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

A simple answer to the "burden of proof" question

#261AynRandySavagePosted 3/3/2013 10:10:37 AM
cyclonekruse posted...

So that's it, is it? You want to waste my and everyone else's time with inanity and trolling or you want me to leave so you can claim victory? Jesus. If you're so sad as to need that ego boost, I'll leave and let you have your hollow victory. But I think you've just shown everyone your true stripes.


I don't think you will actually. But you're free to prove me wrong.
#262AynRandySavagePosted 3/3/2013 11:44:27 AM
hunter_gohan posted...

That's nice Quine didn't write Webster's dictionary. I'll take their word for what they mean when they use certain words. You keep trying to do this. Have a word defined by some completely unrelated person and attempting to shove it into a dictionarie's definition when the dictionary in question makes it quite clear that they do not define or use the word that way.


They have several different definitions of disbelief by themselves actually. And my point is that "Disbelief" only means "lack of belief" to Webster's definition on atheism if you're presuming that they're being inconsistent in their definitions, seeing as they define atheist as an active belief that there is no god(which I consider to be disbelief)

Also, from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively

Just like when you ignore the fact that wiki states atheism has meant disbelief ever since people first started identifying as atheists(though originally only referring to the Abrahamic God), or that Cambridge is apparently the only dictionary that doesn't include the not believing definition


Look above, the wiki articles clearly use disbelief to mean how I am.


And what does this have to do with anything?


Because if you think the existence of god is probable or improbable in any way at all, you don't really have "no opinion"
#263hunter_gohanPosted 3/3/2013 1:41:47 PM
AynRandySavage posted...
They have several different definitions of disbelief by themselves actually.


Yeah a transitive and intransitive version

transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve

And my point is that "Disbelief" only means "lack of belief" to Webster's definition on atheism if you're presuming that they're being inconsistent in their definitions, seeing as they define atheist as an active belief that there is no god(which I consider to be disbelief)


Like I said already. It's incomplete. Their definition of atheist lines up with atheism2b just fine, but not atheism2a.

Also, from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively


Which really does not deserve it's own classification.

1 Not believe; to exercise disbelief.
2 Actively deny a statement, opinion or perception.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disbelieve

By 1 it's impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve. By 2 it's just well who cares if you're actively doing it? You're still not believing. It's a superfluous grouping so you don't have to say you're an atheist basically.

Look above, the wiki articles clearly use disbelief to mean how I am.


Unpreparedness, unwillingness, or inability to believe that something is the case.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disbelief

According to wiki you're an agnostic atheist. Even using that definition of agnostic.
---
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.
#264AynRandySavagePosted 3/3/2013 4:37:13 PM
hunter_gohan posted...

By 1 it's impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve. By 2 it's just well who cares if you're actively doing it? You're still not believing. It's a superfluous grouping so you don't have to say you're an atheist basically.


That's incorrect. Frege pointed out that denial of a proposition means the affirmation of its negation.




Unpreparedness, unwillingness, or inability to believe that something is the case.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disbelief


That's spurious reasoning. It's entirely unlikely that the Wikipedia editor who wrote the entry on agnosticism even read the wiktionary article on disbelief. Furthermore, the quote from the wikipedia pages comes from the routledge encyclopedia of philosophy, which definitely doesn't define disbelief the way you do.
#265Julian_CaesarPosted 3/3/2013 7:38:04 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #003
I wasn't aware there was ""burden of proof" question"


Topic should have ended here. Third post.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#266DarkContractorPosted 3/4/2013 4:15:51 PM
From: AynRandySavage | #264
hunter_gohan posted...

By 1 it's impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve. By 2 it's just well who cares if you're actively doing it? You're still not believing. It's a superfluous grouping so you don't have to say you're an atheist basically.


That's incorrect. Frege pointed out that denial of a proposition means the affirmation of its negation.





