Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Class is in: Burden of proof

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 8:44:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ok, attention class, I know I will not actually expect a single one of you to grasp this, but I will try anyway. There is a fallacy in logic known as shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. Why is this, well because knowing the truth benefits us. So, by not accepting unwarranted positive claims we hold the least amount of false beliefs. This is basic. Not that hard, hold your little temper tantrums, you will get this one day class.

Lets take a look here at a couple basic examples: A child is born and is never exposed to Santa Claus. This child has a lack of belief in Santa Claus. The child is then exposed to the concept of Santa Claus, now the child will probably believe at this point, based on trust that their parents are telling the truth. The child will be presented with other circumstantial evidence such as presents under the tree. This will solidify this childs belief. The child is rationally justified in believing in Santa Claus. Now to get the child to disbelieve in Santa Claus, we actually do not have to present why Santa does not exist. You simply show that the evidence for Santa, while appearing good on the surface, was not actually good evidence. Once the child is exposed to the alternate option of the parents have tricked them and are the ones that placed the presents under the tree, that evidence for Santa has been debunked. The child returns to the base position of lacking belief, or disbelief. This every idiot on this board understands for Santa.

Now lets take a look at my favorite example Marnimacons. Before, I wrote this sentence did you believe in Maranamacons? Nope you had never even heard of them. Do you believe it now? Nope, how could you you have no concept of what they are. So naming something certainly does not make the proposition of existence seem even. How about we define them as aliens from venus who are eternal and are the route cause for why the laws of gravity work(beyond everything we know about gravity, the next step in our understanding). Now that they do something does this make it just as rational to believe in them as not to believe in them. I have my doubts that this assertion made anyone with any sense believe in them. Why do you not believe in them at this point? Well its simple you require evidence to support the claim. Asserting they cause something is not enough to get you to believe in them.

I think everyone knows right away that before ever having heard of the Maranamacons you did not believe in them, which was the base belief. We have followed this base belief up through giving a name and then defining the being and still we find it is not something you just up and believe in. Yet theists when it comes to their god will special plead that by doing the very thing with their god without any evidence to back up their assertions that both stances are equal. They know this is not true for Maranamacons, Invisible pink unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and more but once their god is involved, all bets are off with this way of thinking. No one in their right mind would say its just as rational to believe in Maranamacons after this post as it is to not believe in them. You will require more evidence for them, so that is what an atheist expects for god. So for the love of Maranamacons please start having the same standards for your god.

Now, before that little idiot Mig brings out his boosheet attempt to dismiss the marinimacons position, he must first say that Bertrand Russell, was also an idiot for comparing god to a tea pot orbiting another planet.

Now, lets get into why disbelief is the base belief, if you start out believing everything exists you must believe in concepts that have not even been thought about. But realistically we know this is false. To show this come up with a new creature or something. Is it rational to believe in it? No, it simply is not. Is it rational to think it is 50/50 that the creature exists. No, it is rational to not believe the creature exists. We can not special plead for god. God should be held to the same standards. This really is something that needs to be understood before any of you idiots vote on a debate again. This is really not something that should need to be explained on a debate website.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 8:49:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Now lets take a look at my favorite example Marnimacons"

It's MARANIMACONS. You made the sumbitches up and STILL can't spell it right, but you're gonna teach class??...lol
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 8:51:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 8:49:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"Now lets take a look at my favorite example Marnimacons"

It's MARANIMACONS. You made the sumbitches up and STILL can't spell it right, but you're gonna teach class??...lol

No marnimacons and maranimacons are different, now stop avoiding the point and learn from it.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 9:06:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If I start a thread, "God exists", the burden of proof is on me.
If you start a thread, "God doesn't exist", the burden of proof is on you.

To claim that I have the burden of proof for supporting my positive claim, but that same principle doesn't apply to you for your statement, is special pleading.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 9:08:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, guys, favorite foods?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 9:16:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 9:06:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If I start a thread, "God exists", the burden of proof is on me.
If you start a thread, "God doesn't exist", the burden of proof is on you.

To claim that I have the burden of proof for supporting my positive claim, but that same principle doesn't apply to you for your statement, is special pleading.

obviously you were not paying attention, if you were here is a list of things lack of evidence is sufficient enough reason to believe do not exist:

Unicorns, Big foot, leprechauns, hobbits, goblins,trolls, the easter bunny, santa claus, tooth fairy, maranimacons, the jupiter tea pot, elves, vampires, werewolves, zombies, thor, zeus, mithra, godzilla, the boogeyman, trickster, mermaids, sea monsters,....etc etc etc.

