Hairyloon Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 If you're uncertain, you disbelieve the positive claim. If you have doubt, you disbelieve the positive claim. Which is not the same as accepting the negative claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Which is not the same as accepting the negative claim. Person 1: Positive Claim - There is a god. Person 2: I have my doubts. I don't believe you. What negative claim are you referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Let us try an analogy on the nature of belief. At the end of this post I will put a link, the link will take you to something that may or may not be a cat. In the context, the cat is analogous to god: you can believe it exists, or you can believe it does not exist. You might believe that it is a lion: let us put that as analogous to the Christian God. You might believe that it is a leopard: let us put that as analogous to the Muslim God. And so on. Or you might believe there is no cat... Now perhaps we add some more information: positive proof that it is not a lion or a leopard. Does that prove there is no cat? There are some here that appear to hold the analogous position regarding god... Mystery Link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Let us try an analogy on the nature of belief. At the end of this post I will put a link, the link will take you to something that may or may not be a cat. In the context, the cat is analogous to god: you can believe it exists, or you can believe it does not exist. You might believe that it is a lion: let us put that as analogous to the Christian God. You might believe that it is a leopard: let us put that as analogous to the Muslim God. And so on. Or you might believe there is no cat... Now perhaps we add some more information: positive proof that it is not a lion or a leopard. Does that prove there is no cat? There are some here that appear to hold the analogous position regarding god... Mystery Link. Sounds like a shifting of the burden of proof. Prove the cat exists and that'll do for me, until that's the case I'll disbelieve the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlinate Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 You're special pleading. Why is the god question different? Also please prove that nothing can be known ---------- Post added 28-05-2017 at 17:13 ---------- If you're uncertain, you disbelieve the positive claim. If you have doubt, you disbelieve the positive claim. Dear me, if you can't understand why " the god question is different" there is no hope for you. People throughout the world have worshiped, built cathedrals, mosques, temples, pyramids and synagogues to their various gods for thousands of years. Some of the most beautiful music ever composed has been in praise of the glory of god. Crusades and jihads have been undertaken, and millions have been been discriminated against, deported and had genocide committed against them in the name of a different god from theirs. It is one of the eternal questions of mankind, is there or isn't there a god, and what purpose does our existence serve. And then some clowns come along with santa and spaghetti monsters and attempt to claim a false equivalence between them and God, the creator of the universe and all mankind, according to theists. Get a grip, and if your going to continue at least attempt to introduce some measure of rationality into your arguments. " Also please prove that nothing can be known ." Your apparent attempt to prove to yourself that you are a clever boy is doomed to failure, because it's quite evidently that you are not, and you keep proving it again and again. Read post 247 again, and this time take note of, and try to understand, the following. " The only belief that an agnostic holds is that nothing can be known. " Followed by this " But that part is only an opinion and therefore could turn out to be wrong. See how that works? I didn't claim that I could prove it, in fact I specifically pointed out that belief is only an opinion, no matter how firmly held it is only a belief and may prove wrong. Just like the belief in the existence of god and the belief that god does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) Dear me, if you can't understand why " the god question is different" there is no hope for you. People throughout the world have worshiped, built cathedrals, mosques, temples, pyramids and synagogues to their various gods for thousands of years. Some of the most beautiful music ever composed has been in praise of the glory of god. Crusades and jihads have been undertaken, and millions have been been discriminated against, deported and had genocide committed against them in the name of a different god from theirs. It is one of the eternal questions of mankind, is there or isn't there a god, and what purpose does our existence serve. And then some clowns come along with santa and spaghetti monsters and attempt to claim a false equivalence between them and God, the creator of the universe and all mankind, according to theists. Get a grip, and if your going to continue at least attempt to introduce some measure of rationality into your arguments. " Also please prove that nothing can be known ." Your apparent attempt to prove to yourself that you are a clever boy is doomed to failure, because it's quite evidently that you are not, and you keep proving it again and again. Read post 247 again, and this time take note of, and try to understand, the following. " The only belief that an agnostic holds is that nothing can be known. " Followed by this " But that part is only an opinion and therefore could turn out to be wrong. See how that works? I didn't claim that I could prove it, in fact I specifically pointed out that belief is only an opinion, no matter how firmly held it is only a belief and may prove wrong. Just like the belief in the existence of god and the belief that god does not exist. Lol, how many logical fallacies! Special pleading - again Argumentum ad populum Appeal to emotion. Ad Hominem Edited May 28, 2017 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlinate Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Lol, how many logical fallacies! Special pleading - again Argumentum ad populum Appeal to emotion. Ad-homiem So completely incapable of rational debate. Resort to whining. Wheres the " appeal to emotion" by the way? Facts are facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Dear me, if you can't understand why " the god question is different" there is no hope for you. People throughout the world have worshiped, built cathedrals, mosques, temples, pyramids and synagogues to their various gods for thousands of years. Some of the most beautiful music ever composed has been in praise of the glory of god. Crusades and jihads have been undertaken, and millions have been been discriminated against, deported and had genocide committed against them in the name of a different god from theirs. It is one of the eternal questions of mankind, is there or isn't there a god, and what purpose does our existence serve. And then some clowns come along with santa and spaghetti monsters and attempt to claim a false equivalence between them and God, the creator of the universe and all mankind, according to theists. Get a grip, and if your going to continue at least attempt to introduce some measure of rationality into your arguments. " Also please prove that nothing can be known ." Your apparent attempt to prove to yourself that you are a clever boy is doomed to failure, because it's quite evidently that you are not, and you keep proving it again and again. Read post 247 again, and this time take note of, and try to understand, the following. " The only belief that an agnostic holds is that nothing can be known. " Followed by this " But that part is only an opinion and therefore could turn out to be wrong. See how that works? I didn't claim that I could prove it, in fact I specifically pointed out that belief is only an opinion, no matter how firmly held it is only a belief and may prove wrong. Just like the belief in the existence of god and the belief that god does not exist. Are you honestly arguing that the burden of proof argument doesn't apply equally to god because 'some of the most beautiful music ever composed has been in praise of the glory of god' or because people have believed in god (or gods) for thousands of years? That is relevant why exactly? How does that change the underlying argument about proving non existence one iota.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) So completely incapable of rational debate. Resort to whining. Wheres the " appeal to emotion" by the way? Facts are facts. Whining - hardly I'm still loving your 'Unproven' sits between belief and disbelief If a claim is unproven, you should disbelieve it. It's that simple Anyway Appeal to emotion - "Crusades and jihads have been undertaken, and millions have been been discriminated against, deported and had genocide committed against them in the name of a different god from theirs". Got a whiff of the Argumentum ad populum too. Edited May 28, 2017 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlinate Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Are you honestly arguing that the burden of proof argument doesn't apply equally to god because 'some of the most beautiful music ever composed has been in praise of the glory of god' or because people have believed in god (or gods) for thousands of years? That is relevant why exactly? How does that change the underlying argument about proving non existence one iota.. No I'm not, I'm arguing against the incongruous introduction of a strawman argument, where other posters are trying to argue that the existence of santa and the spaghetti monster should be treat as an equal possibility to the existence of god. The point being that no person of any intelligence is arguing that either of those exist but billions of people over the years believe in god. That would make the beliefs of theists somewhat more credible wouldn't it? Despite the fact that I personally do not believe nor disbelieve I wouldn't insult a theist by coming out with such drivel. Still when your argument is failing I suppose throwing in any old nonsense is the way to go for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now