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

A simple answer to the "burden of proof" question

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. A simple answer to the "burden of proof" question
3 years ago#151
cyclonekruse posted...
AynRandySavage posted...
Well I only wanted you to concede those points. So let's talk about that.

Let's talk about your penchant for making false claims (especially in regards to others' words) and not backing them up or withdrawing them when you get called out on it.


Well, there's nothing about "false claims" in any of your criticisms here. As far as I can tell, you're just criticizing how I worded my argument. My only point is that you made the presumption that Jon saw himself making an appeal to authority and subsequently made a distinction between fallacious appeals to authority and non-fallacious appeals to authority.

I'd be more than happy to argue with you about the above being "false"
3 years ago#152
AynRandySavage posted...
Well, there's nothing about "false claims" in any of your criticisms here. As far as I can tell, you're just criticizing how I worded my argument."

I'm criticizing your argument's wording in the same way that one criticizes someone for claiming "Water is not wet" when that person (supposedly) meant that water is wet. As stated, the person's claim is false. So, yes, the wording matters. You made a certain claim about what I said. You have yet to show that that claim is true. Instead, you are focusing on proving a different, weaker claim and saying that that's what you meant all along.

Now, quit trying to shift focus to me. Either defend your original statement or say that you worded it incorrectly.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
3 years ago#153
cyclonekruse posted...

Now, quit trying to shift focus to me. Either defend your original statement or say that you worded it incorrectly.


I think I worded it just fine, personally. I don't see why you're being so nitpicky about it.
3 years ago#154
Maybe for the same reason that you refuse to acknowledge that on this board, and on a large portion of internet communities, atheism is defined differently than what you would think. But go ahead, continue to derail another thread with your pointless semantic objections.
3 years ago#155
Thuggernautz posted...
Maybe for the same reason that you refuse to acknowledge that on this board, and on a large portion of internet communities, atheism is defined differently than what you would think. But go ahead, continue to derail another thread with your pointless semantic objections.


Why do you keep saying this? When have I ever denied that atheism is defined more inclusively among you guys?
3 years ago#156
Because everytime it's even hinted at in any thread, you jump in and tell everyone 'that's not the definition that has historically been used etc. etc.' It's tiresome. We know. We don't care. We have a valid definition (according to various dictionaries) that we think fits our common characteristics and viewpoints far better, and we will likely continue to use it. You don't need to keep bringing it up every time.
3 years ago#157
Historically, gay means happy.

/thread
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
3 years ago#158
Thuggernautz posted...
Because everytime it's even hinted at in any thread, you jump in and tell everyone 'that's not the definition that has historically been used etc. etc.' It's tiresome. We know. We don't care. We have a valid definition (according to various dictionaries) that we think fits our common characteristics and viewpoints far better, and we will likely continue to use it. You don't need to keep bringing it up every time.


This thread began when Jon tried to "correct" the TC on his definitions. You guys always fire the first shots, so I don't see why you all profess to disliking semantic arguments.
3 years ago#159
How did C_Mat manage not to be the most obnoxious poster in a thread where he insists that there is nothing extraordinary about omnipotence?
---
joey444
We elect Obama and all the capitalists will be executed. This is a legitimate concern of mine. - OMGWTFPIE, 2011
3 years ago#160
YouAreCrumbs posted...
How did C_Mat manage not to be the most obnoxious poster in a thread where he insists that there is nothing extraordinary about omnipotence?


Seeing opinions you disagree with as "obnoxious" is actually pretty obnoxious itself.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. A simple answer to the "burden of proof" question

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived