On 28 Feb 2004 18:56:14 -0800, (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
Brian Bilek wrote in message <7cd240lhmtqjv1tdbs406efjm6fs7r6c77@4ax.com>...
Saying "I believe that the Christians are wrong" is VERY different
than saying "Christians are wrong." Why don't you understand what
the
difference is?
Why are you going to such great lengths to dissect and defend your
discombobulated statements? I can see right through you.
I was attempting to explain to you why you misinterpreted me, through
my own poor use of language.
The moment you took offense to something I said, your posts became
belligerent. Have you come here to pick a fight, and nothing more?
If that is the case, I won't bother continuing the discussion.
I have tried to be nice to you. I begin to understand why no one else
will have anything to do with you.
You have nothing to substantiate your claims. Your "lack of belief"
is
just as insignificant as my "belief."
What you fail to understand is that "lack of belief" is neither a
claim, nor needs to be supported.
Typical atheist "escape" tactic. (Yeah, let's pretend we were never
talking about a claim in the first place). <yawn>
Hey, don't blame me for your own lack of comprehension.
If you refuse to be educated, I no longer care about your ignorance.
<snip>
Does it
not stand to follow that if I assume that there is no Christian
God,
that those who believe in it are mistaken?
You need to unequivocally support your claims before appointing your
opposing party as wrong.
I agree. Thus I do not claim anyone is wrong. I assume anyone's
claim is mistaken if they have no evidence to back it up.
Supporting your claims with "lack of proof"
is a childish approach to a very serious study.
I suggest you take a look at this web site:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html
Particularly the section entitled "Burden of Proof." I found it
after
a short search, avoiding any sites that are specifically devoted to
the subject of religion that include essays on logic and debate (such
as infidels.org). This addresses both of our assertions quite
nicely,
with respect to proof, claims, and evidence.
Did YOU read it?!?!?
Yes.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html says:
"In logical debate, the burden of proof is always upon the person
making the positive assertion. This principle is rather simple,
but also rather deceptive. There exists a standard formation of a
question to determine whether or not the proposition is indeed
a positive assertion. As a common example, many people claim that
those who claim that gods do not exist have the burden of
proof, just as much in fact as those who claim that gods do exist.
First of all, it should be perfectly clear to all that those who
claim that "gods exist" have the burden of proof.
However, **********those who claim that "gods do not exist"
----------are in fact making an assertion--------, but a negative
one**********.
Show me where I claim that gods do not exist.
I haven't, therefore all your cutting and pasting was for naught.
Obviously, the burden of proof is still on you.
************The standard formation of the ----------assertion--------
is Not There Exists gods.**************
From this formation, it becomes clear that although it is indeed an
assertion, it is not a positive assertion and does not in argument
have the full burden of proof.
However, *********the burden of proof may be --------properly
shifted------- to such a person********** however if a prima facie
case is established, which brings us to the next point.
Some people do not really understand the why on that last point, so I
shall attempt to explain further. The reason that a negative claim
does not have the full burden of proof is because of the fact that
they are claiming something to be false. To prove that in science is
nearly impossible.
While *************that hardly excuses a proposition************, it
is however a form of default position.
If one assumes that things are false until shown otherwise, one is not
likely to believe a positive assertion without reason, and that
is part of the point of having the burden of proof--to avoid believing
something is established when it has not yet been so.
However, ************one is in danger of believing something false
that is true**********, for this reason, there ********is some burden
of proof on the belief in the negative***********.
Again, the burden is to establish a prima facie case in support of
ones position. Once one has done that, then one has established at
least a reasonable reason for ones position. The phrase Burden of
Proof is deceptive, for it doesn't mean rock solid proof, it means
establishing of a rational case in defense of the position. "
I assume the negative in
any claim for the existence of something supernatural until
evidence
is produced to support its existence. That is the essence of lack
of
belief in such things. Did you not know this?
It's a cop out. And if you do some real work, you'll learn that the
studious actively pursue facts to "disprove" a theory. Based on your
position, *That is *Your *Job.
Nerd Gerl, please read the section entitled "Burden of Proof" here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html
Don't assume that I do not do real work. You are either deliberately
trying to offend me, or speaking from a position of ignorance.
You (really) make me laugh.
I hope so, because it seems you are incapable of learning. I am glad
you find it amusing.
Why don't you take a look around the web. You'll find plenty of
people
who take this responsibility seriously. Search using the keywords,
"disprove" or "disproving." Perhaps you'll come up with a strategy
more respectable than, "Well, you can't prove it!!"
Please educate yourself in the subject of debate, and I would be
happy
to address this.
I suggest you follow your own advice.
I suggest you follow it, and brush up on your reading comprehension,
while you are at it.
By the very nature of being an atheist, it seems that I am taking a
position that offends you.
I've already explained the offense. "Being an atheist" was never
mentioned.
Yes it was, because you completely misread what I said.
Cut and paste where I said "Being an atheist" offends me.
Why bother discussing this at all if you
are going to be offended because I don't believe what you believe?
I've already explained the offense. "Not believing what I believe"
was
never mentioned.
Yes it was, because you completely misread what I said.
Cut and paste where I said "Not believing what I believe" offends me.
A) I lack belief in gods.
B) Some claim that gods exist.
C) I assume they are wrong since they provide no proof.
D) You took offense because you believe in gods, and assumed I was
saying you were -wrong-.
I never said YOU were wrong. I assume those who claim that gods exist
are wrong. I do not CLAIM that since I have no evidence to support
it. I do not make unsupported claims, unlike yourself, for instance.
You took offense at what I believe. There is no use for cut and paste
since you MISUNDERSTOOD what I was saying. But that is ok, since you
have, as the saying goes, pretty thin skin. It was inevitable, since
you apparently can't carry on an intelligent conversation without
resorting to belligerence - either that, or you were looking to pick a
fight in the first place.
If you are looking for true objectivity you will not find it in any
conversation with a human.
That sums up your position quite clearly. Thank you.
How is this a summary of my position?
Simply because people's viewpoints are by definition subjective?
That
is not my position, or do you simply not undertand a thing I have
tried to tell you?
I understand that you are a liar and a hyprocrite by (1) first
claiming to engage an ********objective book******* about the mind and
spirituality, and then later (2) declaring that *******no human can be
objective*******.
Evidence is objective. People are not. I don't know why I expect you
to understand the difference.
You can call me a liar and a hypocrite all you like. You are wrong
and your arguments to that effect are specious.
What the hell are you going to read it for then? So that you can get a
subjective insight about objective spirituality?
No, a look at some research done into the workings of the human brain,
and how it relates to spirituality.
Bye.
Take care.
-Brian
(Spam filter: Add my first initial to the forefront of my email address to contact me directly.)
.
