Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
28 Jun 2005 05:06:59 PM |
|
|
JHC wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
Who died and put you in charge?
How could any dead person do anything? That doesn't make sense.
It's a saying, moron.
<snipped irrelevant newsgroups, tidying up>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
28 Jun 2005 11:07:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:40:54 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <UKOdnTBiO-17XlzfRVn-jA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
Lots of material cowardly deleted by JHC.
Who died and put you in charge?
How could any dead person do anything? That doesn't make sense. You are just
using that lame little rhetorical loaded question as a little bit of
argument _ad hominem_, right?
Wrong, it is not an ad hominem. If I wanted to use ad hominem I might
point out that you cowardly snip out material you can't deal with. Oh,
wait, I already pointed out that you are a coward. I agree that
pointing to your cowardice does not deal with the content of your
argument. Unfortunately, though, you snip out material rather than
argue, so I don't have much else left other than to point out that you
are a coward.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
29 Jun 2005 10:45:29 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" :
... rather than argue ...
What reason would I have to produce an argument? Atheists have nothing (no
thing) to prove, your side does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 06:06:54 PM |
|
|
In article <-JCdnQ6DQsmFX1_fRVn-tw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
... rather than argue ...
What reason would I have to produce an argument?
Lack of reason has never yet stopped Simple Septic from posting
arguments all over the place.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
29 Jun 2005 11:31:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:45:29 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <-JCdnQ6DQsmFX1_fRVn-tw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
... rather than argue ...
What reason would I have to produce an argument? Atheists have nothing (no
thing) to prove, your side does.
"My" side is that anyone who makes an assertion in a discussion has
the burden of supporting the assertion. "Atheists" is too large a
varied a group to discuss. If you assert for some discussion that God
does not exist then you have to support that assertion. If you assert
that God does exist, you bear the same burden. I make no assertion
either way, so I bear no such burden. I do, however, assert that it is
impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of g(G)od(s), so I
suppose I bear the burden of proving that. I will make the broad claim
that every argument I have seen for or against the existence of
g(G)od(s) has wholes in it. Descartes is silly, Pascal's is worse and
horrible, the Argument from Design is empty (and was shown empty
before Paley wrote). On the other side the argument from the existence
of evil does not show there is no g(G)od(s), the argument from
evolution (a name I just made up), the claim that science has
eliminated God, is wrong. Now this does not mean that no valid
argument for or against could exist, I suppose I am open to that
claim. And if you think you have a good argument I would gladly see
it.
But the default position, absent a valid argument either way, is that
the statement (God exists/does not exist) is unsupported. Not true,
not false, just unsupported, undecided.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
29 Jun 2005 12:38:24 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" :
... If you assert that God does not exist ...
Matt, you are still assuming your conclusion. You are taking it for granted
that there might be an invisible God because the atheists can't prove that
conjecture false, that "There is no God" is the assertion (statement
standing in need of proof) in question. That isn't allowed.
"There is no God" is NOT an assertion (a statement standing in need of
proof), it is the DENIAL (the negation) of one, the only reasonable default
presumption, like the default presumption of "No Guilt" in court, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the negative, under any pretext, as
your side is constantly trying to do. Shifting the burden of proof is
logical fallacy, a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
You might as well fact it, atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, your
side does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 06:09:43 PM |
|
|
In article <L7ydnVUAo5QTQV_fRVn-1A@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
... If you assert that God does not exist ...
Matt, you are still assuming your conclusion.
The statement cited does not assume anything, so Simple Septic is lying
again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
01 Jul 2005 02:29:45 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-173EB2.17094330062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <L7ydnVUAo5QTQV_fRVn-1A@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
... If you assert that God does not exist ...
Matt, you are still assuming your conclusion.
The statement cited does not assume anything
Virgin means it does not assume anything except God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
01 Jul 2005 05:26:46 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 00:29:45 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <6NmdnSGBLOp7bVnfRVn-tw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-173EB2.17094330062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <L7ydnVUAo5QTQV_fRVn-1A@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
... If you assert that God does not exist ...
Matt, you are still assuming your conclusion.
