
Therefore, I will only accept the claim "The burden of proof relies on the person making the assertion" if you provide good, solid, scientific evidence for that assertion, ideally in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
If you cannot, then don't waste my time with this nonsense any more. I have little patience with people who stick their fingers in their ears and shout "Nya-nya! I'm right and you're wrong."
This is a absurd as asking for hard scientific proof that 1 and 1 = 2. That is the rules of mathematics and you either do it right or you do it wrong.
The burden of proof is also the rules of Logic and you either use them or you abandon any claim to be arguing logically. Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".[2]
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[3][4]
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".[5][6][7]
Shifting the burden of proof
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[8][9]
(Wiki) I tried to get it from Stanford's dictionary of philosophy but it has long articles about the application of the burden of proof, since it takes the 'burden of proof' as a Given.
I rock = 1 rock is a pair of similar items. Label that "2" The basis of the burden of proof is sheer practicality. One cannot in practice accept any claim made by other persons simply because they claim it. The example of cold fusion exemplifies this and why it was ok to doubt powered flight until it was verified. There are sound reasons why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. And why they should do it rather than demand the other side do the research is obvious.
I have seen before your clumsy ploy of demanding to see scientific proof of logical rules in a peer reviewed journal or they won't be accepted. Your attempt to ask One Unanswerable (which has in fact been adequately answered above) with a 'one shot Win' attached (If you cannot, then don't waste my time with this nonsense any more) is not so new either. As to your wittering about socks and so on - as i recall the first mention of blue socks was yours.
(1) this phone -in on the burden of proof (including an attempt to reverse it to 'disbelief' being a claim which has to be proved) is also worth a watch. In fact Theism trying to get out of having to validate their god -claim or it has no validity is the biggest ongoing battle - bigger than moral or ethical issues, or the evolution debate.
And so the general sneaks from the battle field, his troops of straw dead and dying. Crawling through a ditch full of filth, he reaches a bridge. He climbs out of the ditch, plants hanging from his wet clothes, and turning in the middle of the bridge, he puts his hands around his mouth, fills his lungs with air, and whispers 'I won', before being hit by a truck carrying bovine manure.
It isn't. It's based on axiomatic assumptions, which is what the burden of proof is - a logical axiom.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do I really need to unpack this slew of well -poisoning, bile stirring strawman arguments from the false dichotomy (anyone who isn't an atheist is a fundy) to the hinted 'vatican pederasts R not us' pretence that this is the only argument against the religious claims? Nope - i'm sure you can all see it for yourselves.
..... you paint such a pretty picture!
