In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
;news:JyRXa.71868$o%2.35016@sccrnsc02...
:>
;> "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
:> news:hiuuivou7n0n9jmg6d97vp5c98freu9vm9@4ax.com...
;> > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:46:36 +0200, "Bowmore" <midleton@hotmail.com>
:> > wrote:
;> >
:> > >
;> > >"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:> > >news:HuyXa.46145$It4.27227@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
;> > >>
:> > >> "Bowmore" <midleton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;> > >> news:bgmaop$db7$1@reader08.wxs.nl...
:> > >>
;> > >>
:> > >> > I must agree that the burden of proof is on both the theists and
;the
:> > >> > atheists.
;> > >>
:> > >> Naw, the burden of proof cannot be shifted under any pretext,
;> knucklehead.
:> > >> The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove.
;> > >>
:> > >> "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
;> something
:> > >is
;> > >> true unless proven otherwise."
:> > >> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
;> > >>
:> > >>
;> > >
:> > >Atheists assert : there is no god.
;> >
:> > Hey, moron, tell us what there is that we're supposed to assert
;> > doesn't esist.
:>
;> There are claims about what God is. (The theist's own definition.)
:> There are claims that that God exists.
;> We can search for evidence and, finding none,
:> assert that that God doesn't exist.
;
:
;"There is no such thing" is not an assertion, knucklehead, it is the denial
:of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial:
Nope, the denial of a claim is a dis-claim
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
The denial of one would be "can't say there is such a thing".
:"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 something is
:true unless proven otherwise."
;http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Yes, it agrees with us 100%. Both "god does exist" and "there is no
god" are claims that stand in need of proof. The disclaims, "not
saying god does exist", and "not saying there is no god", are the
denials of those claim. Shifting the burden of proof from either of
the two before to either of the latter two is a fallacy.
:That means that the only reasonable presumption adhering by default to "An
;invisible something may exist" is "False."
Sorry, it doesn't mean its opposite.
.
|