Now the reason for this is you are conflating common knowledge for absolute knowledge. We return to the null hypothesis for all these creatures based on without any evidence the actual odds of any of them existing is so low it would be ridiculous to believe we made something up and it just exists. God is the same way.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 9:24:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 9:16:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:06:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If I start a thread, "God exists", the burden of proof is on me.
If you start a thread, "God doesn't exist", the burden of proof is on you.

To claim that I have the burden of proof for supporting my positive claim, but that same principle doesn't apply to you for your statement, is special pleading.

obviously you were not paying attention, if you were here is a list of things lack of evidence is sufficient enough reason to believe do not exist:

Unicorns, Big foot, leprechauns, hobbits, goblins,trolls, the easter bunny, santa claus, tooth fairy, maranimacons, the jupiter tea pot, elves, vampires, werewolves, zombies, thor, zeus, mithra, godzilla, the boogeyman, trickster, mermaids, sea monsters,....etc etc etc.

Now the reason for this is you are conflating common knowledge for absolute knowledge. We return to the null hypothesis for all these creatures based on without any evidence the actual odds of any of them existing is so low it would be ridiculous to believe we made something up and it just exists. God is the same way.

Low probability does not disprove the possibility. Can you show that there is 0 possiblity?? If not, you've failed to meet your burden of proof.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 9:42:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 9:24:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:16:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:06:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If I start a thread, "God exists", the burden of proof is on me.
If you start a thread, "God doesn't exist", the burden of proof is on you.

To claim that I have the burden of proof for supporting my positive claim, but that same principle doesn't apply to you for your statement, is special pleading.

obviously you were not paying attention, if you were here is a list of things lack of evidence is sufficient enough reason to believe do not exist:

Unicorns, Big foot, leprechauns, hobbits, goblins,trolls, the easter bunny, santa claus, tooth fairy, maranimacons, the jupiter tea pot, elves, vampires, werewolves, zombies, thor, zeus, mithra, godzilla, the boogeyman, trickster, mermaids, sea monsters,....etc etc etc.

Now the reason for this is you are conflating common knowledge for absolute knowledge. We return to the null hypothesis for all these creatures based on without any evidence the actual odds of any of them existing is so low it would be ridiculous to believe we made something up and it just exists. God is the same way.

Low probability does not disprove the possibility. Can you show that there is 0 possiblity?? If not, you've failed to meet your burden of proof.

Fail, absolute utter failure to learn, stop conflating absolute knowledge with very reasonable certainty.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 9:44:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 9:08:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
So, guys, favorite foods?

Hamburger. Specifically, I like ones with freshly made double meat with angus beef, double cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, and onions, and large quantities of thousand island sauce as well as ranch dressing.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 9:51:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
See medic it is kind of like this, Am I going to die someday? The answer is yes. Do I have absolute knowledge, no but nobody sits and bitches and moans that I answer yes. It is possible they could create a way to live forever, I don't have any reason to believe that right now. Now please apply this to when someone says there is no such thing as god.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 9:52:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 9:08:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
So, guys, favorite foods?

I sure do love a good, MR to R steak.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 9:59:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Izbo, I want you to answer me honestly. Do you care more about teaching people what you want to teach them, or do you are more about the ego-boost of pretending to be an authority?

Because it seems to be the latter. You're going to be met with resistance not because your "students" are ignorant or ill-educated, but because you come across as patronizing and arrogant.

The best way to have others receive your ideas is to try to come across as an equal, not as a superior.

Raise your EQ, professor.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 10:05:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 9:59:33 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Izbo, I want you to answer me honestly. Do you care more about teaching people what you want to teach them, or do you are more about the ego-boost of pretending to be an authority?

Because it seems to be the latter. You're going to be met with resistance not because your "students" are ignorant or ill-educated, but because you come across as patronizing and arrogant.

The best way to have others receive your ideas is to try to come across as an equal, not as a superior.

Raise your EQ, professor.