I haven't been paying much attention to this conversation, so forgive me if it has been covered, but whoever Frege is, he made a false dichtomy. It's not a dilema of with it or against it. neutrality IS an option.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#267AynRandySavagePosted 3/4/2013 8:47:03 PM
DarkContractor posted...
From: AynRandySavage | #264
hunter_gohan posted...

By 1 it's impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve. By 2 it's just well who cares if you're actively doing it? You're still not believing. It's a superfluous grouping so you don't have to say you're an atheist basically.


That's incorrect. Frege pointed out that denial of a proposition means the affirmation of its negation.





I haven't been paying much attention to this conversation, so forgive me if it has been covered, but whoever Frege is, he made a false dichtomy. It's not a dilema of with it or against it. neutrality IS an option.


It's an option, but its not an option as an opinion. denial means to say something is untrue. if something is untrue, then it's negation must be true. By being neutral, you're saying "I have no opinion(i.e. position)"
#268C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 3/7/2013 9:08:38 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
I see now that with the qualifier of 'belief that' actually reduces my argument. If someone says 'I believe God exists', that is not an extraordinary claim; especially in America. It is a statement of personal belief which can only be truly known by the one saying it. If someone says 'God exists' as a declarative statement, well, regardless of location that most definitely is an extraordinary claim. So, I apologize. However, you shouldn't naturally jump to the conclusion that all forum goers are American. If you were to say "I believe God exists" in Sweden, or to an Amazonian tribe, that would be quite extraordinary.


Alright, good enough for me.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#269AdmiralBisonPosted 3/13/2013 1:14:55 AM
AynRandySavage posted...
AdmiralBison posted...
C_Mat posted...
If you're an agnostic (one who does not posit a firm stance on the existence of God), you do not bear the burden of proof.

If you're a theist (one who believes that a God exists), the burden of proof is on you.

If you're an atheist (one who believes that no God exists), the burden of proof is also on you.

Sound fair?


No.

Atheism is a direct response to Theism and its claim.
With out Theism, Atheism becomes irrelevant and does not propose on itself.

Positive affirmations often require burden of proof especially when it comes to extraordinary things such as gods.

I can say and believe to everyone here that the god RA exists.
It's a positive claim.
People here are able to respond Atheist(unless there are people here who believe in RA) to this and not need to provide evidence to support their position

Atheists to RA here can even say and believe that RA does not exist.
This can be justified by pointing out the VERY basic lack of extraordinary evidence of RA and how RA is not even present now.
Also positive evidence can be used to justify that RA doesn't exist.
Using historical facts such as tracing when the concept of RA was created, finding the authors of the concept RA, finding contradictions and opposing facts.


If there's no evidence either way, then do you think that the odds of god existing are 50/50?


Evidence either way?

There is no evidence for this personal god in the first place so how can it qualify for 50/50?

If we are going to also use wishful probability then you must consider all things perimissable without the constraints of actual evidence.

Like the existence of other gods.
That the personal god a person adheres to was created by them or can have been preceded and created by gods before them (the who created god dilemma)
That the personal god is dead
That a religious god(s) is human made.
Gods are used as scapegoats for the ruling class and that in the end its all just a sham.

All those things can be perimissable without evidence.

The point is.
Proof is a very basic concept that many people, professions and disciplines use to argue and convince their cases and positions.
Yet some for something so out of the ordinary and contravertly powerful and extraordinary like gods? This concept has not even be met.

It should not be this difficult for Theism that proposes the existence of this personal god to fulfill such a criteria such as proof and/or evidence.

It's incredible the mental summersaults that are used.
"Logical evidence"
"Emotional logic"
"Probability"
"Faith"

All of which are unnecessary for something that is supposedly prominent.
---
If delusions and Illusions are an en-escapable part of our entire lives, why not just pick a positive one?
#270AynRandySavagePosted 3/16/2013 11:20:11 PM
AdmiralBison posted...
There is no evidence for this personal god in the first place so how can it qualify for 50/50?


Because there's no evidence for its non-existence in the first place either.

All of which are unnecessary for something that is supposedly prominent.
'

You're making a lot of assumptions here. There's no reason to assume that God's existence should be prominent or easy to prove.