The statement cited does not assume anything
Virgin means it does not assume anything except God.
Actually, it was an "if ..." construction and did not assume anything.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
02 Jul 2005 12:38:16 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:5i6ac1tl0r2llluo5jvtp01qv0dj3p5gi8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 00:29:45 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <6NmdnSGBLOp7bVnfRVn-tw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-173EB2.17094330062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <L7ydnVUAo5QTQV_fRVn-1A@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
... If you assert that God does not exist ...
Matt, you are still assuming your conclusion.
The statement cited does not assume anything
Virgin means it does not assume anything except God.
Actually, it was an "if ..." construction and did not assume anything.
Matt means that it does not assume anything except God. What Matt's
statement, "If you assert that God does not exist, then you have the burden
of proof" boils down to is "We true-believers presume there might be an
invisible God, and if you non-believers question or deny it, then you have
to prove there isn't."
That is the double fallacy of Matt taking his conclusion for granted
(begging the question) at the outset of his argument for it, then trying to
shift the burden of proof to the denial (the negation). The root of the
fallacy is the presumption that an existential proposition ['there might be
an invisible God'] is true unless proved false.
"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."
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
02 Jul 2005 01:42:42 PM |
|
|
In article <VrednWeu6JifTFvfRVn-og@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
Actually, it was an "if ..." construction and did not assume anything.
Matt means that it does not assume anything except God.
Simple Septic clearly does not understand the complexity of the
"If...then..." construction.
What Matt's
statement, "If you assert that God does not exist, then you have the burden
of proof" boils down to is "We true-believers presume there might be an
invisible God, and if you non-believers question or deny it, then you have
to prove there isn't."
WRONG! What Matt's statement, "If you assert that God does not exist,
then you have the burden of proof" boils down to is that if anyone makes
any assertion, that person has the burden of proving that assertion or
allowing the assertion to be rejected.
Simple Septic has often claimed that those who assert that a god does
exist bear the burden of proving that assertion.
Any assertion is an assertion which can be rejected unless supported by
persuasive evidence.
Simple Septic has often declared that it is improper to believe anything
without evidence. It now appears that he only applies that judgement to
things he does not want to believe, but exempts those things he does
want to believe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
03 Jul 2005 01:57:21 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" :
... if anyone makes any assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion, moron, it is the denial (the
negation) of one.
"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."
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
03 Jul 2005 10:41:48 PM |
|
|
In article <I7OdnTXV2svXEVrfRVn-sA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Virgil" :
... if anyone makes any assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion
Then its negation is not an assertion either,
and theists, according to Simple Septic's logic, have no more to
prove than atheists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
05 Jul 2005 11:09:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:57:21 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <I7OdnTXV2svXEVrfRVn-sA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Virgil" :
... if anyone makes any assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion, moron, it is the denial (the
negation) of one.
No, it is not. The appropriate denial is "it is not established
(proven) that God exists".
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 04:06:58 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:99mmc1p6plk92206jefgql2fou7trg45js@4ax.com...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:57:21 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <I7OdnTXV2svXEVrfRVn-sA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Virgil" :
... if anyone makes any assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion, moron, it is the denial (the
negation) of one.
No, it is not.
Yes it is.
Assertion: "There might be an invisible God."
Denial (negation in logic) of that assertion: "False, there is no God."
Why do you and your theist friends want to ignore the fact that we have
these two different things, assertions on the one hand and denials
(negations) of assertions on the other?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 01:45:23 PM |
|
|
In article <E6idnTG98rtv2lHfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:99mmc1p6plk92206jefgql2fou7trg45js@4ax.com...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:57:21 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <I7OdnTXV2svXEVrfRVn-sA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Virgil" :
... if anyone makes any assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion
Then neither is its negation.
Simple Septic keeps trying to claim that asserting that something is
false is less of an assertion than asserting the same thing is true.