Peer to peer convo requires 2 peers, a peer would indicate somebody close to equal. Unfortunately I have to explain these basic concepts, yet think it appropriate for them to be voting on debates.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 10:13:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 10:09:30 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Anything with cheese in it is pretty good. You know, chicken quesadilla, mac n cheese, cheese flavored cake, yeah.

Do you mean cheesecake, or a cake that tastes like cheese?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 10:21:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 10:05:00 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Peer to peer convo requires 2 peers, a peer would indicate somebody close to equal. Unfortunately I have to explain these basic concepts, yet think it appropriate for them to be voting on debates.

Then be better at teaching.

Short, succinct points that illustrate a concept are the best way to get an idea across, but they require you to know the upper and lower boundaries of your audience's knowledge level. You don't want to go above their heads and you don't want to seem patronizing, right?

Think a little less of yourself and a little more of the audience. A little bit of modesty goes a long way. As many books as you've read, you might actually be wrong. And if not wrong, perhaps you slightly misinterpreted something. Understand that everyone here thinks that they are a considerable amount smarter than their other friends.

If someone challenges you, take that challenge seriously instead of playing it off as ignorance or lack of experience. That's how people learn here. If you can't get a concept through to a person immediately, and the debate is dragging, it's not because they're stupid or wrong. You know the adage. If you can't explain it to a person, chances are, you don't understand it very well yourself.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 10:27:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 9:08:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
So, guys, favorite foods?

Riblets, Sushi [including Cucumber Rolls], Stir Fry, Fries, Rib Sandwiches, June Plums, French Fries [Chips if you are a Brit], Fried Chicken, and Mint-Chocolate Chip Ice Cream.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 10:35:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 10:21:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 8/25/2011 10:05:00 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Peer to peer convo requires 2 peers, a peer would indicate somebody close to equal. Unfortunately I have to explain these basic concepts, yet think it appropriate for them to be voting on debates.

Then be better at teaching.

Short, succinct points that illustrate a concept are the best way to get an idea across, but they require you to know the upper and lower boundaries of your audience's knowledge level. You don't want to go above their heads and you don't want to seem patronizing, right?

Think a little less of yourself and a little more of the audience. A little bit of modesty goes a long way. As many books as you've read, you might actually be wrong. And if not wrong, perhaps you slightly misinterpreted something. Understand that everyone here thinks that they are a considerable amount smarter than their other friends.

If someone challenges you, take that challenge seriously instead of playing it off as ignorance or lack of experience. That's how people learn here. If you can't get a concept through to a person immediately, and the debate is dragging, it's not because they're stupid or wrong. You know the adage. If you can't explain it to a person, chances are, you don't understand it very well yourself.

See I have explained these things time and time again, it is to the point that they are willfully ignorant. The fact is that if you present a dumb or ignorant challenge, I will say as such. I have to dumb it down so far for these people, and understand that no matter how far I dumb it down for them it probably is like a jet going over there head. It really is sad.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 10:41:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 9:42:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:24:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:16:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:06:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If I start a thread, "God exists", the burden of proof is on me.
If you start a thread, "God doesn't exist", the burden of proof is on you.

To claim that I have the burden of proof for supporting my positive claim, but that same principle doesn't apply to you for your statement, is special pleading.

obviously you were not paying attention, if you were here is a list of things lack of evidence is sufficient enough reason to believe do not exist:

Unicorns, Big foot, leprechauns, hobbits, goblins,trolls, the easter bunny, santa claus, tooth fairy, maranimacons, the jupiter tea pot, elves, vampires, werewolves, zombies, thor, zeus, mithra, godzilla, the boogeyman, trickster, mermaids, sea monsters,....etc etc etc.

Now the reason for this is you are conflating common knowledge for absolute knowledge. We return to the null hypothesis for all these creatures based on without any evidence the actual odds of any of them existing is so low it would be ridiculous to believe we made something up and it just exists. God is the same way.

Low probability does not disprove the possibility. Can you show that there is 0 possiblity?? If not, you've failed to meet your burden of proof.


Fail, absolute utter failure to learn, stop conflating absolute knowledge with very reasonable certainty.

Can you tell me the difference between the two, and how it affects the statement that you have a burden to uphold??
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 10:48:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 10:41:08 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:42:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:24:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:16:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:06:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If I start a thread, "God exists", the burden of proof is on me.
If you start a thread, "God doesn't exist", the burden of proof is on you.

