| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ineedmoney" |
| Date: |
06 Sep 2004 06:09:13 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-3ACC2B.18482620032004@[63.218.45.211]...
<snip>
Ok Virgil lets discuss this then. (btw Ive been to this site)
Quoted from
http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/skeptictricks2.html
<begin quote>
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't
have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the
argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or
doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim
(asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from
a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative,
requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an
opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In
other words, you can't win by default.
<end quote>
The problem with this persons argument is that, since you are using it in a
theological context, all it does is not allow him and you, according to his
(and yours) own argument here, to be able to ever say "positively" that he
disbelieves in ANYTHING. This includes every god, every religion, every
science fiction idea and in fact any crazy idea anyone ever thinks up - he
is NEVER allowed to state that he positively does not think (whatever it is)
does_not_exist. This situation would obviously be ridiculous, so that is why
his entire argument is flawed, and that is why it does not work in neither
his or your contexts - but especially yours.
Ed
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Purdie" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
06 Sep 2004 10:26:35 PM |
|
|
"Ineedmoney" <mail@fake.co.uk> wrote in message
news:chiqn1$hir$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
he is NEVER allowed to state that he positively does not think
(whatever it is)
does_not_exist. >
Ed
I think you lost count of your negatives, so you have said the
opposite of what you meant! However, on such matters, it is unwise to
talk of proof. I think positively and definitely that Santa Claus does
not exist, but how on earth could I go about proving it? I have
weighed the probabilities, and decided that they are overwhelmingly
against his existence, but that does not mean I can PROVE it.
But the fact that I am an a-Santa Clausist is no evidence that he does
exist. Only someone who believed in Santa Claus regardless of the
rational evidence could advance the argument that he must exist, or I
would not have anything not to believe in!
Jim Purdie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ineedmoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious question for liberal atheists |
07 Sep 2004 08:20:05 AM |
|
|
"Jim Purdie" <jimpurdie@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:QT9%c.2431$mZ2.211588@news02.tsnz.net...
"Ineedmoney" <mail@fake.co.uk> wrote in message
news:chiqn1$hir$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
he is NEVER allowed to state that he positively does not think
(whatever it is)
does_not_exist. >
Ed
I think you lost count of your negatives, so you have said the
opposite of what you meant!
Hmm...Yes I see what you mean. :-)
Ed
However, on such matters, it is unwise to
talk of proof. I think positively and definitely that Santa Claus does
not exist, but how on earth could I go about proving it? I have
weighed the probabilities, and decided that they are overwhelmingly
against his existence, but that does not mean I can PROVE it.
But the fact that I am an a-Santa Clausist is no evidence that he does
exist. Only someone who believed in Santa Claus regardless of the
rational evidence could advance the argument that he must exist, or I
would not have anything not to believe in!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