For those less blinded by their own egos, any claim to know the truth
about something is equally an assertion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 04:25:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:06:58 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <E6idnTG98rtv2lHfRVn-tQ@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:99mmc1p6plk92206jefgql2fou7trg45js@4ax.com...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:57:21 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <I7OdnTXV2svXEVrfRVn-sA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Virgil" :
... if anyone makes any assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion, moron, it is the denial (the
negation) of one.
No, it is not.
Yes it is.
Assertion: "There might be an invisible God."
Denial (negation in logic) of that assertion: "False, there is no God."
The denial is "it is not established that there is a God". This
differs from "there is no God".
Why do you and your theist friends want to ignore the fact that we have
these two different things, assertions on the one hand and denials
(negations) of assertions on the other?
Because you word your denial as an assertion. Both "there are
elephants on Santa Catalina Island" and "there are no elephants on
Santa Catalina Island" are assertions requiring support. The default
position is "it is unknown if there are elephants on Santa Catalina
Island"
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 07:15:24 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" :
The denial is ...
Concerning the assertion in question, 'There might be an invisible God'
assertion: true
denial (negation in logic): false
Why are you trying to shift the burden of proof to the denial? Don't you
know that trying to shift the burden of proof is logical fallacy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 08:40:35 PM |
|
|
"JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote in news:YMydnY7H7KqB6VHfRVn-qA@comcast.com:
"Matt Silberstein" :
The denial is ...
Concerning the assertion in question, 'There might be an invisible
God'
assertion: true
denial (negation in logic): false
Why are you trying to shift the burden of proof to the denial? Don't
you know that trying to shift the burden of proof is logical fallacy?
The burden of proof is simply a convention and is generally applied to
the one making an assertion. That is why you will find scientists
supplying backing documentation for their premises. Shifting the burden
does not invalidate the logical form.
If you like I can supply a cite my assertion.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 02:09:07 PM |
|
|
In article <YMydnY7H7KqB6VHfRVn-qA@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
The denial is ...
Concerning the assertion in question, 'There might be an invisible God'
assertion: true
denial (negation in logic): false
Why are you trying to shift the burden of proof to the denial?
Any claim to know the truth is an assertion needing proof.
So that the weak denial "we do not know that to be true" and strong
denial "we know that to be false" are different in that respect.
A weak denial does not claim to know the truth about the issue in
question, so is not an assertion.
A strong denial does claim to know the truth about the issue in question
so is an assertion, and is as needful of proof as the original which it
claims is false.
Simple Septic dxeliberately and falsely conflates the two situations to
try and sneak out from under his obligation to prove the falsity he
asserts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 08:35:20 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:cuioc1dskrfl36296mrttnihlt3n1a6ut9@4ax.com:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:06:58 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <E6idnTG98rtv2lHfRVn-tQ@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in message news:99mmc1p6plk92206jefgql2fou7trg45js@4ax.com...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:57:21 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <I7OdnTXV2svXEVrfRVn-sA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Virgil" :
... if anyone makes any assertion ...
'There is no God' is not an assertion, moron, it is the denial (the
negation) of one.
No, it is not.
Yes it is.
Assertion: "There might be an invisible God."
Denial (negation in logic) of that assertion: "False, there is no
God."
The denial is "it is not established that there is a God". This
differs from "there is no God".
Why do you and your theist friends want to ignore the fact that we
have these two different things, assertions on the one hand and
denials (negations) of assertions on the other?
Matt, are you truly a theist?
Because you word your denial as an assertion. Both "there are
elephants on Santa Catalina Island" and "there are no elephants on
Santa Catalina Island" are assertions requiring support. The default
position is "it is unknown if there are elephants on Santa Catalina
Island"
Does William of Occam's razor apply here? Or should he just Mill about?
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
05 Jul 2005 11:08:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:38:16 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <VrednWeu6JifTFvfRVn-og@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:5i6ac1tl0r2llluo5jvtp01qv0dj3p5gi8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 00:29:45 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <6NmdnSGBLOp7bVnfRVn-tw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-173EB2.17094330062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <L7ydnVUAo5QTQV_fRVn-1A@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
... If you assert that God does not exist ...
Matt, you are still assuming your conclusion.
The statement cited does not assume anything
Virgin means it does not assume anything except God.