To claim that I have the burden of proof for supporting my positive claim, but that same principle doesn't apply to you for your statement, is special pleading.

obviously you were not paying attention, if you were here is a list of things lack of evidence is sufficient enough reason to believe do not exist:

Unicorns, Big foot, leprechauns, hobbits, goblins,trolls, the easter bunny, santa claus, tooth fairy, maranimacons, the jupiter tea pot, elves, vampires, werewolves, zombies, thor, zeus, mithra, godzilla, the boogeyman, trickster, mermaids, sea monsters,....etc etc etc.

Now the reason for this is you are conflating common knowledge for absolute knowledge. We return to the null hypothesis for all these creatures based on without any evidence the actual odds of any of them existing is so low it would be ridiculous to believe we made something up and it just exists. God is the same way.

Low probability does not disprove the possibility. Can you show that there is 0 possiblity?? If not, you've failed to meet your burden of proof.


Fail, absolute utter failure to learn, stop conflating absolute knowledge with very reasonable certainty.

Can you tell me the difference between the two, and how it affects the statement that you have a burden to uphold??

And people wonder why I have to sound condescending. Medic dont turn around there is a poisonous snake hiding ready to kill you? Don't believe it, well that is reasonable certainty. You don't have to prove it, you have no reason to believe I would know such a thing. So to say no their isn't, is not needed to be argued, all you have to say is I have no reason to believe it. You live your life this way all the time.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 12:02:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 9:51:25 PM, izbo10 wrote:
See medic it is kind of like this, Am I going to die someday? The answer is yes. Do I have absolute knowledge, no but nobody sits and bitches and moans that I answer yes. It is possible they could create a way to live forever, I don't have any reason to believe that right now. Now please apply this to when someone says there is no such thing as god.

There is good solid evidence that you'll die. Every single human who ever lived has died, and we have eyewitnesses, doctors and paramedics see it all the time. That empirical evidence is not present for God, nor is there evidence against God.

A) I don't have any reason to believe that right now.

B) There is no such thing as god.

Look at the above statements and compare them. Do you see any significant difference between them??

Statement A is a perfectly legitimate statement, and it requires no proof. In fact, I have absolutely no argument to effectively counter that statement. Except to say, look around you at what God created, but that doesn't suffice, does it?? It doesn't work because I'm asking you to take a leap of faith, and accept that God created everything, without actually proving it to you.

That's exactly what you're asking me to do in your paragraph. You're asking me to apply the sensibility of statement A, to statement B, without proving B to be valid. You're asking me to take that same leap of faith that I talked about in my paragraph above, but in the opposite direction.

Neither of us can prove our statements, but I'm sure that I'm right because of my experiences, my reasons for having faith. You're sure that you're right, based on what you know and your lack of having those same experiences that I have.

Me: 2 x 2 = 4
You: 2 + 2 = 4

We're using the same numbers, to get the same result. We're just going through a different process, based on our individual knowledge. The big difference is that I've never called you an idiot, moron, dumb a$$, illogical, uneducated, or any other name just because you added instead of multiplying.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 12:06:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/26/2011 12:02:01 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:51:25 PM, izbo10 wrote:
See medic it is kind of like this, Am I going to die someday? The answer is yes. Do I have absolute knowledge, no but nobody sits and bitches and moans that I answer yes. It is possible they could create a way to live forever, I don't have any reason to believe that right now. Now please apply this to when someone says there is no such thing as god.

There is good solid evidence that you'll die. Every single human who ever lived has died, and we have eyewitnesses, doctors and paramedics see it all the time. That empirical evidence is not present for God, nor is there evidence against God.

A) I don't have any reason to believe that right now.

B) There is no such thing as god.

Look at the above statements and compare them. Do you see any significant difference between them??

Statement A is a perfectly legitimate statement, and it requires no proof. In fact, I have absolutely no argument to effectively counter that statement. Except to say, look around you at what God created, but that doesn't suffice, does it?? It doesn't work because I'm asking you to take a leap of faith, and accept that God created everything, without actually proving it to you.

That's exactly what you're asking me to do in your paragraph. You're asking me to apply the sensibility of statement A, to statement B, without proving B to be valid. You're asking me to take that same leap of faith that I talked about in my paragraph above, but in the opposite direction.

Neither of us can prove our statements, but I'm sure that I'm right because of my experiences, my reasons for having faith. You're sure that you're right, based on what you know and your lack of having those same experiences that I have.

