In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
;news:9rr8jvkf2oshrndqkdtlgvug3pfrn05he9@4ax.com...
:> Bob White wrote:
;> >Look, knucklehead, it is morally wrong (bearing false witness) for one to
:> >testify that she is justified in believing (being convinced) that a
;> >proposition like "An invisible god may exist" is true, without logically
:> >satisfactory evidence of such a thing.
;>
:> Look, knucklehead, it it morally wrong, according to Huxley, for one
;> to testify that he is justified in believing that a proposition like
:> "there are no gods" is true, without logically satisfactory evidence
;> to support that proposition.
:>
;>
:> You know this.
;>
:>
;> --
:> Marc.
;
:Look, knucklehead, "There are no gods" is not a proposition (statement
;standing in need of proof), it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof
:cannot be shifted to the denial. Evidently you do not know this. You might
;want to learn it so that you don't look like such a knucklehead.
The below applies to claims and dis-claims.
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
For example, the denial of the claim "there is no god" is
"can't say there is no god".
;"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
;
:The issue is all about religious belief and the absence of it.
;
:Here is the situation:
;
:Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
;
:"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
;gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
:
;Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
:existence of gods:
The following says no such thing. The quote says clearly what is being
denied and repudiated is this doctrine: there are propositions which
men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. It
says nothing about testifying.
:"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
;doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
:logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
;'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
:Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