Actually, it was an "if ..." construction and did not assume anything.
Matt means that it does not assume anything except God.
You should return that telepathy module, it does not provide reliable
results.
what Matt's
statement, "If you assert that God does not exist, then you have the burden
of proof" boils down to is "We true-believers presume there might be an
invisible God, and if you non-believers question or deny it, then you have
to prove there isn't."
Could you explain to me what I believe? I thought I was making a point
about logical arguments, but apparently not.
That is the double fallacy of Matt taking his conclusion for granted
Nope. You might want to learn what "if" means.
(begging the question) at the outset of his argument for it, then trying to
shift the burden of proof to the denial (the negation). The root of the
fallacy is the presumption that an existential proposition ['there might be
an invisible God'] is true unless proved false.
I can't wait until you graduate high school and get a chance to try
this "logic" out in college.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Yep. As I said, if you assert God does not exist, you have the burden
of proof to show that. If you assert that God does not exist you have
the burden of proof to show that. Absent proof either way the
proposition is undecided. This means that neither "God exists" nor
"God does not exist" can be used as a true statement in a logical
argument.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 04:14:52 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" :
You might want to learn what "if" means.
It is not the meaning of 'if' that is in question here, moron.
You might want to learn the difference between an assertion and the denial
(negation) of one.
You say, "If one asserts there is no God ..."
That assumes that 'There is no God" is an assertion. It is not , it is the
denial ( the negation in logic) of one, and you cannot shift the burden of
proof to the denial, trying to shift the burden of proof is logical fallacy:
"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." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 01:46:45 PM |
|
|
In article <k_OdnSdRHrdR1FHfRVn-iw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
You might want to learn what "if" means.
... moron
Simple Septic signed his post but forgot the mesage.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 04:30:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:14:52 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <k_OdnSdRHrdR1FHfRVn-iw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
You might want to learn what "if" means.
It is not the meaning of 'if' that is in question here, moron.
Using "moron" does not make your argument stronger or more persuasive.
It may well cheer the faithful, but it ends up making you look bad.
You might want to learn the difference between an assertion and the denial
(negation) of one.
You say, "If one asserts there is no God ..."
That assumes that 'There is no God" is an assertion. It is not,
Is sure is. It asserts there is no God. You need to learn the
difference between an unsupported and a false statement.
it is the
denial ( the negation in logic) of one, and you cannot shift the burden of
proof to the denial, trying to shift the burden of proof is logical fallacy:
"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." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
SFW? Repetition is not an argument. This has no bearing on whether or
not a particular statement is an assertion. You have confused two
situations.
Situation 1:
T: There is a God.
A: No, there is not.
T: Prove it.
In that case, the second T statement is an attempt to shift the burden
of proof.
Situation 2:
A: There is no God
T: Prove it
This second situation T is not shifting the burden.
Situation 3:
T: There is a God
me: That is not established, please provide an argument and evidence.
Situation 4:
A: There is no God
me: That is not established, please provide an argument and evidence.
No burden shift in either 3 or 4, just an attempt to get people to
support their claims.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 07:07:35 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:02joc1hd2u4uadaeti2tgihk8i0e5hmlii@4ax.com...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:14:52 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <k_OdnSdRHrdR1FHfRVn-iw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" :
You might want to learn what "if" means.
It is not the meaning of 'if' that is in question here, moron.
You might want to learn the difference between an assertion and the denial
(negation) of one.
You say, "If one asserts there is no God ..."
That assumes that 'There is no God" is an assertion. It is not, it is the
denial (the negation) of one.
Is sure is.
No it isn't, moron, it is the denial (the negation in logic) of one.
assertion in question: 'There might be an invisible God.'
denial (negation): 'False, there is no God.'
You are just trying to get away with shifting the burden of proof to the
non-believers.
"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." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 02:01:16 PM |
|
|
In article <9YedneTftpna71HfRVn-3A@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
False, there is no God.
This is the assertion that Simple Septic asserts he never makes!
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 02:12:09 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4DA41E.13011607072005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <9YedneTftpna71HfRVn-3A@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