Me: 2 x 2 = 4
You: 2 + 2 = 4

We're using the same numbers, to get the same result. We're just going through a different process, based on our individual knowledge. The big difference is that I've never called you an idiot, moron, dumb a$$, illogical, uneducated, or any other name just because you added instead of multiplying.

You are missing the point, it is common knowledge to say I am going to die not absolute. You truly are a special kind of stupid.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 12:12:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/26/2011 12:06:57 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/26/2011 12:02:01 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:51:25 PM, izbo10 wrote:
See medic it is kind of like this, Am I going to die someday? The answer is yes. Do I have absolute knowledge, no but nobody sits and bitches and moans that I answer yes. It is possible they could create a way to live forever, I don't have any reason to believe that right now. Now please apply this to when someone says there is no such thing as god.

There is good solid evidence that you'll die. Every single human who ever lived has died, and we have eyewitnesses, doctors and paramedics see it all the time. That empirical evidence is not present for God, nor is there evidence against God.

A) I don't have any reason to believe that right now.

B) There is no such thing as god.

Look at the above statements and compare them. Do you see any significant difference between them??

Statement A is a perfectly legitimate statement, and it requires no proof. In fact, I have absolutely no argument to effectively counter that statement. Except to say, look around you at what God created, but that doesn't suffice, does it?? It doesn't work because I'm asking you to take a leap of faith, and accept that God created everything, without actually proving it to you.

That's exactly what you're asking me to do in your paragraph. You're asking me to apply the sensibility of statement A, to statement B, without proving B to be valid. You're asking me to take that same leap of faith that I talked about in my paragraph above, but in the opposite direction.

Neither of us can prove our statements, but I'm sure that I'm right because of my experiences, my reasons for having faith. You're sure that you're right, based on what you know and your lack of having those same experiences that I have.

Me: 2 x 2 = 4
You: 2 + 2 = 4

We're using the same numbers, to get the same result. We're just going through a different process, based on our individual knowledge. The big difference is that I've never called you an idiot, moron, dumb a$$, illogical, uneducated, or any other name just because you added instead of multiplying.


You are missing the point, it is common knowledge to say I am going to die not absolute. You truly are a special kind of stupid.

It goes over all my points, the reason why we now believe we die is evidence, so hence we went away from the base belief. Then we can say to the best of our knowledge we will die, or the short form is we will die. As I said you are not absolutely certain. See now we come to my alternate explanation. What if they create a way to never die. Well we say we don't believe it will happen because it has no evidence it is true. You have to break down the parts to see how it works.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 12:31:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 10:48:15 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 10:41:08 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:42:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:24:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:16:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:06:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If I start a thread, "God exists", the burden of proof is on me.
If you start a thread, "God doesn't exist", the burden of proof is on you.

To claim that I have the burden of proof for supporting my positive claim, but that same principle doesn't apply to you for your statement, is special pleading.

obviously you were not paying attention, if you were here is a list of things lack of evidence is sufficient enough reason to believe do not exist:

Unicorns, Big foot, leprechauns, hobbits, goblins,trolls, the easter bunny, santa claus, tooth fairy, maranimacons, the jupiter tea pot, elves, vampires, werewolves, zombies, thor, zeus, mithra, godzilla, the boogeyman, trickster, mermaids, sea monsters,....etc etc etc.

Now the reason for this is you are conflating common knowledge for absolute knowledge. We return to the null hypothesis for all these creatures based on without any evidence the actual odds of any of them existing is so low it would be ridiculous to believe we made something up and it just exists. God is the same way.

Low probability does not disprove the possibility. Can you show that there is 0 possiblity?? If not, you've failed to meet your burden of proof.


Fail, absolute utter failure to learn, stop conflating absolute knowledge with very reasonable certainty.

Can you tell me the difference between the two, and how it affects the statement that you have a burden to uphold??

And people wonder why I have to sound condescending. Medic dont turn around there is a poisonous snake hiding ready to kill you? Don't believe it, well that is reasonable certainty. You don't have to prove it, you have no reason to believe I would know such a thing. So to say no their isn't, is not needed to be argued, all you have to say is I have no reason to believe it. You live your life this way all the time.

