This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A simple answer to the "burden of proof" question

#131AynRandySavagePosted 2/27/2013 9:08:50 AM
cyclonekruse posted...
"Go back and show me where I claimed he knew the difference between a fallacious appeal to authority and a non-fallacious appeal to authority." So there were three places you could have found the claim in question.


I don't think he'll deny he's making an argument from authority. What he denied was that he was making a fallacious argument from authority.

If that's the case, he understands that there's a distinction. Which is all I suggested you were claiming.
#132cyclonekrusePosted 2/27/2013 10:14:37 AM
AynRandySavage posted...
If that's the case, he understands that there's a distinction. Which is all I suggested you were claiming.

You're moving the goalposts here. What you said that I claimed was that he understood the difference between a fallacious and non-fallacious appeal to authority. Not that he simply understood that there was a distinction--but that he understood the distinction itself. Those are two different propositions.

You might not have meant to make that claim but it's the claim you actually typed out.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#133AynRandySavagePosted 2/27/2013 10:19:22 AM
cyclonekruse posted...

You might not have meant to make that claim but it's the claim you actually typed out.


You may have read it that way, but it's not what I typed out. How could there NOT be a difference between a fallacious and non-fallacious appeal to authority?
#134cyclonekrusePosted 2/27/2013 11:46:29 AM
AynRandySavage posted...
You may have read it that way, but it's not what I typed out. How could there NOT be a difference between a fallacious and non-fallacious appeal to authority?

Lrn 2 reed.

P1: Sally understands the difference between direct objects and indirect objects.
P2: Sally understands that there is a difference between direct objects and indirect objects.

Two different statements. You said I claimed something akin to P1. What I actually claimed was something akin to P2.

I never said anything about there not being a difference between "direct objects" and "indirect objects".
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#135AynRandySavagePosted 2/27/2013 1:09:14 PM(edited)
cyclonekruse posted...

I never said anything about there not being a difference between "direct objects" and "indirect objects".



It doesn't matter, you did claim that he could differentiate between a fallacious appeal and a non-fallacious one, which is what I was questioning.
#136C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 2/27/2013 2:03:40 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
Horse****. Every nation and time on Earth has had different beliefs about the universe, and the major religions are not something you can arrive at naturally. As a child, you do not naturally jump to a belief in God. You are an atheist until you ask the question "Why does everything exist?" How the parents, friends and elders choose to answer and with some measured reasoning by a young brain, results in the belief. Some are truly atheistic (the default state, even while you are wondering if there is something greater), some believed in animalistic gods, many had polytheistic beliefs, now there are monotheists. Further, the very specific belief in the Christian god requires extensive indoctrination. I'm not using that term pejoratively, I'm using it because it is exactly what is required; you must be versed and taught the doctrine to believe in it. There's your extra ordinary.

Now, WLC's cosmological argument (which is simply one of his worst). The same argument applies to God. Oh, all of a sudden God doesn't need a cause to exist because he has always and will always exist? Oh, cool, special pleading! Can you begin to prove that such is the case? No? Can you prove that the conditions leading to the Big Bang (whatever they were) a) aren't eternal and b) won't arise again? No? OK, can you begin to prove that there is even a 'nothing' from the Universe to emerge or 'begin' from? No? Ok. Can you tell me the cause for virtual particles coming into existence and obliterating constantly, even in the emptiest of vacuums? No? OK. Can you prove definitely that the cosmological argument is valid at all? No? OK. WLC is not a good person to emulate. He regurgitates the same arguments over and over, even after they have been refuted numerous times.


How does anything you typed refute my argument, that saying "God exists" is not an extraordinary claim? I think you should try to define what you think an extraordinary claim is.

Also, I'm not turning this into a debate over WLC's argument. Especially not with someone who actually uses the phrase "emptiest of vacuums."

Faust_8 posted...
It's not an extraordinary claim, I already explained why. It is totally ordinary for a person to believe in God.

Congrats, you have no idea what "extraordinary claim" means at all.


Yes I do. Do you?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#137ThuggernautzPosted 2/27/2013 2:26:38 PM(edited)
C_Mat posted...

How does anything you typed refute my argument, that saying "God exists" is not an extraordinary claim? I think you should try to define what you think an extraordinary claim is.

Also, I'm not turning this into a debate over WLC's argument. Especially not with someone who actually uses the phrase "emptiest of vacuums."


It does, though it's a shame you have such reading comprehension issues. Here, from the OED, some synonyms for ordinary:

Normal, standard, default.

The normal, standard, default of a child before indoctrination is atheism; or at the very least, agnosticism. There, I think I simplified it enough so that you might be able to understand.

And of course you're not going to debate it, because it's one of the worst arguments he's ever made. And my use of the 'emptiest of vacuums' was some nice hyperbole to illustrate my point that you can't prove there is such a thing as 'nothing' for the universe to emerge from, in order to support the cosmological argument.
#138hunter_gohanPosted 2/27/2013 3:22:29 PM
C_Mat posted...
But atheism has a historical definition as well, I was using that one.


Actually you didn't. The historical definition is an insult. Ever since people first started identifying as atheists it has been in the sense of not believing in (at that time specifically the Abrahamic) God.

"Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[122][123] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[39]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist#Etymology

And yes I'm aware whoever wrote this erroneously described not holding a belief as a belief. I'm too lazy to make an account to fix it though.

I don't care about continuing this argument about how they want to (re)define atheism.


Well excuse us if we didn't like the fact that a word literally meaning without gods or godless was being used as an insult.

AynRandySavage posted...
Rather, I'd see it as disingenuous if you were to keep calling yourself a Christian in that context.


Do you think it's also disingenuous of Rick Santorum to not change his last name because he isn't that frothy butt mixture?

Moorish_Idol posted...
That's what I was thinking. I feel like "non-theist" is a much more descriptive term.


"non-" and "a-" mean pretty much the same thing.

"a- also an- not, without atheist, anaemic"

Not a theist!

"non- absence, negation non-smoker, non-alcoholic"
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm

Nontheism: the absence of theism IoW not being a theist.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#139AynRandySavagePosted 2/27/2013 3:27:23 PM(edited)
hunter_gohan posted...
AynRandySavage posted...
Rather, I'd see it as disingenuous if you were to keep calling yourself a Christian in that context.


Do you think it's also disingenuous of Rick Santorum to not change his last name because he isn't that frothy butt mixture?



I would really, really love it if that was the first thing that came to people's minds(to the exclusion of others) when the word Santorum came up, but we're not to that point yet.


"non-" and "a-" mean pretty much the same thing.

"a- also an- not, without atheist, anaemic"

Not a theist!

"non- absence, negation non-smoker, non-alcoholic"
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm

Nontheism: the absence of theism IoW not being a theist.


this is just arguing from etymology again. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says about the respective suffixes, "non-theist" and "atheist" clearly have different meanings in the minds of people.
#140hunter_gohanPosted 2/27/2013 3:31:15 PM
AynRandySavage posted...
this is just arguing from etymology again. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says about the respective suffixes, "non-theist" and "atheist" clearly have different meanings in the minds of people.


Not in my mind or the minds of the vast majority of atheists. Even the majority of people factoring in non-atheists.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/63799502

78.17% but continue to rail against both the dictionary definition and the common usage/understanding of this word. It's what you do afterall.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.