Sippuddin wrote:

DanielSan wrote:

Agnostics don't know, one way or another.

*
As if atheists might have something (some thing) to prove in this case?

I'm not talking about atheism.

jien...@aol.com wrote:

On Apr 6, 11:06 am, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

In article <XtCdnVO549B9K4jbnZ2dnUVZ_hadn...@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:

jien...@aol.com wrote:

Many atheists do in fact (and in addition)
claim there is no God

There's that category error again.

Anyone browsing alt.aqtheism can find dozens of examples of atheists
claiming that there is no God.

There is that category error again.

I deny there is any category error. Many people do in fact claim that
there is no God. Just ask them, Septic.

One has to wonder why he feels the need to change his moniker every so
often? Does he believe that we won't notice?

jien...@aol.com wrote:

Many atheists do in fact (and in addition)
claim there is no God

There's that category error again.

"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:-NKdnQo0I6PV4I_bnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com...

Jeckyl wrote:

"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:fbKdnY7miLfOFIzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...

Virgil wrote:

And if one person asserts that another is wrong ...

*
There is your category error again. The denial is not in the category
'assertions' it is in the opposite category, 'denials' ('negations'),
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial. How many times
do you have to be reminded of the governing principle here?

Here again is the governing principle:

"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person
who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting

I've got to step in here to help explain this, as it seem to be confusing
some people.

Sipp is quite correct when he says a denial of an assertion bears no BoP.
However, that means that BEFORE you can have a denial in an argument,
FIRST you need the assertion to be made. One cannot start off with a
denial .. as there is nothing for it to be denying (negating). Whatever
statement is initially made in a given argument is the assertion for that
argument.

So, what the above is describing is this fallacy of this type of "logic":

A: <makes a claim/assertion>
B: That is not true (denial)
A: Prove it is not true (shift BoP)
B: I cannot prove that
A: I must be correct then

A is trying to shift the burden to B, when it is A who made the initial
claim (assertion). B not being able to prove he is correct does NOT make
A correct.
That is a shifting of the burden of proof, because the BoP lies with the
person making the claim.

Now, as a more concrete example, if the argument was like this:

A: God exists (claim)
B: God does not exist (denial)
A: Prove there is no God (shift BoP)
B: I cannot prove that
A: So God must exist

Then, as Sipp would correctly claim, there is a denial / negation at the
second line.

That's not in the category 'claims' (assertions),

What?

Jeckyl wrote:

"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:fbKdnY7miLfOFIzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...

Virgil wrote:

And if one person asserts that another is wrong ...

*
There is your category error again. The denial is not in the category
'assertions' it is in the opposite category, 'denials' ('negations'), and
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial. How many times do you
have to be reminded of the governing principle here?

Here again is the governing principle:

"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting

I've got to step in here to help explain this, as it seem to be confusing
some people.

Sipp is quite correct when he says a denial of an assertion bears no BoP.
However, that means that BEFORE you can have a denial in an argument, FIRST
you need the assertion to be made. One cannot start off with a denial ..
as
there is nothing for it to be denying (negating). Whatever statement is
initially made in a given argument is the assertion for that argument.

So, what the above is describing is this fallacy of this type of "logic":

A: <makes a claim/assertion>
B: That is not true (denial)
A: Prove it is not true (shift BoP)
B: I cannot prove that
A: I must be correct then

A is trying to shift the burden to B, when it is A who made the initial
claim (assertion). B not being able to prove he is correct does NOT make A
correct.
That is a shifting of the burden of proof, because the BoP lies with the
person making the claim.

Now, as a more concrete example, if the argument was like this:

A: God exists (claim)
B: God does not exist (denial)
A: Prove there is no God (shift BoP)
B: I cannot prove that
A: So God must exist

Then, as Sipp would correctly claim, there is a denial / negation at the
second line.

That's not in the category 'claims' (assertions), statements standing in
need of proof), knucklehead

Clue: We who are atheist [not theist] did not start this, theists did,
EONS ago! We who are atheist NEVER have anything (any thing) to prove in
this case, only theist proponents of God (or whatever) do.

Virgil wrote:

And if one person asserts that another is wrong ...

*
There is your category error again. The denial is not in the category
'assertions' it is in the opposite category, 'denials'

Jim07D7 wrote:

It is an assertion.

You are making a category error, Jim. There are two categories here,
assertions and the denial (the negation in logic) of those assertions.