"I have no reason to believe", is a perfectly valid and respectable statement. But just because you have no reason to believe, doesn't mean that I haven't had experiences that give me reason to have faith in Christ. It's when you assume that what's true for you must also be true for everyone else, that we run into trouble. It's then that you become condescending, and begin to talk down to people as if you're position is superior, when it remains every bit as unproven as mine. No one on this site is any better than anyone else, we just believe differently, for our own reasons.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 12:36:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/26/2011 12:31:42 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 10:48:15 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 10:41:08 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:42:37 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:24:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:16:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/25/2011 9:06:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If I start a thread, "God exists", the burden of proof is on me.
If you start a thread, "God doesn't exist", the burden of proof is on you.

To claim that I have the burden of proof for supporting my positive claim, but that same principle doesn't apply to you for your statement, is special pleading.

obviously you were not paying attention, if you were here is a list of things lack of evidence is sufficient enough reason to believe do not exist:

Unicorns, Big foot, leprechauns, hobbits, goblins,trolls, the easter bunny, santa claus, tooth fairy, maranimacons, the jupiter tea pot, elves, vampires, werewolves, zombies, thor, zeus, mithra, godzilla, the boogeyman, trickster, mermaids, sea monsters,....etc etc etc.

Now the reason for this is you are conflating common knowledge for absolute knowledge. We return to the null hypothesis for all these creatures based on without any evidence the actual odds of any of them existing is so low it would be ridiculous to believe we made something up and it just exists. God is the same way.

Low probability does not disprove the possibility. Can you show that there is 0 possiblity?? If not, you've failed to meet your burden of proof.


Fail, absolute utter failure to learn, stop conflating absolute knowledge with very reasonable certainty.

Can you tell me the difference between the two, and how it affects the statement that you have a burden to uphold??

And people wonder why I have to sound condescending. Medic dont turn around there is a poisonous snake hiding ready to kill you? Don't believe it, well that is reasonable certainty. You don't have to prove it, you have no reason to believe I would know such a thing. So to say no their isn't, is not needed to be argued, all you have to say is I have no reason to believe it. You live your life this way all the time.

"I have no reason to believe", is a perfectly valid and respectable statement. But just because you have no reason to believe, doesn't mean that I haven't had experiences that give me reason to have faith in Christ. It's when you assume that what's true for you must also be true for everyone else, that we run into trouble. It's then that you become condescending, and begin to talk down to people as if you're position is superior, when it remains every bit as unproven as mine. No one on this site is any better than anyone else, we just believe differently, for our own reasons.

I am teaching you a lesson in why when someone says god exists, you can't just say well prove it. They are saying it in the same way you say allah, thor, and such don't exist. Because of the lack of evidence.

On no one is better part, that is bs, one of us is right and the other is wrong. One of us evaluates all the evidence one uses confirmation bias. You use confirmation bias. Or would you rather say you use arguments from ignorance.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 12:38:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I mean seriously, you want me to say yes, it is logical to believe a god sent his son down to be sacrificed for our sins is on the same boundaries as saying we have not found the answer yet. It is not. Making $hit up does not work as a way to come to truth.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 12:54:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Start at the 4 min mark, Slezak explains proof and dis proof & justified non-belief.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 1:56:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 8:44:02 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Ok, attention class, I know I will not actually expect a single one of you to grasp this, but I will try anyway. There is a fallacy in logic known as shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim.

Try again - the BoP is on the party bringing the claim. There are a few rare instances where this may not be the case, such as the individual who puts forth an argument that is self-evident or so blindingly obvious that there is in fact no burden of proof at all.

For example - If I instigate an argument with the resolution "Either the Earth is Round or it is Not Round", there is in fact no Con position because the resolution is a tautology.

Likewise, if I instigate an argument with the resolution "The sun is a producer of light," I may avoid the burden of proof because the resolution is so idiotically simple that the burden is self-fulfilling to anyone who can see the sky - it's not that I have *shifted* the burden - it's that I've already *met* it.

Why is this, well because knowing the truth benefits us.

I suggest you read some Neitzsche and Freud.

So, by not accepting unwarranted positive claims we hold the least amount of false beliefs. This is basic. Not that hard, hold your little temper tantrums, you will get this one day class.

As I'm sure that one day in class it will rock your world that truth doesn't necessarily have value for truth's sake, and false beliefs may, in some cases, be more useful than true ones.

Lets take a look here at a couple basic examples: A child is born and is never exposed to Santa Claus. This child has a lack of belief in Santa Claus. The child is then exposed to the concept of Santa Claus, now the child will probably believe at this point, based on trust that their parents are telling the truth. The child will be presented with other circumstantial evidence such as presents under the tree. This will solidify this childs belief. The child is rationally justified in believing in Santa Claus.

I'm with you so far...

Now to get the child to disbelieve in Santa Claus, we actually do not have to present why Santa does not exist. You simply show that the evidence for Santa, while appearing good on the surface, was not actually good evidence.

I'm curious how this evidence that is not actually good evidence is somehow not evidence why Santa does not exist. You would presumably be alerting the child to physical impossibilities - i.e. can't travel the world in one night, no such things as flying reindeer, fat man cannot go down chimney, perhaps the house has no chimney...

Once the child is exposed to the alternate option of the parents have tricked them and are the ones that placed the presents under the tree, that evidence for Santa has been debunked. The child returns to the base position of lacking belief, or disbelief. This every idiot on this board understands for Santa.

How I wish there was a :facepalm: icon!!! Lacking belief one way or the other is NOT THE SAME as disbelief - it is in fact NON-BELIEF. Take, for example, the difference between theist / agnostic / atheist. Your child WAS agnostic about Santa, then believed, and now does believes Santa does not exist. The child did not revert to a state of Santa-Clausal-Agnostcism.

Now lets take a look at my favorite example Marnimacons. Before, I wrote this sentence did you believe in Maranamacons? Nope you had never even heard of them. Do you believe it now? Nope, how could you you have no concept of what they are. So naming something certainly does not make the proposition of existence seem even. How about we define them as aliens from venus who are eternal and are the route cause

You mean they send it this way and that? Like they route traffic?

for why the laws of gravity work(beyond everything we know about gravity, the next step in our understanding). Now that they do something does this make it just as rational to believe in them as not to believe in them. I have my doubts that this assertion made anyone with any sense believe in them. Why do you not believe in them at this point?

Well aside from the fact that it's highly unlikely that most beings could survive on Venus and we already know how gravity works, so the law of parsimony means I don't need to even consider your evidence...

Well its simple you require evidence to support the claim. Asserting they cause something is not enough to get you to believe in them.

I think everyone knows right away that before ever having heard of the Maranamacons you did not believe in them, which was the base belief.

Nooooo - we've already established that if we don't know what they are, the default belief is agnosticism. Suppose I tell you about Scrivvies - the little mammals that scurry about eating cheese, being chased by cats, and ruining mattresses (mice, if you're that slow)... you didn't suddenly believe in them because I showed you evidence for them, you believed in them because you knew what I was talking about. With the Maranamacons, we switch to nonbelief after we know what you are talking about.

We have followed this base belief up through giving a name and then defining the being and still we find it is not something you just up and believe in. Yet theists when it comes to their god will special plead that by doing the very thing with their god without any evidence to back up their assertions that both stances are equal. They know this is not true for Maranamacons, Invisible pink unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and more but once their god is involved, all bets are off with this way of thinking. No one in their right mind would say its just as rational to believe in Maranamacons after this post as it is to not believe in them. You will require more evidence for them, so that is what an atheist expects for god. So for the love of Maranamacons please start having the same standards for your god.

Any Christian with half a brain will differentiate the two on the grounds that there is evidence for God - it may not be particularly good evidence, but it exists.

Now, before that little idiot Mig brings out his boosheet attempt to dismiss the marinimacons position, he must first say that Bertrand Russell, was also an idiot for comparing god to a tea pot orbiting another planet.

Now, lets get into why disbelief is the base belief, if you start out believing everything exists you must believe in concepts that have not even been thought about. But realistically we know this is false. To show this come up with a new creature or something. Is it rational to believe in it? No, it simply is not. Is it rational to think it is 50/50 that the creature exists. No, it is rational to not believe the creature exists. We can not special plead for god. God should be held to the same standards. This really is something that needs to be understood before any of you idiots vote on a debate again. This is really not something that should need to be explained on a debate website.

You do realize you have completely ignored the idea that the true default belief could be (and in fact is) agnosticism? In order to actually evaluate if you believe something, you have to start giving it properties. And until it has properties, you can't make a claim to DIS-believe it either because you don't know what it is!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you need to see me after class.